Skip to comments.Katherine Heigl sues drug store for $6M for using her image
Posted on 04/10/2014 2:55:24 PM PDT by SMGFan
Shes earned a notorious reputation for being one of Hollywoods most difficult actresses to work with and now Katherine Heigl wont play nice with Duane Reade either.
The gorgeous, but grumpy, Greys Anatomy star slapped the pharmacy giant with a $6 million-plus lawsuit Wednesday alleging she was photographed without consent by paparazzi outside one of its Manhattan stores and that Duane Reade then brazenly misused the image for its own advertising
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
She oozes prickliness in every role I’ve seen her play.
Never heard of her.
She has a good point.
My, aren’t we the queen.
One dollar.Plus subway fare to the courtroom.
Oh I don't know, it seems to me that she makes a living off her performance and the licensing of her image. If someone used her image without permission or recompense for their own profit that is theft, no different than if a pick pocket stole your wallet.
So you’re okay if someone takes your picture without your permission, uses it in their advertising without your permission, and doesn’t pay you anything?
There is a thin line between what is considered a public figure or celebrity and a private individual. Courts have decided on both sides.
Paparazzi, they are tied with ambulance chasing lawyers and used car salesmen as the worst of the bottom feeders. Insurance salesmen used to be in that group but Obamacare has put many of them out of business.
This case will be settled out of court and in her favor. The drug store had absolutely no right to use her image in their advertising without paying her an agreed upon fee. If I were a celebrity I would be filing suit as well.
Years ago, the owner of Hamburg Heaven, snapped a photo of Jackie O eating at one of their counters. They blew it up, stuck it in the window and watched customers flock to the 53rd Street location. Jackie never blinked an eye. But she was quite a lady and a beloved figure in NYC.
Actually more than one.
If it’s on a public street, or on your private property, yes. . .
She has a good case. They used the image of her in commercials, named her, and didn’t pay her. This is open and shut, it’s only a question of how much they’re forced to pay.
And apparently in real-life too.
She has a kookiness or nuttiness that makes it hard to wholly condemn her.
Hollywood is so full of mutual promotion and back-slapping that it's cool that she's actually attacked movies and shows that she's been in.
She shoots herself in the foot with her comments, but in a way it's refreshing.
She hasn’t looked like that in over a decade.
Not guilty, not even close.
Hmm. Interesting. So I can photograph you in public, sell your photo to anyone I want to advertise anything they want--slap it up on billboards across the country selling Obamacare, say--and I don't have to have your permission or pay you anything.
It might surprise you that the law takes a somewhat different view.
Yes and no. (I used to do advertising for a living).
If I take a picture down a crowded street, and the focus is on the street, and using magnifying glass you are able to find your face - tough bananas.
If I zoom in on your face and make you the focus of the picture - better have a model release or the user will pay!
As long as the persons’ presence is ‘incidental’ to the picture, anything taken on public property is fair game.
any thread with “katherine heigl” and “images of” gets my clicks.
Thankfully, she just keeps getting better.
She needs the money...thought I read somewhere recently that she was not in a good financial position, but probably still better than most.
Photography isn’t a crime, and a public place is a public place.
Privately commissioned photos are something else entirely. . .
She was The Christmas Nazi in the TV series "Roswell".
She's in the right in this case.
I’m thinking her and Kate Gosselin were separated at birth.
I guess I think she is a queen and is very impressed with herself. Just another Hollywood diva bimbo.