Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Katherine Heigl sues drug store for $6M for using her image
Fox News ^ | April 10, 2014

Posted on 04/10/2014 2:55:24 PM PDT by SMGFan

She’s earned a notorious reputation for being one of Hollywood’s most difficult actresses to work with – and now Katherine Heigl won’t play nice with Duane Reade either.

The gorgeous, but grumpy, “Grey’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: heigl; katherineheigl
Okay, what project does she have being released soon?
1 posted on 04/10/2014 2:55:24 PM PDT by SMGFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

She oozes prickliness in every role I’ve seen her play.


2 posted on 04/10/2014 2:58:47 PM PDT by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Never heard of her.

.


3 posted on 04/10/2014 2:58:48 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

She has a good point.


4 posted on 04/10/2014 2:58:50 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

5 posted on 04/10/2014 3:01:36 PM PDT by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

My, aren’t we the queen.


6 posted on 04/10/2014 3:01:44 PM PDT by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan
I say "guilty as charged".

Award?

One dollar.Plus subway fare to the courtroom.

Total...$3.50

7 posted on 04/10/2014 3:04:16 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Stalin Blamed The Kulaks,Obama Blames The Tea Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
"She had a face that would let her get away..."
8 posted on 04/10/2014 3:05:03 PM PDT by Steely Tom (How do you feel about robbing Peter's robot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy
My, aren’t we the queen.

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.

9 posted on 04/10/2014 3:07:13 PM PDT by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy

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?


10 posted on 04/10/2014 3:07:39 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

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.


11 posted on 04/10/2014 3:21:42 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

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.


12 posted on 04/10/2014 3:22:57 PM PDT by CdMGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

13 posted on 04/10/2014 3:24:04 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

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.


14 posted on 04/10/2014 3:25:24 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
She has a good point.

Actually more than one.

15 posted on 04/10/2014 3:26:55 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

If it’s on a public street, or on your private property, yes. . .


16 posted on 04/10/2014 3:27:01 PM PDT by Salgak (http://catalogoftehburningstoopid.blogspot.com 100% all-natural snark !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

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.


17 posted on 04/10/2014 3:33:25 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xone

: )


18 posted on 04/10/2014 3:35:15 PM PDT by Osage Orange (I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy
She oozes prickliness in every role I’ve seen her play.

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.

19 posted on 04/10/2014 3:39:35 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xone

20 posted on 04/10/2014 3:40:27 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

She hasn’t looked like that in over a decade.


21 posted on 04/10/2014 3:40:33 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

Not guilty, not even close.


22 posted on 04/10/2014 3:44:41 PM PDT by TruthWillWin (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Excellent!


23 posted on 04/10/2014 3:48:17 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salgak
If it’s on a public street, or on your private property, yes. . .

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.

24 posted on 04/10/2014 3:54:52 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EEGator
Not guilty!


25 posted on 04/10/2014 3:59:57 PM PDT by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
“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?”

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.

26 posted on 04/10/2014 3:59:57 PM PDT by I cannot think of a name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

any thread with “katherine heigl” and “images of” gets my clicks.


27 posted on 04/10/2014 4:02:54 PM PDT by Principled (Obama: Unblemished by success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
She hasn’t looked like that in over a decade.

Thankfully, she just keeps getting better.

28 posted on 04/10/2014 4:04:26 PM PDT by Principled (Obama: Unblemished by success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

She needs the money...thought I read somewhere recently that she was not in a good financial position, but probably still better than most.


29 posted on 04/10/2014 4:07:19 PM PDT by rangerwife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

30 posted on 04/10/2014 4:19:19 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Photography isn’t a crime, and a public place is a public place.

Privately commissioned photos are something else entirely. . .


31 posted on 04/10/2014 7:08:12 PM PDT by Salgak (http://catalogoftehburningstoopid.blogspot.com 100% all-natural snark !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan
She’s earned a notorious reputation for being one of Hollywood’s most difficult actresses to work with

She was The Christmas Nazi in the TV series "Roswell".

She's in the right in this case.

32 posted on 04/10/2014 7:32:47 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

I’m thinking her and Kate Gosselin were separated at birth.


33 posted on 04/10/2014 8:31:47 PM PDT by Old Yeller (In Latin, the word sinister means left. Which is appropriate for left-wingers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

I guess I think she is a queen and is very impressed with herself. Just another Hollywood diva bimbo.


34 posted on 04/11/2014 3:57:58 PM PDT by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson