An Ohio woman is demanding $20 million from Yahoo for allegedly using a photo of her without her permission for a welcome e-mail sent to new users.
According to a court complaint filed Tuesday with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Shannon Stovall, a resident of Ohio's Cuyahoga County, discovered upon signing up for Yahoo's Web-based e-mail service last October that a picture taken of her appeared in a note sent to new users.
The message, according to a printout attached to the court complaint, leads off with the headline "Hooray! Your first e-mail" and a photograph containing two women, one of which is purported to be Stovall. It goes on to give Yahoo Mail users tips on how to transfer address book contacts and customize the look of their messages.
The complaint charges that the image has been sent to millions of users around the world without Stovall's authorization, violating her right to privacy and right to publicity--that is, to control the commercial use of her identity.
Mitchell Yelsky, one of three attorneys handling Stovall's case, said his client "has previously modeled and worked for modeling agencies." According to documents provided to CNET News.com, Yelsky sent two letters to Yahoo in November asking that the company cease using her image in the message.
A Yahoo representative said Friday that the company is not allowed to comment on "specifics related to legal cases."
The complaint requests a jury trial, $10 million to compensate for profits that have been allegedly generated by use of her likeness, and $10 million to cover attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.
The allegations resemble
a complaint lodged by New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady against Yahoo in December. The star athlete accused the portal of using a photograph of him from the September 2006 issue of Sports Illustrated without his permission to promote its fantasy football league.
It's not about being greedy. Yahoo! should have taken appropriate action to acquire permission to use the image. Whether it is a model, photographer, graphic designer, the individual should get paid for his/her work. Yahoo! is making money with each new user that receives the email. The person in the image and photographer who took the photo should be getting paid for their WORK, too.
Can you imagine opening that email...it would be like winning the lottery! Wait...it is like winning the lottery. Haven't they ever heard of a release form? Dummies...they deserve to be sued....
I'm surprised this sort of lawsuits don't happen more often. Models, photographers, designers and other creative professionals post their work on portfolio sites and email samples to (potential) clients, often without any security precautions... making their digital assets SO easy to steal.
Of course Yahoo! is responsible for making sure they're using images legally, but the owner of the images should do all he/she can to keep their work from unintended use, as well. Relevant article regarding creatives and copyright: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.essentialsecurity.com/news.htm?id=423" target="_newWindow">http://www.essentialsecurity.com/news.htm?id=423</a>
It's not about being greedy. Yahoo! should have taken appropriate action to acquire permission to use the image. Whether it is a model, photographer, graphic designer, the individual should get paid for his/her work. Yahoo! is making money with each new user that receives the email. The person in the image and photographer who took the photo should be getting paid for their WORK, too.
Really? What would it have cost to license the photo in the first place? I'm sure Yahoo licenses thousands of photos every year; this was probably a simple oversight.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that they lady signed an agreement with the modeling agency allowing them to sell her image as part of her contract. Perhaps she didn't read all of the paperwork.
First, how many copies of this image were distributed? Second how did Yahoo get the image? Third Did she have her clothes on?
This may sound silly, but I would think that she would be awarded damages related to the number of times the picture was used, and the nature of the picture, as well as punitive damages.
If the picture was some way embarrassing, like a nude photo or a picture with the caption, "I use Yahoo" or "I use AOL", the damages would be greater. If negligence on her part contributed to her picture being used, the damages should be less.
Please understand I am not a lawyer. My opinion has all the validity of a Judge talking about computers or the internet.
This woman probably modeled for a photographer that submitted pics to a stock photo agency. Yahoo licensed reproduction rights from the stock agency and hence her photo appears on Yahoo's welcome page.
SHE DOES NOT OWN THE IMAGE - the copyright holder owns the image and in this case, it is most likely the photographer. She must have signed a model release for stock usage or the agency wouldn't have accepted the image.
Obviously she did not sign a release, or her lawyer would have advised her to not sue. Or the release was a restrictive release. What part of that is hard to undertand?
I agree with jimm4478. In the 2nd paragraph of the print, Yahoo stated that she worked for several model agencies. They all make sure the models' sign release forms before any pics are taken. Of course once they do, those photos are available for licensing out. In this day and age, everyone and their brother wants to sue; and the sad story is some judge will probably not throw this out of court but let it run, using the taxpayers money.
20million is nothing to yahoo just look at all the cases that don't get a news story its public record yahoo pays out stuff like this all the time 20million to them is like $200 to us its just a waste of news time & as a matter of fact I just wasted 5 min. of my life on nonsense not the real story is of teri lynn from mich who's body was just found everyone should watch more of that good day & everyone watch real news about stuff that effects peoples live in a harmful way
...if you were in the same boat, a multi-billion dollar company was using your image for free... you'd be ok with it? Psychic says: "Bet you'd be singing a different tune then!"
If you were in the same boat, a multi-billion dollar company is using your image for free... you'd be ok with it? Psychic says: "Bet you'd be singing a different tune then!"
If you were in the same boat, a multi-billion dollar company is using your image for free... you'd be ok with it? Psychic says: "Bet you'd be singing a different tune then!"
Does she really think she's going to get $20 million for a picture? Good luck. She probably didn't read the release form; I can't imagine Yahoo not having protected itself from such frivilous lawsuits.
They may own the copyright, but they don't have the right to assign it to a third party without your consent, i.e. you can't end up being "the frame guy" just because Olan Mills shot your portrait.
The purpose of the law suit is to get Yahoo to 'fess up' and point the finger at the agency that supplied the photograph, if Yahoo acted in good faith then they aren't liable, it the stock agency that are at fault.
Eventhough they may not be at fault Yahoo have distributed her image without her consent, the judge will look at how Yahoo licensed the image and then either dismiss the case against them or award damages in proportion to the harm that has been done.
Considering she was unaware that her image was being 'abused' until she recieved an email from Yahoo it will be hard for her to argue damages.
In a European court her maximum award would be related to the fees that she'd have recieved had the image been licensed correctly, and not based on the number of infringing copies in circulation, but she's in the USA, I'm surprised she's only asking $10m - she should have tired for $50 per copy - or $100m.
A fiber-optic link malfunction might have caused neutrinos to appear to travel faster than the speed of light--but another effect could make them look even faster.
The Pentagon, smitten with the Global Hawk drone, had been ready to ground the U-2 fleet for good. But the latest Air Force budget proposal tells a different tale.
A study suggests that those who text more are less accepting of new words and more rigid about existing ones. It is unclear whether these new words include LOL and LMAO
A report says that drained batteries in five Tesla Roadsters required battery pack replacements. Tesla counters that it takes multiple measures to avoid the problem.
Manage Packages With UPS My Choice
Whether it is a model, photographer, graphic designer, the individual should get paid for his/her work.
Yahoo! is making money with each new user that receives the email. The person in the image and photographer who took the photo should be getting paid for their WORK, too.
Of course Yahoo! is responsible for making sure they're using images legally, but the owner of the images should do all he/she can to keep their work from unintended use, as well. Relevant article regarding creatives and copyright: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.essentialsecurity.com/news.htm?id=423" target="_newWindow">http://www.essentialsecurity.com/news.htm?id=423</a>
Whether it is a model, photographer, graphic designer, the individual should get paid for his/her work.
Yahoo! is making money with each new user that receives the email. The person in the image and photographer who took the photo should be getting paid for their WORK, too.
This may sound silly, but I would think that she would be awarded damages related to the number of times the picture was used, and the nature of the picture, as well as punitive damages.
If the picture was some way embarrassing, like a nude photo or a picture with the caption, "I use Yahoo" or "I use AOL", the damages would be greater. If negligence on her part contributed to her picture being used, the damages should be less.
Please understand I am not a lawyer. My opinion has all the validity of a Judge talking about computers or the internet.
Nothing was stolen, she lost nothing. Yahoo made no money directly off this.
What a greedy who*e.
If this is true, yahoo should be fined $10000 as punitive and nothing more.
SHE DOES NOT OWN THE IMAGE - the copyright holder owns the image and in this case, it is most likely the photographer. She must have signed a model release for stock usage or the agency wouldn't have accepted the image.
She has no case whatsoever.
and make a poor lawyer rich doing it..
If they did they could use some of the kickback they get from pumping Second Life and salesforce.com to pay her off.
The purpose of the law suit is to get Yahoo to 'fess up' and point the finger at the agency that supplied the photograph, if Yahoo acted in good faith then they aren't liable, it the stock agency that are at fault.
Eventhough they may not be at fault Yahoo have distributed her image without her consent, the judge will look at how Yahoo licensed the image and then either dismiss the case against them or award damages in proportion to the harm that has been done.
Considering she was unaware that her image was being 'abused' until she recieved an email from Yahoo it will be hard for her to argue damages.
In a European court her maximum award would be related to the fees that she'd have recieved had the image been licensed correctly, and not based on the number of infringing copies in circulation, but she's in the USA, I'm surprised she's only asking $10m - she should have tired for $50 per copy - or $100m.