A guy walks into a drug store...

A guy walks into a drug store. He's surprised to see his face on a jar of coffee. He contacts the coffe company and says "Hey, what's my face doing on that jar of coffee?"

They say "We've been using it for years. Um. Uh. Here. Take this $100K. Now, go away."

He says he was thinking of a much higher figure.

The jury agrees, and gives him $15 million dollars.

Taster's Choice guy

I'd love to walk into a store and see my picture on a jar of coffee.



1000 posts. Whoo!

that's freakin' beautiful!

I hate that coffee... I'd hope he got that much for pain and suffering.. all those real coffee drinkers out there cursing his face every time they have to suck down a cup of that swill!

Heh. Nestle screwed up and tried to lowball him, and got deservedly smacked by the jury. I bet they'll be a lot more willing to settle NOW.

Taster's Choice tastes like ASS. I didn't even know they still made it.

But regardless, $15 million is a bit steep in my estimation...

15 million is NOTHING. Think about it--all the shit they do and DON'T get caught at. It's pennies.

Sheesh... I see my picture on milk cartons all the time...I wonder what I could get from the dairies?

Brian

Brianna wrote:

15 million is NOTHING. Think about it--all the shit they do and DON'T get caught at. It's pennies.

Well, technically it's %5 of the gross, so I wouldn't call it pennies. $100k for using someones photo illegally for 20 years is ridiculous. Considering the RIAA can sue a person for tens of thousands for having one illegal MP3, the amount of money a person is entitled to for having millions of copies of his face made should be in the millions.

Nestle knows that they can drag it out but probably not change the amount, considering this country's stance on intellectual property. There will be a $6 million settlement in a few months.

BrianR wrote:

Sheesh... I see my picture on milk cartons all the time...I wonder what I could get from the dairies?

Brian

Hmmm... I wonder what I could get from the post office? Oh, whoops! [SIZE=1]never mind...[/SIZE] :eek:

Schrodinger's Cat wrote:

Hmmm... I wonder what I could get from the post office? Oh, whoops! [SIZE=1]never mind...[/SIZE] :eek:

Fess up. You're related to Bruce, aren't you. That's just the sort of thing he might have said.


BTW, that's a compliment, in case it wasn't clear. :p

I don't get it. If he was hired for a photo shoot, he had to sign a standard model release, and got paid for the work he did. Also, there should be a statute of limitations on the period of time in which he could sue for damages.

$15 million is ridiculous.

Even if it is suck-ass coffee.

wolf wrote:

Also, there should be a statute of limitations on the period of time in which he could sue for damages.

Agreed, but they were continuing to use his likeness without his permission when he confronted them. They were still in the process of "committing the crime."

wolf wrote:

$15 million is ridiculous.

I agree. He should have been paid the going rate for all those years, and then the damages should have been tripled to punish Nestle for their wrongdoing. I bet that would put it in the couple hundred thousand dollar range.

I don't know what the law says, but jury awards are reduced on appeal all the time. I bet this one will be too.

Just wondering where my face has been posted for the past 20 years. Call my lawyer.

We need a search engine that can search by faces. It suddenly has a commerical value.

tw wrote:

Just wondering where my face has been posted for the past 20 years.

On a box of Reynolds Wrap[font=Courier New]*[/font]?

[size=1]* That's tin-foil to you across-the-pond ers.[/size]

Beestie wrote:

[size=1]* That's tin-foil to you across-the-pond ers.[/size]

Many people call it tin-foil, but actually, Reynolds is aluminum (aluminium). I don't think anyone really makes tin-foil anymore.

Anyone? Anyone?

wolf wrote:

I don't get it. If he was hired for a photo shoot, he had to sign a standard model release, and got paid for the work he did. Also, there should be a statute of limitations on the period of time in which he could sue for damages.

Without knowing the terms under which he did the photo shoot, there's no answering your first objection.

Since the unauthorized use was ongoing at the time he discovered it, the statute wouldn't be an issue.

glatt wrote:

I agree. He should have been paid the going rate for all those years, and then the damages should have been tripled to punish Nestle for their wrongdoing. I bet that would put it in the couple hundred thousand dollar range.

I don't know what the law says, but jury awards are reduced on appeal all the time. I bet this one will be too.

I don't know what the law says either but common sense tells me that nobody at Nestle knew about it.
Possibly someone made an honest mistake at the ad agency but they are still responsible.
Nestle has deeper pockets so they get sued for 5% of their profits on the coffee rather than the ad agency for 5% of what they made on the ad campaign.
I know a guy that has a stained glass restoration business. He hired a scaffolding company to put up scaffold around a chuch he was working on. The company failed to add toe boards after so many feet from the ground so OSHA fined the stained glass guy 60odd thousand dollars.
It ain't right. :mad:

i can't figure out how this could go on for years before he "discovered" it. you would think somewhere along the line someone would say - "hey, aren't you the coffee guy", or "honey, i think i saw you at the grocery store today".

if the subjects of the IOTD can recognize we are discussing them and stumble into the cellar, you would think someone in the world that knows this guy, would have at least held a can of taster's choice at least once.

good point..one would think after 20 years someone would have said something? crap.. hmmm perhaps he was just waiting to cash in! (oooh the conspiracy theory thread has gone to my brain!)

dar512 wrote:

Fess up. You're related to Bruce, aren't you. That's just the sort of thing he might have said.


BTW, that's a compliment, in case it wasn't clear. :p

I'm sure Bruce didn't actually rob that bank, either. :cool:

Well...yes I did. :blush:
How many years can I get for snapping the chain on the ballpoint pen?

russotto wrote:

Without knowing the terms under which he did the photo shoot, there's no answering your first objection.

Since the unauthorized use was ongoing at the time he discovered it, the statute wouldn't be an issue.

When buying images for advertising their are 2 basic types "royalty free" and "rights managed"

Royalty free means you pay a one time fee and you can use it how ever you want. Rights managed are much more expensive (generally) and the fees are based on the type of usage (print, tradeshow etc) the size of the image (2 inches vs 10 feet) the number of time it's used, how long it's used (3 days or 3 months) etc...

Of course this is how things work now with stock photography being so prevalent. I'm not sure what the set-up was 20 years ago.

And did you see the picture of the guy now? *I* am still not convinced it's him. No wonder no one noticed the similarity.