[Bob Tanner]

Just cut the following off Jayski:
Boy’s Privacy Invaded When Pictured In NASCAR Brochure, Suit Claims: A Joliet [IL] man says his minor son had his privacy invaded when the Chicagoland Speedway used pictures of him to advertise its events in a brochure. In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Raceway Associates and Chicagoland Speedway, David Fremouw claims his son's photo was used approximatly 17 times in an advertising brochure the defendants mailed out. On July 8, 2005, David Fremouw took his son, Mathew, to the Chicagoland Speedway, where the minor was photographed via video or camera, the suit said. Mathew Fremouw appeared on the cover of the defendants' brochure, which was used as ‘Exhibit A’ in the suit. A photocopy of the cover depicts a race car in the foreground and blurred images in the background. Because of his use in the brochure, Mathew Fremouw feels humiliated and embarrassed, the suit claims. David Fremouw is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages.(wbbm780.com)(12-30-2006)

Let me see if I have this right:

1. Guy takes kid to see race
2. Kid is photographed by unknown photographer. (Since there is no discussion about a portrait photo being taken I'm going to assume here -dangerous thing to do - that the kid picture was part of a general shot where multiple people where photographed)
3. Photographer thinks the picture has potential and sells it to the speedway and they then use the thing in a brochure.
4. The kid feel "embarrassed and humiliated" when he {I bet it was his dad} see the brochure.
5. Naturally a lawsuit follows

I bet items 1,2, 3 and 5 are close to being right on. However I bet number 4 could be rewritten as follows:
4. Dad see brochure and sees dollar signs. He approaches Joliet Speedway (IT AIN'T WITHIN SPITTING DISTANCE OF CHICAGO! But, that's another story)and demands compensation for his son's likeness. Joliet Speedway laughs and an indignant daddy immediately finds some ambulance-chasing, whale turd of a trial lawyer who informs dad that his precious little offspring has suffered irreparable humiliation, embarrassment, and possible whiplash back and neck injuries, not to mention unspeakable mental anguish. "Let's go for a coll million but we'll settle out of court for $100K and I (the lawyer) will take the case on a 40% contingency basis.

The moral of this story, boys and girls is DO NOT take your camera to a race (or anyplace for that matter). Someone who just happens to be in the shot just may wind up sitting across from you in a courtroom if you are so proud of the picture that you share it with another human being.

I see yet another "McDonald's Hot Coffee" or a Burger King "Gosh! 20 hamburgers a week will may me fat!?" case here.

Is it just me or has the world tilted to a really weird angle?

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Don't they normally have to get releases from those pictured in the photos, video etc?...

I am sure they guy is seeing dollar signs...but I always thought a release had to be signed to use your image in an ad...

[Quality88]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Don't they normally have to get releases from those pictured in the photos, video etc?...

I am sure they guy is seeing dollar signs...but I always thought a release had to be signed to use your image in an ad...

You have to get a release in some situations. If the kid is part of the surroundings and not just an image of him then I would think no. If the kid was alone in the photograph and not part of the background or surroundings then I would say they would probably need the permission of the minors parents. Just on a side note if the kid(not daddy) was embarrassed to be photographed why was he at a Na$car race where there are a crap load of cameras around. I think Daddy is fishin for some free money.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Quality88

You have to get a release in some situations. If the kid is part of the surroundings and not just an image of him then I would think no. If the kid was alone in the photograph and not part of the background or surroundings then I would say they would probably need the permission of the minors parents. Just on a side note if the kid(not daddy) was embarrassed to be photographed why was he at a Na$car race where there are a crap load of cameras around. I think Daddy is fishin for some free money.

Fishing or not if they needed a release and didn't get one...more power to him...

[Souporscotty]

The only reason people become lawyers is; 'They don't have enough personality to sell cars'.

[LSC9901]

Embarrassed about what ??? I'd be tickled to be in a brochure of a NASCAR track. I'd even (unknowingly) do it for free.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Don't they normally have to get releases from those pictured in the photos, video etc?...

I am sure they guy is seeing dollar signs...but I always thought a release had to be signed to use your image in an ad...

Yep, Goth's right. Unless I'm mistaken, and I don't think I am, if the photographer was planning to sell this photo and it had 100 people in it, he would by law need released from every single person appearing in the photo. It's just like on TV, when you sometimes see a person's face blurred out... that person did not provide concent. The lawsuit is silly, no doubt about it, but the dad is 100% right and will easily win this case in court.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Yep, Goth's right. Unless I'm mistaken, and I don't think I am, if the photographer was planning to sell this photo and it had 100 people in it, he would by law need released from every single person appearing in the photo. It's just like on TV, when you sometimes see a person's face blurred out... that person did not provide concent. The lawsuit is silly, no doubt about it, but the dad is 100% right and will easily win this case in court.

Just being the devils advocate here ... what if the photographer wasn't sure one way or the other if he would sell a picture. Couldn't they put an ad in a paper asking for anyone who thought they might be in the photo to please contact him ?? I'm probably way off base but realistically even a great photographer doesn't know what photo's will be sold.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Regretfully, there are no guarantees that an identifiable person or owner of property in a photograph would threaten to or bring a legal action for publishing a particular photograph. Therefore, the only way a publisher can be almost risk free from such lawsuit is by obtaining a written release from any person(s) or owner(s) of property that appear in a photograph.

Publication of Photographs: Is A Release Required?

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Regretfully, there are no guarantees that an identifiable person or owner of property in a photograph would threaten to or bring a legal action for publishing a particular photograph. Therefore, the only way a publisher can be almost risk free from such lawsuit is by obtaining a written release from any person(s) or owner(s) of property that appear in a photograph.

Publication of Photographs: Is A Release Required?

And privacy cases involving minors almost always go in favor of the minor and his/her parents, because courts and society are so determined to protect their identities.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

And privacy cases involving minors almost always go in favor of the minor and his/her parents, because courts and society are so determined to protect their identities.

Yep...no matter the motive...the guy has a case...

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Yep...no matter the motive...the guy has a case...

Now that we have determined that the photographer is guilty and the boy is embarrassed, the next question is how much money will it take to no longer be embarrassed. Of course I'm sure that Dad will have to get something for all his pain and suffering.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

Now that we have determined that the photographer is guilty and the boy is embarrassed, the next question is how much money will it take to no longer be embarrassed. Of course I'm sure that Dad will have to get something for all his pain and suffering.

Now we get to the meat of the problem. This is where the law goes haywire...

As a judge once explained it to me ( I had the dubious distinction of negotationing many small claims cases for one of my companys...for as the owner of the company explain to me, "you cost me less than a lawyer, go settle this thing."), the law is their to make you whole, not make you rich.

I personally feel only a small compensation is but, who knows what a jury of my peers who did not get out of jury duty will decide...it could be millions...

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Now we get to the meat of the problem. This is where the law goes haywire...

As a judge once explained it to me ( I had the dubious distinction of negotationing many small claims cases for one of my companys...for as the owner of the company explain to me, "you cost me less than a lawyer, go settle this thing."), the law is their to make you whole, not make you rich.

I personally feel only a small compensation is but, who knows what a jury of my peers who did not get out of jury duty will decide...it could be millions...

Since you know, and I readily admit, I am a black and white, structured kinda guy. If in fact it is a violation of the law then there should be pre-determined compensations for the "crimes". If there are 100 people in the picture then there should be a set amount that each person should receive. If those people do not come forward then the funds should be passed on to some charitable organization. Naturally I understand that not one lawyer in the world would agree with this idea as it would put them out of work. NOT A BAD THING !!! With all that education we should not let it go to waste. We can always use more Bovine Scatalogists.

[thunderfoot]

This is a bunch of horse puckey. On the back of the ticket you buy, look at the little writing. Self explanatory. Case closed.