A guy walks into a drug store...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.

[lookout123]

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.

[cowhead]

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!)

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by dar512

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[Jacquelita]

Originally Posted by russotto

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.

[OnyxCougar]

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.