fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

 

Submit A Story

Woman sues Chipotle for using her photo without a release, asking $2.2 billion

by 12 Comments

Dear photographers, please always have people sign model releases if you plan to sell photos of them. Let this recent lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill can be a reminder for you.

Leah Caldwell was enjoying her meal at a Chipotle restaurant in 2006 when a photographer Steve Adams took a photo of her. She didn’t know he was shooting. As she was leaving the restaurant, Steve asked her to sign a release, which she refused. What the photographer and Chipotle did later was unethical and illegal. And it eventually ended up pretty harmful for them.

 

Even though Leah had refused to sign the release, Steve sold the photo to Chipotle. They photoshopped in an alcoholic drink, and started using the photo for advertising purposes.

Caldwell didn’t sue the reastaurant right away, and you may wonder why. The reason is that she hadn’t realized they were using the photo until 2014. From then on, she saw her photo on several occasions in Chipotle’s advertising material, and now she’s finally decided fo file a lawsuit. It names both Chipotle founder Steve Ellis and the photographer Steve Adams as defendants. And Caldwell believes she’s entitled to whopping 2.2 billion dollars! $2,237,633,000 to be precise. Frankly, I wonder why she didn’t sue them in 2014 when she realized they were using the photo. But I think her logic behind this whole event explains it all.

Because ten years have passed since the photo was taken, Caldwell believes this is the amount of money Chipotle made from the use of the photo between 2006 and 2015. And it seems this wasn’t enough for her. Once Chipotle made their 2016 profits public, she wanted that amount to be added to the total as well. It seems she thinks Chipotle owes her photo all the profits they made over ten years’ time.

Now, I wouldn’t like someone to snap my photo while I’m eating. I especially wouldn’t like them to use it for advertising. Although, honestly, I don’t think a photo of me eating would increase anyone’s appetite. So I do understand Caldwell for being angry and filing a lawsuit. In her place, I may even do the same. On the other hand, I think the amount she’s asking is insane. And it’s a bit fishy she filed a lawsuit after so much time.

What would you do in Caldwell’s place? Do you think she’s right? Tell us in the comments.

[via FStoppers]

Related posts:

Canon Announces a Remote Control for its Line of Professional Video Cameras This free location scouting checklist helps you find the perfect shooting spots Popular Photography and American Photo magazines no longer exist Critics and photographers bash Brooklyn Beckham for publishing a photo book

  • It’s not “her” photo, though. And with no facial likeness, I don’t see how she can win that suit.

  • Gregg Bond

    I suspect this will get thrown out, the best written piece on the subject is the following – http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/07/q-statute-of-limitations-for-use-of.html

    However there are nuances in every case, it would be interesting to see what comes out of this.

  • Suppose those legs are copy-rightable as anything else, same with table too, may need property release if used elsewhere

  • Sam Dickinson

    Not sure about in the US, but over here in Australia, she wouldn’t have a case, she’s not identifiable, so not seen personally to be endorsing a product. Still a shitty thing for the photographer to do though.

    • Sam Dickinson

      That’s given that the article photo is the one in question…

      • Arcmor

        I don’t think the photo above is the photo in question. I don’t think DIY wants to get sued. Besides since when did Chipotle start serving toast?

        • Being from Australia, I have no idea of the Chipotle chain….

          • Arcmor

            Don’t worry, in due time you will get to see one in your neighbo(u)rhood. (It serves Mexican fast food.)

          • pappy51

            It’s a burrito joint that caters to food religion fanatics. They demonize beef ranchers, while selling beef products. Demonize GMO’s while selling GMO products. Promote fresh healthy food, while getting large numbers of people sick. Food purists love them. It’s kinda silly.

  • Holy Smoke

    How about, you enjoy your chipotle and you use that as portfolio if ever interested to try modelling, and work hard like everyone else? Stupid entitled, opportunist f*ck. I would understand if she wants compensation in terms of reasonable model fee. But to demand for $2 billion? What are you, a special kind of extraterrestrial?

  • Certainly unethical, and perhaps from all parties. Is there a place we can see the photo in question? I have a photo of empty soda bottles from a popular beverage company on one of my Instagram accounts and the company asked permission to use the photo. I asked for clarification and documentation on intended usage and we got the ball rolling from there. Asking first, and doing the necessary paperwork, is better than bypassing those necessities.

  • Mark Niebauer

    I hope she wins!

Recent Posts