Cute mug shot- Does she have a case: I ran across this article and thought it might create an interesting discussion. Though it doesn't state who took the photo in this article in...

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

I ran across this article and thought it might create an interesting discussion.
Though it doesn't state who took the photo in this article in others it says it was a mug shot, so I assume it was taken by the police and is public record.
Now the question. Are they using this photo illegally. Who owns the copy right? She didn't take the picture, so does she have a case.
http://www.examiner.com/article/attractive-convict-lawsuit-florida-woman-sues-for-hot-mugshot-photo-overuse?cid=rss

Rongnongno Loc: FL

link wrote:

M. S. is the very real woman behind the eye-grabbing ad of a beautiful females fake mugshot.

Since this is something she created (or participated in creating the picture - as a model -) she may have a standing shaky leg. Had it been a real mug shot she would be leg-less.

I do not see the controversy over what she can or cannot do. Normal copyright apply.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Rongnongno wrote:

Since this is something she created (or participated in creating the picture - as a model -) she may have a standing shaky leg. Had it been a real mug shot she would be leg-less.

I do not see the controversy over what she can or cannot do. Normal copyright apply.

From some of the other articles they say that it was an actual mug shot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/meagan-simmons-attractive_n_3045604.html

So if the police take a picture of you can another company use it in their advertising?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Country's Mama wrote:

From some of the other articles they say that it was an actual mug shot.

False wrong information is a fact of life on internet. The idea was to make a fake mug shot. That fools took it as such shows how little research is done as well as how successful they were creating it.

Country's Mama wrote:

So if the police take a picture of you can another company use it in their advertising?

That is not the purpose of the lawsuit and an entirely different subject.

The lawsuit is about over use by non authorized parties. As a model or creator she may have a case. May being the keyword. Remember that model release are specific.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Rongnongno wrote:

That is not the purpose of the lawsuit and an entirely different subject.

The lawsuit is about over use by non authorized parties. As a model or creator she may have a case. May being the keyword. Remember that model release are specific.

But it does seem to be the purpose of the question asked by the OP. The OP clarified that in her follow-up remark.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

dsmeltz wrote:

But it does seem to be the purpose of the question asked by the OP. The OP clarified that in her follow-up remark.

Exactly. My question is if a photo is available to the public as an open record which mugshots seem to be, can anyone use them? Obviously she did not sign a model release. :-D

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Country's Mama wrote:

Exactly. My question is if a photo is available to the public as an open record which mugshots seem to be, can anyone use them? Obviously she did not sign a model release. :-D

SHE WAS NOT ARRESTED so stop using her as a sample for the possible use of a police mugshot. She has a shaky case.

As to the use of a police mug shot?

http://classactionagainstmugshotwebsites.com/wp/
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/can-i-sue-to-get-my-mugshot-removed-from-mugshotscom-or-a-similar-site

End of debate.

Elliern Loc: Myrtle Beach, SC

Country's Mama wrote:

From some of the other articles they say that it was an actual mug shot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/meagan-simmons-attractive_n_3045604.html

So if the police take a picture of you can another company use it in their advertising?

According to the article below, she is quoted as saying she was arrested for dui and was drunk and crying when the photo was taken. She also descibes how she happened to be driving. I also thought it was fake, but apparently not. However maybe photoshopped some before being used as advertising?
Since it apparently was used as an advertisement for an online company without her consent, wouldn't she have a case?

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/real-life-mllf-suing-sexy-mugshot-goes-viral-video/

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Rongnongno wrote:

SHE WAS NOT ARRESTED so stop using her as a sample for the possible use of a police mugshot.

Read the second link and I quote, "When Meagan Simmons was arrested for reckless driving in July 2010, she suffered crushing humiliation and was slapped with a year of probation"

Elliern Loc: Myrtle Beach, SC

Rongnongno wrote:

SHE WAS NOT ARRESTED so stop using her as a sample for the possible use of a police mugshot. She has a shaky case.

As to the use of a police mug shot?

http://classactionagainstmugshotwebsites.com/wp/
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/can-i-sue-to-get-my-mugshot-removed-from-mugshotscom-or-a-similar-site

End of debate.

Actually, I think she was, unless the link with her personal interview and discussion of the case was completely made up.

MDI Mainer

This does not appear to be a copyright issue at all, at least from the woman's perspective.

Most (if not all) states have a statute which prohibits the commercial appropriation of the likeness of a person without that person's permission, and gives the "victim" of such appropriation a legal remedy. These statutes are based on a person's legitimate privacy expectations.

I'm not aware of any successful case where the likeness at issue is from an official "mug shot," since the subject of the mug shot has no recognized privacy expectations in that image.\\But it seems like this image was from an ersatz mug shot, initially taken as some type of advertising ploy.

The issue will be whether the subject's expectaion of privacy (and statutory protection) was waived by her consent to the use of her likeness in the initial ad. This is a tort case, not a contract case, and so the language in her model release, if any, while relevant is not controling of the outcome.

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Country's Mama wrote:

Exactly. My question is if a photo is available to the public as an open record which mugshots seem to be, can anyone use them? Obviously she did not sign a model release. :-D

Image made with public money.
Image belongs to the public.
Just like the WPA photos during the depression.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

AN interesting but not totaly related misappropriation of image case.
http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/index.ssf/2014/03/nj_man_used_stolen_connecticut_girls_modeling_photos_to_promote_his_porn_business_police_say.html#incart_river_default

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Wall-E wrote:

Image made with public money.
Image belongs to the public.
Just like the WPA photos during the depression.

I do not think you are right when the use of the mug shot is commercial such as this is. The mug shot market right now is people publishing mug shots as information and getting the individuals to pay to have them removed from a site, however, the sites are not selling or marketing the mug shots themselves. They make their mony for the removal.

Using a private citizne's mug shot as advertising or listing it for sale is, I think, not legal without permission with likely compensation.

Obviously the same does not apply to celebs and others in the normal public spot light.

billjohdoittoday Loc: Arkansas

MDI Mainer wrote:

But it seems like this image was from an ersatz mug shot, initially taken as some type of advertising ploy.

I'm impressed, MDI Mainer. You hardly ever hear the word ersatz any more. And you look like such a young fellow, too. Surprised you know the word at all.

No joke ... Congratulations on using a really good word.

Bill