Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

Re: Was this photographers posting slander?

The photographer's posting was not slander, it was an unauthorized use of your likeness.

Both California statutory law and common law privacy rights provide for strong remedies against the unauthorized use of photos.

California Civil Code section 3344 provides:

� 3344. Unauthorized commercial use of name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness

(a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($ 750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the injured party or parties are required to present proof only of the gross revenue attributable to such use, and the person who violated this section is required to prove his or her deductible expenses. Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties. The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney's fees and costs.

(b) As used in this section, "photograph" means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission, of any person, such that the person is readily identifiable.

(1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.

* * *

(g) The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative and shall be in addition to any others provided for by law.

Thus, there might be serious consequences for the photographer if you decide to follow this up.

Re: Was this photographers posting slander?

Get an injuctionto stop its use. Call me directly at 16192223504.

Re: Was this photographers posting slander?

Your best approach may be to seek an injunction that would require him to return all photographs, negatives, and digital media to you, and that would prevent him from using your photographs for any purpose. This would likely be the fastest way for you to stop this photographer from using your photographs for this unauthorized purpose.

Once an injunction is in place, you could then decide whether you wish to proceed with a civil lawsuit for damages.

Re: Was this photographers posting slander?

The posting was not ''slander'' for purposes of suing the photographer for damages. It would be libel if he posted information about you, personally, that was false and damaging. You have a strong case for breach of contract, conversion, negligence, as well as statutory remedies against his use of your likeness. Seek out a hungry attorney and shut this photog. down. Good Luck.

Re: Was this photographers posting slander?

Your best remedies are probably to sue him and seek a Restrainging Order making him and the website remove your photos. You can seek damages from him. IF he has any substantial assets or income, you might even collect something from him. The goal should be to get enough to pay your attorney fees and costs. Anything over that is great. Contact me to discuss if interested in properly pursuing this.

Re: Was this photographers posting slander?

Absolutely! Not only do you have a breach of contract case, you ALSO have tortious remedies as well for his blatant intentional fraud and invasion of privacy. What this means is you will not only be compensated for the breach of contract action, you will also be able to recover a substantial amount of money in PUNITIVE (punishment) damages that could add up to many thousands of dollars depending on the extent of his abuse of your photos/images. You should definitely retain a savy attorney IMMEDIATELY to initiate a suit and recover substantial damages for you. If you would like our swift assistance in this matter, contact us today.

Re: Was this photographers posting slander?

Not slander. But, depending on any WRITTEN agreement you had, there may be multiple actions against him for using your likeness (the statue was posted in another reply). Breach of contract damages would likely be limited. It is a little premature to assume punitive damages are available, but they should certainly be considered.

Your primary objective should be an injunction preventing further abuse and minimizing the exposure of your photographs.

Please call us here in San Diego if you would like to discuss your matter further.

Re: Was this photographers posting slander?

I have read the six answers already posted, and I generally agree with them. I believe Mr. Torrey is getting ahead of himself, since you haven't provided enough information to reach the conclusions he has reached. He may be right, of course, but it's too soon to be sure.

Here is my take on your situation:

1. You do not have a claim for slander. Slander is a false statement of fact, in spoken form, which tends to damage the reputation of its subject and has actually done so. The "spoken form" requirement dooms your chances of proving slander.

2. Slander is what we call defamation in spoken form. When it is done in printed or on-line form it is called libel. You probably don't have a libel claim either since the pictures don't seem to contain any false factual statements.

3. You may have a very good fraud claim. The photographer committed fraud if he knew how he was going to use the pictures at the time he told you he wasn't going to use them. If he was being sincere with you but changed his mind later (not very likely, but possible), he did not commit fraud.

4. You have a good claim for unauthorized use of your likeness.

5. You also have a good case for false-light publicity, which is the legal term for distributing truthful but distorted information about someone in a way the distributor knows or should know will damage the subject's reputation.

6. You probably have an invasion of privacy claim, though the fact that he had your permission to take the pictures may work againt you. Secretly photographing you in the nude would invade your privacy, but distributing authorized photos might not.

7. You have a very good breach of contract claim.

8. You also have an extremely good case for a restraining order, which should probably be your first priority.

9. You need to act quickly, not only to make him stop doing this but also so that you can subpoena the records of his postings before they expire or are deleted. This is critical evidence for you and it may only be around for a short time.