STUPID...................................lol;)

that is so crazy.....%)

Yep, the 20 million dollars is pretty crazy, but so are many of the other things related to USA and lawsuits :)

I am sure she she forgot about signing a release when those stock images were taken.

So it's ALWAYS the persons fault that is suing? Idiots...
How would YOU like it to wake up one day seeing your image being sent to EVERY new Yahoo user? Yeah...you'd be first in line to collect damages.
20M is a starting point. If you ask for $20 which I'm sure might pay your beer bill for a day...they'd pay and then you'd cry cause you didn't ask for more...
Try standing in someone elses place for a moment. Look outside and get off of mommies computer....there is a whole REAL world out there...morons...

@Anonymouse

That fact of the matter is 20M is an extremely vast amount of money. In fact, we give that amount away in the UK National Lottery almost every week.

Fair enough, I'm sure no-one wants to see their picture being sent to the masses. Though, ask yourself this...Yahoo! is massive and probably has a well paid legal team. Do you really think they would have used it without permission in the first place?? If so, maybe it slipped through the net. However, if you think $20M/£10M is worth it to say their sorry then YOU are the idiot and so is the claimant. Furthermore, so is the judge if he/she awards such a huge amount.

Correct, it is a big world out there. The problem is, most people will do anything for money and the fact that they will sue for the pettiest things is absolute rubbish. That is not the way to act in a civil society and it is one of the many things wrong in the world. It makes a mockery of the legal system...simply put, CHILDISH!!

try this: yahoo gets sued, who in turn sue the ad-agency, who sue the stock supplier, who sues ms/mrs Stovall for looking so pretty in yahoo mailings, a new ecosystem is born.

This woman is nothing more than a greedy money-grabber who saw an opportunity for an easy pay-day and took it. She should be FLATTERED that Yahoo thought her worthy enough to be on the site. Instead she calls in the lawyers. Typically American.

This is retarded, grow up people!

Does anyone know where the photo came from? Flickr? Stock Photo? Its not liked they hacked her computer and downloaded her pictures. She may have no leg to stand on with this one.

I think she has her right to sue . Any web site that will steal someones work like this NEED'S to be sued. Also any person who steals work of others NEED'S to be sued.

I think Yahoo and any other site and person need's ro read this !!!!!

http://www.pitt.edu/AFShome/s/k/skvarka/public/html/education/copyright/

I don't know about you guys, but if they used my photo I would be flattered. Maybe that's not the case for her, but to me she just seems to be greedy.

I think she has her right to sue . Any web site that will steal someones work like this NEEDS to be sued. Also any person who steals work of others NEEDS to be sued.

I think Yahoo and any other site and person need's ro read this !!!!!

http://www.pitt.edu/AFShome/s/k/skvarka/public/html/education/copyright/

so did i steal or improve upon? true, i still missed two typos, but i also fixed two, for a 50% improvement.

I'm sure you wouldn't want your photo promoting some type of Gay Porn either... Yahoo should at least remove her photo and give her nothing in return since it didn't infringe upon her good reputation. (I stress "good").

Anonymous, you are the idiot. Get a real job or start your own business and see how you feel when the leaches come knocking when you start getting successful. Does she really think she is that good looking that Yahoo! made profits just because they used her likeness. Be real, how do you think they got the photo in the first place?

Lots of these types of lawyers work for free in the US if they don't win. If they win they take a portion of the winnings. There's nothing to lose for people filing these kinds of lawsuits. That is why there are so many of these lawsuits.

I agree with the guy further up, its petty and childish to expect so much for it. Makes a joke of the legal system like many other cases to be honest.
However I hate yahoo with a passion so go get em girl!

p.s. someone should tell her she spelled Billion wrong ;)

Well the only people certain to get richer are the lawers.

They can use my picture for 10 dollars :-)

She should be "flattered"? Bullshit! She shoud be asked for, in first place, and paid afterwards.

Some dimwit says she is egocentric for thinking Yahoo! made a profit out of her "beauty". OK, if they didn't expect to, why on hell did they use her face? If it was so unimportant, why didn't they just hire a model? Maybe they are the cheapskates, the "money-grabbers", who didn't want to pay?

The MPAA or RIAA want people to pay for movies and music, and I don't see Yahoo! interceding and saying that Spielberg should be flattered because people download his movies. Yet this woman should stand having her image being used for profit by Yahoo!, with no consent, and without being paid for it?

(Of course, all the above is worthless if she actually gave her consent and was paid for it)

Considering that she received a welcome email with her photo on it after signing up for a Yahoo ID, I doubt that Yahoo stole it from her photo album or computer. Most likely, I would think, Yahoo got it from some photo bank or agency. As a webmaster myself, I would think that the photos that I purchased from a photo bank or agency can be used by me, without additional consent from the people on the photos, unless some agreement when purchasing the photos requires it. Yahoo should clarifiy where they got the photo so Stovall can sue them instead.

Well i think shes doing the right thing. I hope she wins.

The fact that the person sues for x amount of dollars is a starting point & either settled out for a lessor amount or determined after a trial by a judge. Then the judge awards punitive damages and legal fees.

It's really reasonable seeing as how someone's personal picture appears to who knows how many potential freaks without their explicit consent. Yahoo's copyright attorney's should be better equipt to ascertain the royalties on any and all images for it's publishing department, so if Yahoo get sued, you can bet that someone else will be sued for gross negligence and punitive damages against the Yahoo brand.

PREVED!!!
Deffka Zhet!!!

Dang. I wish they had used my pic. I'd let 'em off easy for a cool 3.5 mil. After she wins I'd like to introduce her to my brothers! lol

"As a webmaster myself, I would think that the photos that I purchased from a photo bank or agency can be used by me, without additional consent from the people on the photos, unless some agreement when purchasing the photos requires it. Yahoo should clarifiy where they got the photo so Stovall can sue them instead."


Oh Webmasters of the world, please do not use the above as good advice.


1) Never never (never!) assume that you have the rights. You probably do not. That you usually get away with it is a matter of dumb luck, not because it was right.


2) If somebody's rights of publicity are breached by your website, you (and your client who bought the site) are fully responsible to the damaged party for the damages that arise out of your use of the damaged party's pictures. Whether you can get some compensation from a stock photo agency (or whether your client has a right to sue you for the damages caused to your client!) is irrelevant to whether or not the damaged party can get their money out of the party that put the website up. Don't confuse have a right of contribution (or indemnity) against a 3rd party as being the same thing as a defense against the plaintiff's claims -- If nobody else is there to take the fall, you do.


As for whether the stock agency (if that's what actually happened here -- if this is merely a case of a photo lifted from another source with permission then woe to the user who pulls that one off, since both the model and the photographer are going to be after you!) is responsible -- I can just say that in years of dealing with art directors in companies big and small, competent and otherwise, I've see the gamut of ones who are more diligent than I am about the legal details and those who completely blow it. Lots of stock agencies issue photos with very clear statements in their terms of use that they do not come with modeling rights (in other words, all the stock agency is licensing is the copyright in the photo and not anything to do with the human beings depicted in the photo).


I have no idea what the circumstances are in this case, I have no idea if the photo clearance issues were properly raised through the chain of command at the defendant, and I have no idea if there is a defense or not. I have no idea if $20MM is a reasonable measure of damages, I have no idea if the model did in fact sign away her modeling rights in this photo, and I have no idea if the picture is in fact one of her in the first place. Without knowing those facts it would be impossible to draw any conclusions about who is right or wrong in this particular matter.

Someone within Yahoo's ranks probably messed up. Media has its integrity "downgraded" when it comes to the internet, which is mainly a problem for bigger fish like Yahoo, since they are in a position to pay reparations, if not on this scale. You can bet some former layout person is bagging groceries as we speak.

Without knowing the circumtances of the case, it's difficult to draw a conclusion, so all I'd say is that the plaintiff does deserve a compensation for the use of her likeness to endorse a commercial enterprise. However, her claim that privacy was violated sounds more difficult to defend, less all the people who are pictured on flickr photos are allowed to make the same claim.

"people who are pictured on flickr photos are allowed to make the same claim."

Believe it or not, the claims are being made. The good news for flickr is that they probably have a defense under the Communications Decency Act. Thus, the only viable claims are those brought against the flickr members, and those guys are not usually worth chasing down (particularly since the damages would likely be miniscule).

didn't it say she was a model and might it have been the modelling agency that released the pic, it's not that great, rachel hunter would've done a 5 minute smile for less

... and if they let it go on, she'll be adding, stress and loss of employment and on and on and on...........she has a right AND $20m?? that is excessive.....

Wow. There sure are a lot of retarded people in the world. I'm not talking about the lady suing, I'm talking about most of you idiots posting comments.

It's illegal for someone to use a photo of you for anything that doesn't constitute fair-use, assuming the photo isn't licensed allowing them to do so.

However, since she probably doesn't have the photo registered with the Copyright house, she can't be rewarded punitive damages, only actual damages and profits. Since she's suing for $10m in non-punitive damages, that's likely closer to what she'll be rewarded, though she might be required to take a lesser amount.

For the record, and in response to Phil above who said, "Yahoo! is massive and probably has a well paid legal team. Do you really think they would have used it without permission in the first place?":

Yahoo routinely uses photos and personal information without proper permission to do so. Most recently to my knowledge would be in the case of wii.yahoo.com using copyrighted photos from flickr.com that aren't licensed allowing Yahoo to do so. Yahoo is nearly as bad as Halliburton, the fact that you think otherwise is exactly what they are banking on.

I sure feel safer knowing there are really smart people like you out there. Wow. What are you wasting YOUR time on us for?