The image was presented at a district-wide seminar with the caption "Once it's there, it's there to stay." We would add that this is especially true if you are in a bikini posing next to a cardboard cut-out of Snoop Dogg holding a can of Blast. Yeah, that thing ain't going anywhere.

 

Chelsea Chaney sues school for using bikini Facebook photo

School officials offered an apology to Chaney and her family. However, they do not believe school officials were sincere. A spokesman with the school district asserts that they have no legal liability to the former student.

 

Read more at Chelsea Chaney: $2 Million Lawsuit Over Bikini Photo

After seeing an interview with her, she should be happy that the school chose this picture and not others…

After seeing an interview with her, she should be happy that the school chose this picture and not others…

 

Sunglasses cover up a lot...

 

I am sure we have all seen women (and men) that look good with big sunglasses on and then they take them off. Ouch!

It is interesting. If the photos was not and never on public view would make it more interesting. But even if it is not there a line that appears to have been crossed here that definitely should not have been.

 

Images are never available for just anyone to commercially use. Every image on the internet is 'available' but that does not make it 'usable' by a party without a license. The image 'belongs' to picture taker. And a specific person's image 'belongs' to them. So it would seem two lines have been crossed here.

 

1. Using IP that belongs to someone else. That image does belong to someone else. Using for commercial or official purpose without permission (license) from the actual 'owner' is a problem.

2. Using the girls name and specifics along with her image without her permission to promote or unpromote anything is also a problem. She owns her image - especially when it gets tied directly with her name and is used this manner.

 

Some of us know we can take pictures in public and then sell those pictures. The picture taker owns the image and can make it available for sale without the subject permission since it is in a public event. But the same picture taker does not have right to use a persons image or likeness to promote a business or to sell the image for use of promotion to another entity without the subjects permission. This is why there are pages and pages of media release forms for events such as combines, all-star games, etc. You are giving the sponsor rights to your image for promotional/commercial purposes. Clearly, she never signed such a release.

 

The school may argue they are not a commercial business that 'gained' anything using her image. But that argument would not hold with me. They crossed at least 2 lines they never should have crossed here. Along with these pure IP issues I believe she has a case for defamation and the like.

Images of any kind get really tricky when it comes to the law. To sort of expand on what was said above even you purchase an image be it a piece of art or a photograph and still not have the rights to use that picture yourself. You can hang it up or whatever but that's about where it ends unless you secure the rights to the image itself.

 

They really shouldn't of put her name on the slide. No need for that at all

Sunglasses cover up a lot...

 

I am sure we have all seen women (and men) that look good with big sunglasses on and then they take them off. Ouch!

They look good from afar, but far from good.

Images of any kind get really tricky when it comes to the law. To sort of expand on what was said above even you purchase an image be it a piece of art or a photograph and still not have the rights to use that picture yourself. You can hang it up or whatever but that's about where it ends unless you secure the rights to the image itself.

 

They really shouldn't of put her name on the slide. No need for that at all

 

Exactly. I could see if they used that image, with no name or source information at all and maybe even a little blurring of facial features, along with other images 'found' on the internet and presented a collage of pictures to make the point. That may still have theoretical legal issues but it would not have been such a controversy.

From the Huffington Post:

 

The photo used in a PowerPoint presentation shows a then-17-year-old Chaney in a bikini standing next to a cardboard cutout of hip-hop artist Snoop Lion (who was then known as Snoop Dogg). The photo appeared in a slide with Chaney's full name and the tag "Once It's There - lt's There To Stay," according to the complaint. The Chaney slide was shown immediately after a slide in which a cartoon daughter confronts her mother over the mom's old Facebook page that lists the mother's hobbies as "bad boys, jello shooters, and body art," according to court papers.

 

By using Chaney's photo in this way, the lawsuit contends, the school district publicly branded the teenager as a "sexually-promiscuous abuser of alcohol (or, in today’s vernacular, an alcoholic bad name for a girl) who should be more careful about her Internet postings."

 

A printout of the slideshow was offered to every student and parent in attendance at the seminar.

 

Curtis R. Cearley, director of technology for the Fayette County Schools, presented and planned the seminar, the court complaint said, and was responsible for choosing the photo of Chaney. A letter that Chaney received from the school said the photo was picked at random, WSB-TV reports. Cearley did not return a request for comment from The Huffington Post.

 

So of all the pictures that are public on Facebook, the IT person just randomly picked one that happened to be of a girl from their district?!? Not buying that at all.

Well the IT guy could of narrowed a search and then picked from random. Picking from random doesn't mean picking from all of FB. I agree there could be other reasons.

So of all the pictures that are public on Facebook, the IT person just randomly picked one that happened to be of a girl from their district?!? Not buying that at all.

 

I agree, not buying that at all.

 

I will go a step further to say almost every school has one or two of "those teachers."

 

I think her lawyer needs to do an intensive background investigation on the IT guy to see if he had a crush Chaney and/or any other children in the high school. If he can establish that the school system may start singing a different tune.

Now the image is all over the news, what is the difference between it getting posted on here or on the news versus on a handout for a school? Unless they made money from the image I don't think she has much of a case. Is Deters handling this one?

Now the image is all over the news, what is the difference between it getting posted on here or on the news versus on a handout for a school? Unless they made money from the image I don't think she has much of a case. Is Deters handling this one?

 

I watched the video, no its not Deters although I know you are kidding.

 

Frankly, the attorney didn't strike me as wow that guy is sharp.

 

And at this point the "victim" and her lawyer have made the photo one of the issues and filed suit which makes it fair game.

Now the image is all over the news, what is the difference between it getting posted on here or on the news versus on a handout for a school? Unless they made money from the image I don't think she has much of a case. Is Deters handling this one?

 

 

I can think of 2 million reasons why she thinks its different.

Now the image is all over the news, what is the difference between it getting posted on here or on the news versus on a handout for a school? Unless they made money from the image I don't think she has much of a case. Is Deters handling this one?

 

The $2M is likely a number to drive a quick settlement. Risk $2M in court or pay maybe half or less to settle with everyone signing non-disclosure statements. Lawyer gets around half. Even if they settle for $500K it might be 'cheap' in the scheme of things.

 

I think the defamation and slander aspect may drive this more any IP issue since you are correct. They did not make money from it and the image had (notice past tense) no commercial value before this all started.