BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS The Defendants, Fullback Steakhouses, Inc., and John Ritchie, CEO of Fullback Steakhouses, Inc., by and through their attorneys, Piper & Associates, submit the following Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Suzie Starr (“Plaintiff”), brings suit against Fullback Steakhouses, Inc. (“Fullback”) and Fullback’s CEO, John Ritchie for damages arising out of a commercial run by Fullback in August of 2016. The Plaintiff is a prominent health food and lifestyle guru. Fullback Steakhouses, Inc. is a chain of sports bars located and incorporated in New York. John Ritchie serves as CEO of Fullback Steakhouses, Inc., and resides in New York. The commercial advertisement
…show more content…
The commercial depicted a cartoon robot wearing a blonde wig, carrying a small dog in a pink carrier, that says “spicy” in the advertisement. In the commercial, a robot waiter dressed as a referee brings the plate of Buffalo wings to the table and warns, “Be careful, they are spicy.” One of the robot’s friends then asks, “What’s spicy?” Shortly after indulging in the entrée, the robot utters the phrase “Mmm, spicy” and winks at the camera. Although Plaintiff’s name is not included anywhere in the commercial, she argues that the blonde robot robot is intended to resemble her and imply that she endorses …show more content…
The New York privacy statute provides that “a person. . . or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait, or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person. . . is guilty of a misdemeanor.” N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50 (Mckinney 2015). The statute further stipulates that the person whose name, portrait, or picture is used “may maintain an equitable action in the supreme court of this state against the person, firm or corporation so using his name, portrait, picture or voice, to prevent and restrain the use thereof; and may also sue and recover damages for any injuries sustained.” N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 51 (McKinney 2015). The key elements of the statute are the use of a name, portrait, or picture of a living person; advertising, commercial, or trade persons; without obtaining the written consent of that person. The latter two elements are not at issue. The matter to determine is whether Fullback used Plaintiff’s portrait or picture. In order for Plaintiff to have a valid right of privacy claim, Fullback must have used Plaintiff's portrait or picture for advertising or commercial purposes without Plaintiff’s
Advertisements are one of many things that Americans cannot get away from. Every American sees an average of 3,000 advertisements a day; whether it’s on the television, radio, while surfing the internet, or while driving around town. Advertisements try to get consumers to buy their products by getting their attention. Most advertisements don’t have anything to do with the product itself. Every company has a different way of getting the public’s attention, but every advertisement has the same goal - to sell the product. Every advertisement tries to appeal to the audience by using ethos, pathos, and logos, while also focusing on who their audience is and the purpose of the ad. An example of this is a Charmin commercial where there is a bear who gets excited when he gets to use the toilet paper because it is so soft.
The advertisement begins showing three scenes involving people listening to music while working out, and leads into three segments involving traveling.
Advertisement is defined as a public notice, a paid announcement which is meant to attract an audience who interprets themselves with the ad. The human mind is so attractive to new things that it makes it harder for these big companies to come up with new idea to catch our attention. It’s a huge cycle that leads us to an uncontrolled opinion and gives the power to decide for us to the advertisement companies. “Peyton Manning-Gatorade Commercial” is a great way to bait young viewers’ attention into not only buying the product of Gatorade but also making them more notable to watch football.
The ad is called “Someone waits at home, Don’t drink and drive.” The ad is about a guy
Under N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 50, 51, would Fullback Steakhouses, Inc. be liable for violating Suzie Celebrity’s right of privacy for misappropriating her likeness using her picture or voice by airing a television commercial presenting a female-looking robot that features similar physical build, hair, fashion, and voice as Suzie Celebrity?
Pictures of a frightened family and scared Elian were captured in the home. This is unethical according to Chapter 6 of Media Ethics by Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins (2008) which speaks about privacy and the difference between the right to privacy and a need for privacy. John Rawls theory of justice revolves around the adaptation of two fundamental principles of justice. The first principle guarantees the right of each person to have the most extensive basic liberty compatible with the liberty of others and the second principle states that social and economic positions are (a) to be everyone 's advantage and (b) to be open to all. With that being said, the media lacked an extension of privacy with the pictures they revealed. However, names of the family and people involved were not presented in this case study which makes one think that maybe they tried to protect the privacy of the family, but the pictures ruined it all by showing faces. With that being said, the legal and ethical issues involved in photojournalism in the area of privacy are
Going back to the example of the dog poop girl, she would be justified in claiming an invasion of privacy as she was negatively characterized. The scope of law needs to expand to protect the reputation of an individual. Invasion of privacy occurs if one is portrayed falsely and in a highly offensive manner. As in the hot dog example the taking of the photograph was not a violation of privacy, however posting it online to ridicule the individual is. Privacy may also be invaded if the photo was taken by someone who intruded in a situation in which, there was a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, in your own home, public restroom. It is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited. However, posting the messy hot dog picture is defamatory -- that is, it creates a false impression and injures your reputation. Furthermore, the fact that an unmodified photo is unflattering is not enough to claim defamation. The photo must falsely portray and must cause people in the community to think less of a person to warrant a claim. Campell v. MGN Limitted, 2004 UK is another example of how images posted online can defame. Naomi Campbell used drugs and threw the phone at her assistant. Pictures were made public to portray a bad image about her. Naomi Campbell would warrant a privacy claim on these grounds, as would I in the situation of the hotdog stand. Another reason to stop the use of the photograph is known as the right of publicity. This occurs if the image is used for commercial purposes such as to sell products or to imply that you endorse a product. An example would be if the messy hot dog image was used to advertise the hot dog stand. If the photo is used in a commercial website the unauthorized use of your image would violate the right of
This time, the ad was a tear-jerking montage of an adorable friendship between a Golden Retriever puppy and a Clydesdale. The commercial depicts a puppy living on a farm with horses that the puppy considers his “friends.” The golden retriever gets lost and attempts to find his way home only to run into wolves; the horses come and save him. 23 seconds into the commercial the puppy is shown lost and in the rain under a box. The pathos here appeals to a need to want to help the dog. At the end of the commercial after the dog is
Murphy, Eve M. Caudill and Patrick E. “Consumer Online Privacy: Legal and Ethical Issues.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19.1 (2000): 7-19.
A lot is shown in this 30 second advert many symbols, different images, all kinds of colours and a small variety of people. The first thing we see is a person holding a magazine with a women's face on it, the name of the women on the magazine is Caroline Penri after this a celebration is revealed there is a lot of people everywhere smiling and laughing and drinking most of these people are white, then we see two children they were boys and they were also white. After the boys were shown, we see bottles of total effects (the product), next we perceive the same two boys shown before, though this time they seem to be upset. After the upset boys are shown, we see the woman that was shown at the beginning (Caroline Penri) in bed with a man next to her. The last thing the advert portrays is a variety of cakes with numbers on them the numbers were 27, 30, 33, 34 and 36. One thing that really stood out to me in this advert is the numbers they had used like a list, 1 wedding, 2 kids, 43 bottles of total effects, 7 signs, 185 tantrums, 378 pre-dawn starts and 9 birthdays.
In the United States, the phrase “invasion of privacy” is a term often used in legal proceedings. There are four types of “invasion.” First, intrusion of solitude, this means physical or electronic intrusion into ones personal information. Second, public disclosure of private facts, this is the act of spreading truthful private information, which one might find objectionable. Third, false light, this is the publication of facts which place a person in a false light. Lastly, appropriation, this is the use of a person’s name or likeness to obtain something in
Sisto, Joseph. "Do Celebrities Forfeit the Right to Privacy?" Lawyers Weekly jan. 2005: N.p. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. .
Focusing on local produce – if McDonalds focuses on local produce, it has been shown that consumers favour this and trust produce from New Zealand, which may lead to an increase in profits.