Unwitting coffee model awarded $15.6M

[davidinalameda]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/coffee.model.ap/index.html

A jury has awarded $15.6 million to a man whose image was used for years without his permission on Taster's Choice coffee labels.

Russell Christoff, a former model from Northern California, posed for a two-hour Nestle photo shoot in 1986 but figured it was a bust -- until he stumbled across his likeness on a coffee jar while shopping at a drug store in 2002.

A legal dispute with Nestle USA ensued, during which Christoff, 58, declined the company's $100,000 settlement offer, and Nestle USA turned down his offer to to settle for $8.5 million.

[Jack_Dawson]

1. Saw that...but will he get PAID?

Hope so. Stupid Taster's Choice. Who drinks that crap anyway?

[StClone]

2. I notice there is no picture

He'll sue if there is a photo.

[FormerDittoHead]

3. See how these big corporations work?

You download a few MP3's, and they want THOUSANDS for "stealing" their music off the shelves...

But do these guys think about *paying* this guy before the label goes to the printers?

I think they should be made to pay $700 per jar of coffee sold, just like people downloading MP3's.

[AllegroRondo]

4. How did he go 15 years without knowing?

didn't anyone he knows say "hey, isnt that your picture on the coffee?"

[Melynn]

5. This is a good example of why there shouldn't be tort reform

If Nestle could haven't got away with it, they wouldn't have paid this guy. How small and petty on Nestle's part. But at least the guy was able to sue and teach Nestle a lesson.

[ronnykmarshall]

6. Nestle should have settled.

They offered him chump change of $100K? Please. I hope this guy ends up with a good chunk of cash when it's all settled.

[Schema Thing]

7. I think this really shows up what the debate is all about

Obviously, a not-famous model would probably not have made even 100K off of that particular job, had the company negotiated with him or his agent at the time of the shoot (though he'd have done very well, do doubt).

So, putting aside some interest payments, this is all punitive, much like the famous McDonalds scalding award. IOW, a jury looks at what it would take to spank a company enough to make it hurt, so that they will refrain from ever again engaging in their bad behaviour.

Frankly, I see the logic in it, though I'm sure some juries get it wrong. I don't think that Joe Public understands though... I think they see it as the victim getting a chance at a lottery that they don't get to play, and therefore an injustice to Joe Public himself. Joe Public is stupid dat way.