| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Verdict Creates Instant Millionaire |
| 2005-02-02 |
| EFL. For some reason, this never happens to me... Nestle must pay a model $15.6 million for using his image without his consent. It will appeal. Russell Christoff was standing in line at a Home Depot in the spring of 2002 when a woman leaned over and said, "You look like the guy on my coffee jar." Christoff smiled. The Northern California model had been recognized before after appearing in corporate training films and landing a few movie and TV roles. He had even hosted his own program for public television, "Traveling California State Parks." But Christoff had never appeared on a coffee jar — or so he thought until several weeks later. That's when Christoff, shopping for bloody mary mix at a Rite-Aid store, happened to come face to face with himself on a label for Nestle's Taster's Choice. "What am I doing on this jar?" he thought as he looked at the picture of a clearly satisfied coffee drinker peering into his cup. Then he remembered: In 1986, he had posed for a photographer on assignment for Nestle. He was paid a modest amount for his time and assumed that nothing ever came of the two-hour shoot. How wrong he was. Last week, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury in Glendale ordered Nestle USA to pay Christoff — now a 58-year-old kindergarten teacher in the Bay Area town of Antioch — $15.6 million for using his likeness without his permission and profiting from it. Nestle sold the freeze-dried coffee featuring Christoff's mug on the label for about six years, from 1997 to 2003, in the U.S., Mexico, South Korea, Japan, Israel and Kuwait. The company's Canadian arm used Christoff's image even longer, beginning in 1986. The jurors determined that Glendale-based Nestle should have paid Christoff $330,000 for the use of his likeness. They also voted to hand Christoff damages equal to 5% of the profit from Taster's Choice sales during the six-year period, or $15.3 million. Nestle USA executives declined to comment. Lawrence Heller, the company's lawyer, said the food and beverage giant would appeal the verdict."The employee that pulled the photo thought they had consent to use the picture," Heller said. Excuse me, the ex-employee... |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #10 5% of the gross? Not quite right. No way was that picture worth 5% of the cost of the product. The $330K of actual loss is reasonable, plus interest at say, 5% above LIBOR (compounded) and allowable IRS-amounts of penalty should be the award. Tax Free, of course. And on top of that legal and court costs. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-02 8:47:30 PM |
| #9 5% of the gross? Not quite right. No way was that picture worth 5% of the cost of the product. The $330K of actual loss is reasonable, plus interest at say, 5% above LIBOR (compounded) and allowable IRS-amounts of penalty should be the award. Tax Free, of course. And on top of that legal and court costs. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-02 8:47:30 PM |
| #8 5% of the gross? Not quite right. No way was that picture worth 5% of the cost of the product. The $330K of actual loss is reasonable, plus interest at say, 5% above LIBOR (compounded) and allowable IRS-amounts of penalty should be the award. Tax Free, of course. And on top of that legal and court costs. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-02 8:47:30 PM |
| #7 Damn, I'm in a wrong bizness. |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-02-02 11:41:33 AM |
| #6 Gee Frank, a number of models make that amount, usually female in that sexist industry of exploitation. Just consider this a readjustment to gender neutral pay. [insert smiley here] |
| Posted by: Glereper Thigum7229 2005-02-02 11:21:59 AM |
| #5 Excuse me a moment while I email Nestle. They can use my ugly mug on whatever they want for a mere quarter million... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-02-02 11:18:51 AM |
| #4 $330,000? How many models make that? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-02-02 11:13:59 AM |
| #3 Frank, his contract specified payment if the picture was used. He never got paid. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2005-02-02 11:04:03 AM |
| #2 what an awful thing to do! Using a model's likeness on a product after he was paid to pose .... what f&^king morons did they get on this jury? Can you say "immediate appeal"? I knew you could |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-02-02 11:02:15 AM |
| #1 Taster's Choice brings in a profit?!? Have you tasted that sh*t? |
| Posted by: BH 2005-02-02 10:47:18 AM |