OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE34
Added 2024-07-31 05:53:07 +0000 UTCThe answer for T3BE33 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!
Patrons, submit your answers below! But also, feel free to double up and submit on reddit.com/r/openargs!
Comments
It says "lawsuit" and that means this question is torts! Oh right, the actual answer. I think it's B! A is just super obviously wrong, there's nothing in the question suggesting defamation. B, C, and D all fit the fact pattern (likeness used for a commercial purpose without consent, ad contained a thing he said in front of a large audience on TV) so need to actually know the law. D seems way too broad. I think there's something about people's right to their own image that applies in the context of commercial endorsements. C would be my second choice.
Sam
2024-08-03 01:03:26 +0000 UTCHere’s why I think it’s B: I used to watch Keeping Up with the Kardashians (I know, embarrassing but true), and this sort of thing came up once on the show. Kim was in New York looking at a bunch of mixtapes for sale on the street, and she noticed one with a picture of herself on the cover. She said, “I didn’t authorize this! I should sue,” or something like that. I trust someone as image-obsessed as Kim K to know when her image can and can’t be used. I can’t imagine that the large audience makes a difference. There was still no consent to use his image to sell soda.
Kait from Seattle
2024-08-01 02:41:58 +0000 UTCWell I think I can redeem myself for last week with this one because it seems clear to me Answer B is correct. I don't think you can just appropriate someone's image and statement for advertising even about your product. I think the thing about reasonable use in d is probably true, but I don't see how it would be reasonable to do an advertising campaign of someone else with no compensation.
ToddTheOdd
2024-07-31 18:52:24 +0000 UTCI'm from Upstate NY and remember that too! I went with a different, "No" answer though. Because I'm worried NY might have additional protective laws on the books and this is a multistate bar test thingie. Also Wegmans might've hired him on good principle rather than legal requirement. But I'm really unsure!
Apprentice57
2024-07-31 18:37:01 +0000 UTCMy guess is C A is the obviously wrong answer, they're associating something with Thomas that Thomas actually said; Lots of other reasons this is a bad answer, but one important one is that truth is an absolute defense to any defamation claim. From there I'm conflicted, I don't actually know if there's a law against using someone's statement and picture. I know the marketing industry avoids using them without explicit approval. But is that due to a legal requirement, or just following best practices (after all, without a contract the same person could turn around and say "actually I was joking, F Columbia Cola!") I think I favor a "No" answer. C feels reasonable to me because it might be mentioning mention the "public" and "large audience" to get around any privacy concerns. D feels reasonable because being on TV also gets around those concerns, but I'm not sure that gives an implied consent. On the balance I'll say C, with low confidence.
Apprentice57
2024-07-31 18:35:55 +0000 UTCSo…did Lydia hear this?
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2024-07-31 17:58:22 +0000 UTCIt's gotta be B. Something similar happened in 2010 when Alec Baldwin talked on Letterman about how his mom wouldn't leave Syracuse, NY because of Wegmans (grocery store chain based in Rochester, NY). While it was all over local Rochester news at the time, Wegmans hired Baldwin and his mom for cringy commercials rather than just using what he said in ads.
Pocket Protector of My Family
2024-07-31 12:36:05 +0000 UTC
