Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

The model who was in that HIV ad has assrted defamation per se, court says

Avril Nolan is a model who was featured in an ad campaign that showed her image along with the words "I AM POSITIVE" in huge letters. Her image, for a different purpose, was sold to a stock photo agency and the the New York State Department of Human Rights purchased it for the ad campaign.

The thing that's interesting is the cause of action for defamation per se was that HIV is a "loathsome disease," one of the grounds for defmation per se. And it's been upheld, although the court went on to say that it doesn't personally consider HIV to be loathsome, whatever the fuck that means.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5January 19, 2018 2:23 AM

She sold her image for profit. That means she would have signed some sort agreement which would have informed her that the agency owned her likeness. Don't believe there's much she can do unless they specifically outlined parameters for the usage of the image.

Many people don't realize, but the terms and conditions of some of the most popular Apps & social media allow the owners to scan the pictures on your phone as well as your social media accounts and use them anyway they please once uou download the software. Totally agree with her suit, though.

by Anonymousreply 1January 18, 2018 10:18 PM

....the contract stated her image could not be used in any derogatory context (whatever wording they chose).......and because of the stigma associated with HIV, which she experienced since people who saw the ad assumed she was HIV+ . The court agreed with her.

by Anonymousreply 2January 18, 2018 10:22 PM

You can't work in some occupations or travel to certain places if you are HIV+ (the other countries don't want to pay for your medications) so it could be reasonably limiting for people to assume she is infected. It's a fair decision, I think.

by Anonymousreply 3January 19, 2018 1:43 AM

How much will she get?

by Anonymousreply 4January 19, 2018 1:46 AM

The ads were revolting. No one wants to read about periods, STDs, etc. while on the train.

by Anonymousreply 5January 19, 2018 2:23 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!