Katherine Heigl was papped after leaving a Duane Reade. The company then tweeted out a photo with the caption:
So now she's suing them for using her image to promote themselves. According to the documents:
"The use of plaintiff's image under these circumstances improperly exploited plaintiff's name and likeness, as a celebrity, for defendant's commercial advertising and purposes of trade, without authorization." Her lawyers go on to assert that their client is “highly selective and well compensated" for sponsorship opportunities and that she is "a highly successful television and motion picture actress, producer and celebrity (who) continues to be in high demand in the entertainment industry."
Really? If that’s the case, why is she crowdsourcing for her next movie?
What's confusing to me because I'm a legal moron is that, well, nothing in that tweet was a lie. Fact: she went shopping at Duane Reade. Fact: she was legitimately papped there because she's a celebrity. Was it the wording? If they posted the image with a simple "Thanks Heigl for shopping at our store!" would it be different?
If she actually had a robust career, would it be different?
Because, well, you know. You know that Katie Heigl's star is not what it once was. And, being legally stupid, I don't understand the difference between this and all the other celebrities who show up on blogs and magazines wearing these jeans and carrying that bag...except that, well, Duane Reade is kinda down market. And maybe that's what the problem is. Heigl's career might be low budget now (she's crowdsourcing for movies for Christ's sake!), but she doesn't want you to think that her lifestyle is low budget.
Like do you think she would be reacting like this if she was photographed leaving Barneys?
PS. If she wins the lawsuit, she says she'll donate the money to her charitable foundation which supports dogs.
PPS. Who’s giving Katherine Heigl an endorsement deal for $6 million?!?
