- Report: #351800
Complaint Review: Philips - Longview Texas
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
Philips
110 Triple Creek Ste. 10 Longview, 75610 Texas, U.S.A.
Phone:
800-531-0039
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Philips violates the right of publicity in a agency contracted photograph Longview Texas
I have discovered through the help of a friend living in California that my likeness has been used in an advertisement for the Philips Company. Because of my right to publicity, Philips is in violation of the law by using this advertisement with my photograph and other commerial artists in it.
The Philips Company is using the picture, which was originally contracted in 1995 through the Shirley Hamilton Agency in Chicago , as a brochure to sell their Philips service contract as late as 2006. Apparently, they have been using it for at least 10 years or even longer as it is easy to tell that the picture is dated.
After speaking with someone in the accounting department at the Shirley Hamilton Agency, I was informed that the contract for the original usage was only for a test shot for a possible commercial. That means there was never a real contract to use it for advertisement at all. The accountant at Shirley Hamilton was intrigued to say the least.
It is baffling to understand why Philips has not did a reshoot of the photograph in all this time, but it is obvious to anyone that they are getting away with something illegal. I plan on pursuing this in a court of law and hope to be compensated for helping Philips to sell their service contracts for 10 years plus.
Jeff
Bronx, New York
U.S.A.
The Philips Company is using the picture, which was originally contracted in 1995 through the Shirley Hamilton Agency in Chicago , as a brochure to sell their Philips service contract as late as 2006. Apparently, they have been using it for at least 10 years or even longer as it is easy to tell that the picture is dated.
After speaking with someone in the accounting department at the Shirley Hamilton Agency, I was informed that the contract for the original usage was only for a test shot for a possible commercial. That means there was never a real contract to use it for advertisement at all. The accountant at Shirley Hamilton was intrigued to say the least.
It is baffling to understand why Philips has not did a reshoot of the photograph in all this time, but it is obvious to anyone that they are getting away with something illegal. I plan on pursuing this in a court of law and hope to be compensated for helping Philips to sell their service contracts for 10 years plus.
Jeff
Bronx, New York
U.S.A.
