HBO, FX Lead Critics’ Choice TV Awards — But … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Lionsgate Acquires U.S. On Guillaume Canet’s … 
Toronto Fest Lands World Preem Of Godfrey Reggio’s … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By … 
Fox Acquires ‘Narc’; Zac Efron Attached To Play … 
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production … 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Mike Lobell Adds Cast To ‘Eisner,’ Plots … 
Sony Shares Rise On Report That It Will Consider … 
Alki David Agrees To End Name Games With Aereo And Barry … 
Next-Gen Xbox One Unveiled With Content Including … 
UPDATE: Apple CEO Challenged For Moving “Crown … 
ESPN Layoffs Could Reach 400 As Part Of Latest Disney Cuts 
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ Up … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Wolverine’ 
Ang Lee Departs FX Pilot ‘Tyrant’ 
How Many Times Does Seth MacFarlane Have To Say No To The … 
Cannes: Stanley Weiser To Script ‘Three Graves … 
Gita Hall May, a popular 1950s and 1960s model, has filed a lawsuit against Lionsgate over the company’s Emmy-winning 1960s drama Mad Men. In the complaint, filed today at the Los Angeles Superior Court, May argues that the series’ opening credits use an image of her without her consent. The image in question had been cropped from an 1950s photograph of May taken by well known photographer Richard Avedon for a Revlon hairspray ad.
“The Main Titles were integral to the success of Mad Men,” the complaint says (read it here), claiming that the producers “have generated income in excess of $1 billion through exploitation of the series and its episodes.” The main title for the show is not produced by Mad Men studio Lionsgate but by Imaginary Forces, with Mark Gardner and Steve Fuller credited as directors and Jeremy Cox and Joey Salim as designers. It won the 2008 Emmy Award for Outstanding Main Title Design.
“(May’s) likeness appears more prominently and directly than any other image in that sequence, and in the Pilot directly opposite the credit for the program’s Producer,” the suit says. Since Mad Men airs on cable, May says she only became aware of the misappropriation last May. In the lawsuit she seeks unspecified damages “suffered as a result of the unauthorized use” of her likeness. Lionsgate had no comment.
TV Editor Nellie Andreeva - tip her here.
Loading ...
Is the world going completly out of control now, or did I just get the memo?
When the newspapers starts to pay everyone whose face shows up in pictures of crowds on front page articles, then we might be able to begin negotiations on the potential of any connection between common sense and this lawsuit. As it is, when was the last time anyone was asked for their permission for their likeness to be shown in any publication of any kind? They all make money. Here’s the fix: Tweak the picture so it’s just as washed out as that model’s former career was before the asinine publicity stunt, and there will be no way to tell the difference between that image and unused copy paper.
Don’t let the fact that you don’t have a clue about the law stand in the way of your opinion.
Using a photo of a recognizable individual for commercial purposes requires their permission unless it’s for news reporting or other editorial usage. That means whether you’re in a crowd of hundreds or all by yourself, your picture is almost always fair game for a news story or opinion piece. Exceptions would include uses that might be libelous, such as using your picture in an article on herpes.
Using your picture for other commercial purposes requires your consent. That’s why somebody can’t just take your picture and then put it on a billboard for Valtrex.
What on Earth is a Gita Hall May? Never heard of her before. Love Mad Men, never really honed in on her picture before. And it’s been 5 seasons. She’s just realizing? This world is insane!
Lionsgate should “negotiate” a paid speaking part for Ms. May in a future episode. This will be a “F-U, GO AWAY” type of deal that should resolve the issue and get positive publicity for all parties involved.
Lionsgate shouldn’t give her dick if she doesn’t own the image. If the photographer or Revlon own it outright (no idea what those contracts said in the 60s) then I don’t see why she’d be entitled to anything from Lionsgate. If the photographer or Revlon own it but are using it outside the scope of what they promised in a contract, then her lawsuit should be against that party.
This would depend entirely on her contract for the advertisement at the time. Contract language was a little looser back then…
s
Models only signed partial releases in the 50′s and 60′s. The photo is not public domain and the model, who is very much alive, should be paid. As I see it, using an image without paying for it- is STEALING! Clearly, the art department weighed what images they wanted to use to best suit the show. It is a highly stylized opening that sets a tone for the series. That is the intent of the credits and that is what the credits accomplished. Pay the woman a fair sum. Everyone else has gotten rich off the show. Why shouldn’t Gita Hall see a good piece of money ? It’s her face !!! The picture doesn’t belong to Mad Men until they pay her for its use.
She should NOT “get a good piece of money” because NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE CREDITS! The credits are NOT the reason the show is a success. The SHOW is the reason the show is a huge success. The writing, acting, set decoration, and direction are what matter, NOT the credits.
You obviously don’t understand credits… These are the “behind the scene’s” people who make the show possible… Take them out of the equation and all that’s left are a bunch of actors who may or may not understand how to plug in a light or even find an outlet on the wall without they’re “people” to help… Don’t be a butt-munch and give these “behind the scene’s” the credit they deserve…
Wendall…
How do you know the photo, or even the ad itself isn’t public domian? Don’t you think the creators of the opening of the show and Lionsgate did their due diligence?
“Don’t you think the creators of the opening of the show and Lionsgate did their due diligence?”
Nope, just like I dont think the creators of Glee did their due diligence to give a credit to Jonathan Coulton’s version of Baby Got Back.
Those yahoos in LG’s TV department aren’t smart enough to know what due diligence means, much less do it.
Yeah, sure. One day at SAG scale should cover it. If they went as far as to announce a number like 1 Billion in profits, they are looking for a bit more than a one day Co-Star.
How is the weather today in Kentucky?
Gita Hall May: get a life!
You should thank (and pay) Imaginary Forces because no one knows who the hell you are!
however, fortunately, they have all heard of Lucifer, and pretty sure everyone knows to do the opposite of what he says, since he’s known for being a self-serving ass.
Presumably she signed a release when the pic was taken. If not they’ll just counter sue the agency.
Any release she signed in 1955 would limit the use of the photo to the hairspray ad that it was originally taken for. And that paperwork is probably long gone they won’t ever find it. If they paid Avedon for the use of the photo then she is really only entitled to a percent of that money instead of a million dollars that she’s probably trying to get.
It depends. In the 1950s-60s, even into the 1980s, model releases could be buyout at the day rate, designated flat rate as well as restricted to an ad or series of ads if she was 1) prominent enough and 2) had a good model agency representing her. Whether she had rights on off-single-ad usage is very much dependent on her contract. The image had to be obtained from somewhere, and I’d look first at the Avedon estate (which might have related records, because they zealously guard his rights) and Revlon.
Gita Hall was a former Miss Stockholm and a fairly prominent model of the time–she was married to actor Barry Sullivan in the late 1950s. Well known enough to have a ‘glamour girl’ web page about her comings and goings as chronicled in Winchell and other columnists: http://www.glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com/show.php?id=115
Yes, her image is why Mad Men is a hit. It’s been crucial to the success of the show. NOT.
Well, the image was cleared for use. Assuming her modeling contract held no rights for her for her likeness in perpetuity, she has no claim. The fact that it took five plus years for this to even become a filing makes it sound like someone wants a pay out. This will be cleared up out of the courts.
I love lawsuits like this…which just so ‘happen’ to come 4-6 weeks prior to a show/movie/program opening/premier/return. Generally, just about the time the posters start to show up at bus stops, and a week or two before billboards go up advertising the opening/premier/return of the show/movie/program.
And the media acts ‘surprised’ by the lawsuit, and in America this becomes ‘news’.
Great point. You can never be surprised at the length people will go for promotion. Do you remember the episode of Mad Men where Peggy stages a fight over a Ham or something? Why should we assume the real world is any different?
Yes.
I find this to be a really interesting lawsuit. Are you saying that you know for a fact that the image was cleared for use? Because if it wasn’t, I think she may be entitled to a small amount of money.
Agreed.
The people on this board telling her to “get a life” and so forth clearly have no understanding of what’s happening here.
First, the use of the image has to have been cleared for use by the producers to begin with. Next, the contract from the 1950s has to state they own the rights to utilize the image she posed for in all mediums as they see fit — or words to that effect.
Frankly, as I’ve watched these images pass by for the last several years, I’ve wondered if they bothered to check clearances. Guess we’ll find out.
There’s a credit at the end of each show acknowledging Vargas. I figure it must be because one of his images is in the title sequence. Somebody cleared that.
But what if she has rights and the image was licensed from either the photographer, ad agency, or from Revlon? Isn’t her cut to come from the licensing parties?
Or is this a consequence of California law that grants a star’s estate the ownership of a star’s image, extending even to films or photos which have gone into the public domain?
Oh! Interesting about the Vargas credit!
It’s all going to come down to what the contract states and how the judge interprets it.
That is, if the contract specified they own ALL rights to the image, OK, done. But what if it stated “All right which include TV and print.” Which COULD mean she’s owed money due to the advent of DVD. Or the judge could say, “Well, they didn’t know from DVD and why would they?”
The creator of ’80s TV series SLEDGE HAMMER, Alan Spencer, still owns — if I have this story right — the rights to the series for DVD b/c his contract specified the network owned rights on “TV or laserdisc,” whereas other contracts stated “TV or laser media” or “TV and other media.”
So, a little thing like that could give this woman a leg up.
Just like Warhol’s iconic Campbell soup cans…it’s an artists interpretation,once removed. Fair Use.
If the producer took a photo of his wife and used that instead, it would not work. Ergo, she deserves something, as does the photographer, which unions will stand up for, bless ‘em. Otherwise alllllll the money goes to the….madmen.
Surprising that Lionsgate never cleared the rights. In California the law is clear that a person has a right to determine how there image is used. Its all in California Civil Code Section 3344. You might not like the law but it sounds like she has a case if they never cleared using her image.
Hard to believe a title sequence would pass without any legal clearances.
No mullah for the lady.
You can bitch and moan all you want that she’s not entitled to anything, but if any one of you found yourselves/your talents (however small) had been used in a similar way I think you’d all try to get some compensation for it, and deservedly so.
The fact of the matter is that whoever the digital artsists were who created the segment should have known better to take something just because it looked so old no one would remember it. They should have taken an extra couple hours to create their own new piece of art to use. Seems to me that tiny bit of laziness will end up costing more trouble than it would have taken to stretch their own muscles.
you people are really mean spirited. Why shouldn’t she get compensation for the use of her likeness?
Exactly. If her image was worthless it would not have been chosen amongst the millions of other options out there. She should be fairly compensated.
s
I think it’s silly that people who don’t know this woman are presuming she wants millions of dollars and a fresh spotlight on a career that happened in the 50′s. It’s not like models of this era made lots of money. So many were then and are now being taken advantage of by large companies who could easily pay for the rights to use their image. They just figured they’d see if they could get away with it because it would be a headache to follow up with and most people would think “It couldn’t possibly be me”.
Didn’t the credits win an Emmy? I think that all artists involved should be compensated.
Im shocked to see the negative comments especially those saying anything about ‘owning the image.’. IT’S HER FACE. I’d say she owns it!!! And if they have made so much money and got an Emmy for that opening sequence, why shouldn’t she get a small piece of this enormous pie????
…she “suffered”…really?
In the 90s, before anyone even thought to worry about file sharing, there was a lot of discussion at studios about fans loving shows to death. The claim was that some overly detailed fan sites could cause a studio to “suffer” potential loss of income. For example, if you put up a fan site that details every single episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you could potentially cut into WB’s income for a Buffy book. (Loss of book sales, yeah, I know, how quaint.)
So I guess one argument here is that because her face became identified with Mad Men, without compensation or permission, she “suffers” the loss of potential sales of her image for other purposes.
There were NO potential sales of her image for other purposes. Name ONE other place that image has been used since that original ad. In nearly 60 years, NOTHING. No potential for sale, no potentially lost revenue.
No one knows what opportunities she might have missed because of Mad Men’s use of her image–that’s only one argument her lawyers could make. I was simply explaining what “suffer” can mean in a legal setting.
Her lawyers may not prevail on that argument, but as many legally knowledgeable posters have pointed out, California law recognizes “rights to image,” so it’s likely she will be compensated, because under California law, you can’t use someone’s recognizable image for commercial purposes without compensation or at least their signed agreement. (News photos are a different category.)
I read elsewhere that she’s claiming the contract she signed only covered the Revlon ad in its original context. If that can be proved to be true, she’ll probably win in court (or more likely negotiate a settlement).
Frankly, it was an amateur mistake not to have cleared the image.
Her image has more value your opinions will ever have. For example: her image was chosen to be in the open for Mad Men. I’m sure whatever you do for a living, you expect to be paid for it. If someone too your work from 40-50myears ago and re-sold it, you would be looking for a cut.
Actors get residuals and are paid for their likeness being used. Mad Men should have made sure that any images they used were paid for or in the public domain. This woman was one of the most famous models of the 50′s, along with Susie Parket and a few others. She deserves to be paid for the use of her photo. How would she know her picture was being used for many years? Someone who was a fan recognized her and let Gita Hall May know clearly advised her. She deserves compensation, no amount was mentioned, but, consider its worth to be akin to years and years of commercial use. In the 50′s and 60′s, no model signed unlimited releases.This is the same woman who graced the cover of Vogue,her famous green eye in a martini glass and she was Revkon’s face fit many of their most famous ads. Just the fact this is an Avedon photograph gives you some clue as to the importance of this model in that time frame. If Twiggy’s image had been used, don’t you think they would have paid get? Of course they would have. The company assumed the model was not of this world and simply cut and pasted her image on a building.Google Gita Hall. She is one of the iconic faces of modeling from that era.Pay her!!
It’s inconceivable to me that Imaginary Forces would have used a Richard Avedon photograph, no less, without securing the rights (via Lionsgate). Companies like that work with these types of images all the time. It’s possible the model has to clarify her rights with the copyright holder of the photograph, but the notion that no one at IF/Lionsgate/Mad Men got the broadcast rights to that photograph is pretty implausible.
What about me? There I am falling to my death in silhouette. That’s how Mad Men will end you know with me plunging helplessly to my death as a suicide or maybe I was pushed to my death by one of the women I screwed over. They better give my kids a lot of money I don’t have that much life insurance. Damn A & E. Damn Lionsgate. Damn Matt Weiner. They get all the money and I end up broke and alone.
That’s what the money is for!!
What about the two brats whose knees are being exploited just to the right of the rather washed-out image of the model?
The children’s knees and silhouetted falling man are not “individually recognizable”, so there’s no problem there. The model’s face, however, clearly is.
“suffered as a result of the unauthorized use”.
what a load of horse shit. her scumbag lawyers more than likely convinced her she could get a big pay-day if they filed a lawsuit, making as much noise in the process so they’d get a quick settlement. easy money.
go to youtube & actually *watch* the opening for Mad Men. it’s about 37 seconds long & her face is on it for ONE SECOND. hardly worth getting into a lawsuit over.
“Suffered” is more legalese than anything else. Why is it “horsehit,” exactly? Why are her lawyers “scumbags”? Sounds like a personal problem of yours. If it was your mother or grandmother, you’d be saying something different. We have laws about this stuff. Either she gave rights to her image to Avedon or Revlon, or she retains them. But you can’t just use a picture of somebody for your commercial property and not clear it. It’s probably not enough money for Revlon to be concerned about, but a few tens of thousands (or perhaps even less) for a retired old woman might just be a lot of money. So STFU and let the court figure out if the claim is legit.
I don’t think Gita Hall May suffered, but, her image was used without her permission and she should be duly compensated. Obviously,this woman’s face epitomized the “look’ Mad Men was seeking to project throughout the series. In fact, the credits won an Emmy Award, so the show needs to pony up and pay this ‘star’ model for the unauthorized use of her image. Gita Hall May’s face has now been embedded in the show for the entirety of its release around the world. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Gita Hall was known as a wasp waisted, red haired vixen and the show’s star is also known for that. Why should everyone else be making money from the show and not the woman whose face is in the opening credits and sets the tone for the show? It is simply ridiculous for anyone to suggest this woman is not due generous compensation.The show has grossed 1 billion dollars. I dare say if Gita Hall May shows up in court as a nearly 80 year old woman, any jury would award her generous compensation. The amount should be based on the lifetime of the show and how many times it has aired and what the value is for its life in the future. A lump sum should be given her in consideration of her age.I looked up this woman and she had a great career. I will assume for argument’s sake, Gita Hall’s image was chosen for good reason. They need to pay her.
Carisa, I love this comment. I commented above that I found this to be such an interesting lawsuit for essentially the same reason. I am willing to bet that the image was ‘cleared’ haphazardly, with no regard for who this model was. Clearly her image lends to the tone of the show and no paperwork in the 1950s could have predicted the mediums of the future; much less the real meaning of “perpetuity” as we know it to be true in 2013. I hope they pay her!
Why shouldn’t an artist get paid for the use of her work. It’s not about how detrimental the work is to the success of the show. It’s about an artist getting paid for their work.
Look, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for her to seek some small compenastion. Her image really IS the most striking and identifiable in the credits; I personally find her image there beguiling, my eye is always drawn to her in the credits I’ve seen a thousand times.
No one is sure she signed a release; even if she did, good luck finding a piece of paper from 1958. I know Mad Men- a show I love- does not really make jillions, but it is true that her likeness is distinctive and prominent in the credits. She deserves some moderate recompense for that, I think.
(And agreeing with UGH above, the company who created the (great) opening credits should have been more careful about clearances with this. I think of some young creative thinking all those people have passed on now! I hope it’s all resolved amicably though.)
her image is striking, sure, for exactly 1,3 seconds. Go time it on youtube…
Her pic is part of a montage / compilation, creating an overall 1950s feeling. But her image has really nothing to do with the success of the show (this is what the shyster lawyer is trying to prove.)
It would be interesting to know, if the plaintiff did try to contact Lionsgate first and settled this out of court. Let’s see how much compensation the former model will get.
Her I wish well, but does a case like this always needs to be settled like this. Hollywood, everyone’s trying to make a buck.
Hi Tim. Mad Men the series begins in 1960. 1.3 seconds in the opening credits yes, but repeated 100 million times for every episode for every person all over the world who watches the show and her distinctive face in the credits. How many seconds is that, since you seem to have a stopwatch?
Some moderate compensation and settlement is in order, is what I’m saying. As for everyone in Hollywood out to make a buck, how is that different from everywhere else? Do you do your job, whatever it is, for charity? i honestly mean this in a friendly way, it;s just business. Her likeness is indeed prominent, used repeatedly, distinctive, and she isn’t wrong to seek some small settlement to tide her over in her old age. What’s wrong with that? What if a TV show took a picture of your mom when she was young and used in opening credits around the world without credit or compensation? How would you feel about that? You might say of this model here, “oh, she signed a release”. How do you know? Prove it. Produce the paper from 1958. Good luck with your next meeting.
So many comments here are ignorant. She owns her face. Unless she signed away all usage in perpetuity for all mediums, she is entitled to compensation.