Company Is Using My Name To Raise Funds

[donnia]

Here is one for the books!
I work in Los Angeles at at a rescue mission where I serve as Chaplain.

I recently had an expierience where one of my co-workers was fired for reasons unknown.
Soon after her firing, I started to receive a lot of mail with money in them.
The money was to be given to the mission.
What I found odd is that the mail was addressed to me.
It is not part of my job at this mission to solicit donations, for this work is done in the development department.
Oddly enough, this is the department that my co-worker was fired from.

I found out that the development department had sent out literally thousands of letters out to donors using my name without permission.
One of the letters even came to my home, as I am on a mailing list.
I called the development department about this matter, and no one is returning my calls.

What should I do?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Here is one for the books!
I work in Los Angeles at at a rescue mission where I serve as Chaplain.

I recently had an expierience where one of my co-workers was fired for reasons unknown.
Soon after her firing, I started to receive a lot of mail with money in them.
The money was to be given to the mission.
What I found odd is that the mail was addressed to me.
It is not part of my job at this mission to solicit donations, for this work is done in the development department.
Oddly enough, this is the department that my co-worker was fired from.

I found out that the development department had sent out literally thousands of letters out to donors using my name without permission.
One of the letters even came to my home, as I am on a mailing list.
I called the development department about this matter, and no one is returning my calls.

What should I do?

My response:

What would you like to do? This is your employer - - and, but for this situation, I imagine that you enjoy working at the Mission. Or, are you ready to take them to "task", and you don't care about your position?

So, how can we help you?

IAAL

 

[ALawyer]

I am not sure what the issue is, apart from the privacy and lack of permission. For that ask the head of the organization.

Or am I missing something? Do you fear that the fired employee had been stealing money? Or wants to make it appear that YOU are?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I am not sure what the issue is, apart from the privacy and lack of permission. For that ask the head of the organization.

My response:

He's already said - -

"I called the development department about this matter, and no one is returning my calls."

and that's getting him nowhere, fast.

I think he's trying to say that he wants to claim a violation of Civil Code section 3344, but the good chaplain may wind up unemployed from the Mission if he does.

Hence, my question to him.

IAAL

California CIVIL CODE
SECTION 3344

3344. (a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice,
signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products,
merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or
soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services,
without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the
prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for
any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result
thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the
person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party
or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty
dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a
result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized
use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account
in computing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the
injured party or parties are required to present proof only of the
gross revenue attributable to such use, and the person who violated
this section is required to prove his or her deductible expenses.
Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties.
The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be
entitled to attorney's fees and costs.
(b) As used in this section, "photograph" means any photograph or
photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live
television transmission, of any person, such that the person is
readily identifiable.
(1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a
photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can
reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is
the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.
(2) If the photograph includes more than one person so
identifiable, then the person or persons complaining of the use shall
be represented as individuals rather than solely as members of a
definable group represented in the photograph. A definable group
includes, but is not limited to, the following examples: a crowd at
any sporting event, a crowd in any street or public building, the
audience at any theatrical or stage production, a glee club, or a
baseball team.
(3) A person or persons shall be considered to be represented as
members of a definable group if they are represented in the
photograph solely as a result of being present at the time the
photograph was taken and have not been singled out as individuals in
any manner.
(c) Where a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person
using the photograph or likeness appearing in the advertisement or
other publication prepared by or in behalf of the user is only
incidental, and not essential, to the purpose of the publication in
which it appears, there shall arise a rebuttable presumption
affecting the burden of producing evidence that the failure to obtain
the consent of the employee was not a knowing use of the employee's
photograph or likeness.
(d) For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice,
signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news,
public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political
campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required
under subdivision (a).
(e) The use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness
in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent
is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material
containing such use is commercially sponsored or contains paid
advertising. Rather it shall be a question of fact whether or not
the use of the person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or
likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or
with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent
is required under subdivision (a).
(f) Nothing in this section shall apply to the owners or employees
of any medium used for advertising, including, but not limited to,
newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks and stations,
cable television systems, billboards, and transit ads, by whom any
advertisement or solicitation in violation of this section is
published or disseminated, unless it is established that such owners
or employees had knowledge of the unauthorized use of the person's
name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness as prohibited by this
section.
(g) The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative and
shall be in addition to any others provided for by law.

 

[Beth3]

Chaplain, skimming through the Code IAAL posted, it appears as though your employer would be liable for any damages you suffered as a result of their using your name or likeness without your permission.

Thus far, it does not appear you have suffered any damages.

Legal issues aside, it was bad form for the development department not to at least give you a "heads up" about the new solicitation campaign, since you were to be featured in it. However it is not at all unusual for someone in a key service position in a charitable organization to be featured in such a campaign.

Since the development department isn't returning your phone calls, I suggest you go to the head of the Mission and mention that you were not happy that you your permission wasn't sought nor were you even informed that you would be a focal point of their current solicitation campaign. Somebody was asleep at the switch there, that's for sure.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Thus far, it does not appear you have suffered any damages.

My response:

To the contrary, Beth.

The code section assumes a minimal amount of damages have been suffered by an aggrieved party, citing - -

"In addition, in any action brought under this section, the
person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use . . ."

Therefore, our good Chaplain is entitled to a minimum of $750.00 and, with that, would be the prevailing party. He is also entitled to bring a cause of action for an injunction, to enjoin the Mission from doing this again without his written consent.

IAAL

 

[HomeGuru]

Alas, but is the $750+ worth losing one's job over?
Even if chaplain prevails on a lawsuit over a retaliation firing.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Alas, but is the $750+ worth losing one's job over?
Even if chaplain prevails on a lawsuit over a retaliation firing.

My response:

This is, exactly, my point in my first response to the Chaplain (See above). But, the good Chaplain hasn't written back with any further details or questions concerning this matter - - so, I presume we'll never know.

Good to see you, Homey !

IAAL

 

[HomeGuru]

My response:

This is, exactly, my point in my first response to the Chaplain (See above). But, the good Chaplain hasn't written back with any further details or questions concerning this matter - - so, I presume we'll never know.

Good to see you, Homey !

IAAL

IAAL,
maybe the Chaplain is praying for those recently departed from this website.

HG

 

[Beth3]

IAAL, looks like I didn't read carefully enough - my fault.

I suspect the Chaplain's better alternative however is to explain to the "powers that be" that they're subject to a fine of minimum $750 for using one's name or picture without permission, as opposed to making a demand for $750 in damages.

The ad agencies my employers have all worked with have always been scrupulous about getting signed releases from employees before using their pictures in any company publications or advertisements. It looks like Chaplain's development group really dropped the ball here.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

IAAL,
maybe the Chaplain is praying for those recently departed from this website.

HG

My response:

Speaking of whom, our dear friend "Advisor" won't be back. Although he was good, I had to cut him loose.

IAAL

 

[HomeGuru]

My response:

Speaking of whom, our dear friend "Advisor" won't be back. Although he was good, I had to cut him loose.

IAAL

**A; I must have missed the ruckus. The latest I know of was Jason the legislator turned wacko who is gone and Vincent Cosent who may be on his way out.

 

[JonT]

I think you are all missing the point. What I am hearing is that 'The Good Chaplain' may be afraid that, since the department responsible for this fiasco is refusing to return his calls, that they may be up to 'no good' and that he may be held responsible for these donations at a later date should they not be accounted for, which, from what I am reading could very well be the case. They have already proven themselves 'untrustworthy' by soliciting these funds in his name w/out his permission.

Chaplain, I think you need to march into that office and find out what is going on. JonT