Woman Sues Chipotle for $2.2 Billion for Using Her Photo Without a Release

Woman Sues Chipotle for $2.2 Billion for Using Her Photo Without a Release

A woman whose photo was taken while eating at a Chipotle in 2006 believes she is entitled to $2.2 billion after it was used without her consent.

The full story is pretty straight forward: Leah Caldwell was eating at a Chipotle in 2006 when photographer Steve Adams took a photo of her without her knowledge. As she left the restaurant, Steve asked her to sign a release, but she refused. Later, Chipotle purchased the photograph from Adams, Photoshopped in an alcoholic beverage near her food, and began using the image for advertising.

The reason Caldwell didn't sue back in 2006 was because she didn't notice her image being used until 2014. Since then, she has seen herself on multiple occasions in multiple markets.

This was actually quite convenient for Caldwell, because she is seeking $2,237,633,000, which is the amount of money she claims Chipotle has made between 2006 and 2015. Once Chipotle's 2016 profits are made public, she wants that added to the total as well. Apparently Caldwell believes that a single picture of her is 100% responsible for all of the success of the restaurant.

I don't think there is any doubt that Caldwell should be compensated for this error, but $2.2 billion may be a bit high. Ten thousand dollars and a year's supply of burritos would be more than enough to compensate for the error, don't you think?

As photographers, this should be a reminder that model releases may be more important than you think. An image you took ten years ago might cost you a couple billion dollars. 

[via Fox News]

Lee Morris's picture

Lee Morris is a professional photographer based in Charleston SC, and is the co-owner of Fstoppers.com

Log in or register to post comments

Who company pays you to support chipotle? because you re forget something... mmm.. oh! yes Human rights! she says no! its NO! so .. don't forget ur rigths okay?... and money who cares the amount of money.money its not everything on life i guess ,but some people don't undersntd... cheers!



Human rights man

You better have a model release or you're gonna owe her billions.

If I were her I would have gone after the entire GNP of the United States, around 17 Trillion.

Hold up... is this, above, the woman in question? Oh my...

I am COMPLETELY intending to use this "wat" image for the rest of my life! It just made my day!

Sure the amount is horrendous, and I believe she is working the system as it allows her to. The US legal is quite impressive for that with the "horror" stories from some companies being sued for amazing reasons (dog in microwave, person dying for leaving the driver seat of a camperVan to make himself a coffee whilst on motorway... and so on).

That being said, the photographer didn't get a release, he made a huge mistake, and adding alcohol on the shot was the icing... imagine if that person is a former alcoholic, or whatever.

The photographer could take a serious hit on this one if he delivered images without the model releases and could be forced to cover some of the costs if chippotle have policies in place regarding their photography.

Here is another story :

6 years ago, I was working as a photo editor for a UN organisation. My role was to launch a proper photo library for internal and external use, and cull, edit and deliver images for all the services, and needs of the organisations, ours and any other requiring images. Moreover i had been working on policies for usage rights, model and various releases.

During my final days prior to leaving the company i received a call from a fellow co-worker in an african country. He followed his call with the emails of us being sued for illegal use of a photo.

First thing i had noticed, the campaign had been done 1 year before I had started at this position... at least I could not take the heat for this which was a good point. The issue was the following... The Organisation had purchased stock images from Shutterstock, and had used it for a huge prevention campaign in an african country. Problem ? then person on the photo was found banned from her village, and shamed as people thought she had this disease as she was on the photo. Why was it used ?

The former photo editor didn't have any policy in place, and there was no other control over usage of images before i came in. The releases on stock or any image do not include usage putting the person in a controversial or problematic situation (to make it short).

She was therefore suing the organisation for a huge amount. I sent this to Legal, they dealt with it and as I left the organisation, i didn't get any feedback on this case. But one thing is sure... it is essential to have policies in place, and to be extremely diligent with all the paperwork, including precise use of photos or footage.

This woman has an overblown sense of self worth.

There's no way she just NOW realized she was being used in their advertising.

About the only thing she really has leg to stand on is since they photoshopped in some alcoholic beverage is misappropriation of likeness. And that may extend to the photographer who sold the image, unless he was originally hired by the company to take photos of patrons.

Yet one more frivolous lawsuit to clog up the system.

I wonder if at most she could sue for the money the photographer made off licensing.

This is a tough call.

Chipotle should share some responsibility but at what point is due diligence enough? If the images came from iStock, you'd expect to be protected because they are a large enough organization to have a workflow in place for release forms and can bare that responsibility. However, if they're buying photos from freelance artists, then the company should be requesting the release form.

(What do stock companies do; just assume the photographer has the release form? I doubt they're checking every image with a person in it...)

As Chipotle, or any business, they should either have a copy of the release form or a release the source that the source has the release form and assumes and can assume the liability for that image. At least at that point they can claim fraud from the photographer.

However, IMHO, companies should always have the release form. They should also stop buying images from random people and third parties.They should only use images created specifically for them. The liability is just too great nowadays.

Oh I just mean the photographer could be on the hook for say $8k or whatever his license fee is and then some damages, but then Chipotle could be on the hook for some massive amount because they plastered the image all over the world and made some amount of sales from the ad. I'm not saying the photographer should face the full damages; I bet they would go after everyone. Unfortunately the Photographer is not going to have the legal muscle that Chipotle will have.

There is absolutely no way to prove that Chipotle made ANY revenue from the image.

But it's easy to say that this person unless they are a celebrity didn't entice anyone to patronize the brand.

And that is why these types of things end up dismissed more often than not.

After all she claims she didn't know until almost TEN years later she was a part of a national campaign then it's easy to say no revenue was generated by her likeness.

Deagon you are .wrong. Read difference between editorial and commercial licensing

Well typically for this type of thing the most that has ever been awarded really is $250,000. And those are cases where a photographer takes an image and then sells it to yet a third and unrelated party without a release.

But as the Cameron Diaz case showed, the photographer could do anything he wanted to with the images since he owned copyright. The only thing he COULDN'T do was sell them to a third party.

In this case; if Chipotle hired the photographer (still have to read the article) then they own copyright and since it was shot in a public setting she has no right to privacy and they may very well have every right to use the images as they see fit; making a release just a formality.

This is my thought as well

So what is your self worth or a loved one.. 1 penny, 1 dollar , 1 million ,1 billion ...or can not count?. If a person lose a limb in an accident due to somebody else fault what is the price 100 dollars or a 100 million . Who is anybody to put a price on self esteem or a loved one life (in all sense) .
Do you know if that person did not want to be shown in any photograph made public. The moment she said NO. the photo should have been marked for NOT PUBLIC USE. otherwise pay the consequence.This no difference if a person is naked public beach . I take a photo BUT the person say NO RELEASE but I publish the photo. I pay the consequence. NO difference here

Now, about that part you said that the photo was made in a public place and she has no right to privacy that is totally correct. I they have the right to use the picture but probably without harmful modification in this case relating her to alcohol. But that is just very thin not good for a strong case. But definitely you (in this case her) has a strong value of self esteem and that you can not quantitate

Um... You really have no clue about how copyright law works it seems. But you're right. If she showed resistance the image should have as nothing more than a COURTESY not been used.

That whole self worth argument is an absolute B.S. argument. My self worth could be a Billion dollars but unless I'm actually worth that the court will not recognize that number and has set punitive guidelines they use for factoring damages.

It's not a free for all.

The photographer is obviously in the wrong for not having a release and selling the photo to Chipotle but anyone purchasing a photo for commercial use has a responsibility to make sure they verify info, correct? Does anyone know how something like this normally plays out?

There is no such thing as OBVIOUSLY when dealing with legal matters.

It's the responsibility of the party publishing the photos to be sure they have a release to use the photo the way they are. The photographer would only be at fault if he claimed he had a model release when he didn't.

Aside from the fact that I hesitate to put Fox News among the Ivy League of objective journalism, the quoted sum of two point eff-ing two biillion dollars??
(quick, off the cuff, how many zeroes does a billion have, btw?)
I rest my case....

I'm sure it's been mostly taken down, but does anyone have a link to the photo he shot? I'm really curious of how great this photo of her looked, and why the photographer didn't feel it could've been re-done.

This is ridiculous

What next? Models suing because they did a shoot for a plastic surgery company and now everyone thinks she is vain?

It will never happy i tell you!! Never!!

Why is this Chipotle's fault and not the photographer's? Seems like she chose a shitty lawyer who got her to agree to way too much.

Because they hired the photog and failed to insure he had a signed release, that's why it's their fault.

Sue for billions is probably the easiest way to get millions or hundreds of thousands if it were to be settled. If she sued for 10 000 and they decided to settle it would be a lot less. Is this not the American dream that we always see on tv in other countries :?

Sadly it is. Lawsuits are really out of control in this country.

Agreed, even people not realising how stupid some of them are, the likes of someone wanting to sue Starbucks for millions due to too much ice in their iced coffee or some silly thing. Everyone is trying to make a quick buck and that they don't see how this all started small and became a snowball affect to bring out lawsuits like this one.

She has a case because of the use of her likeness without her authorization, but the price of the legal claim is ridiculous.

This is very odd... selling unstaged, candid scenarios as advertising images. Usually these are fine art street photography or used for editorial purposes. I tried to submitting stuff on 500px but did not have the location release of the Zoo I shot at, so they put it under editorial stock only. No idea how Chipotle got the image, so if they outright hired out photographers to get candid shots and ask for releases, and hope for the best or stock images, no clue, but this is interesting to see how it will develop.

the subway gig is open too. maybe she can apply for that as well ?

Well, you always have to overshoot a little bit to make sure you get what you want...

A little

As a friend has said, it's nice to want things. Depending on how they used the image, I believe that she will settle out of court and for nothing near that $2.2B.

$2.2 Billion is a lot of guacamole. ;-)

I'd take it in trade... as many times as I've eaten Chipotle at BWI.... jeesh. Their guac ads up.

2.2 Billion? I could understand possibly suing for 2.2 million. But this woman is just a gold digger looking for a sugar daddy. Good luck with getting that billion dollars. Chipotle probably can't pay out that money after trying to recover from their food contamination problems.


I really want to see this expensive photo.

Well i think billions are funny but couple of millions is definitely what she deserves. Chipotle is also responsible for distribution of image without permission or at least they have had to double check it before printing. That photographer is just an idiot if he sold the image after being refused and he deserves a big punishment. For those who say it was public place, first you have to read about editorial and commercial licensing . You are not allowed to manipulate an image in anyway if it is editorial especially without permission and use it for commercial purposes. Thats why Chipotle should be sued as well. Adding alcohol in an image? Really? Chipotle management where were you hired and who hired you?)))
I am commercial photographer with 15 years of experience and I never did even a single shot without model release and agreement! Fine is the least photographer deserves!

Wow... no one checks.

She is suing for an amount over $75,000 (because the final amount in unknown). The filing is mentioning that according to Civil Code 3344 she is entitled to amounts from the profits... which is quoted as 2,237,633. She is claiming $750 in actual damages over 3 times (the initial place and the two other restaurants that she saw her photo on their wall in 2014 & 2015) plus all her legal fees, etc.

This is click bait reporting at its best.

Sorry guys, just because the laywers list the full profits of the company because the Civil Code allows them to does NOT mean the person suing is some major money grubbing person looking for a sugar daddy.

She is right!!! And the media is to blame for blowing this way out of proportion and contributing to why the public thinks there are so many frivolousness lawsuits. .

Sounds like a smear campaign that was likely started by Chipolte (though I CANNOT confirm that) to gain favoritism on their side. Like the woman that sued McDonald's over the spilled coffee. She asked for the $60K in medical expenses she incurred from 3rd degree burns that required her to get skin graphs and such. When McD only offer a few hundred dollars that is when she sued (i think, but not in the mode to look it up, for $220,000) for medical expenses and legal expenses and such. Not millions like the media smear campaign McD launch against her told. Every one today still quotes it as a case of people starting crazy lawsuits. Yet the McD case was real. They were selling coffee at temperatures about 50 degrees hotter than most places, and had numerous complaints of scalding. They eventually fixed it and lowered the temp of their coffee. And ruined a woman's reputation in the process. Nice!

Check your facts before you continue the smear campaign for the big companies.

Sorry but you're wrong about the McDonald's case. Coffee is STILL served at those temperatures today that they claimed were dangerous. At Mcdonalds, Starbucks, and all major coffee places. They never changed the temp. Some places are even hotter than 180 degrees. Coffee is... Well... Supposed to be hot. Court cases like the one McDonald's lost are now routinely and repeatedly thrown out of court and are seen as without merit. That she won and McDonald's lost was a historical fluke. Nobody wins those cases even at hotter temperatures. Nobody. And they've tried.

Missed the point completely... Do your research before spreading misinformation.

Lee Morris (sorry) did nothing towards a simple Google search to see if the lawsuit was actually for 2 Billion. And no one else in the comments did. Nor did the first 10 articles about this on Google. However, it took only one extra minute for me to find the link the to court document, that shows she is really suing for $75K (approximately), $2,250 plus legal fees and such, and some amount of profits. And that seems to be in line with what everyone here seems to believe is correct. A decent amount of money. Oh, and the photographer IS names in teh lawsuit as well, so there... he is going to get some blame.

You on the other hand seem to think that there are so many cases like this that are thrown out of court. You are believing what they want you to believe:


* The goals of these attacks on the system are clear: to insulate corporations from lawsuits for their reckless behavior and to strip the rights of injured consumers who would be entitled to compensation.

As for the McD case:


McD refussed to pay her medical bills but for an offer of $800. They were sued before (in 1986) for hot coffee. Christopher Appleton, a McDonald’s quality assurance manager, who testified that “he was aware of this risk . . . and had no plans to turn down the heat.”

* McD even failed to settle in mediation for $225K, or settle the day before the trial began.

* Evidence at trial was simply damning. It was learned that McDonald’s was aware of more than 700 claims brought against it between 1982 and 1992 due to people being burned by its coffee.

* Moreover, McDonald’s had previously spent over $500,000 in settling these prior coffee-burn claims.

* What can be learned from this case? First, the McDonald’s coffee case is not a frivolous lawsuit, as many people believe. In fact, Liebeck had a very strong case against a very unsympathetic corporate defendant.

Go buy a coffee at Starbucks or McDonalds. It's going to be the SAME temperature it was when she got burned - 180 degrees. Nobody has lowered the temperature of coffee. It's an industry standard. She won unfairly and it is seen as a garbage court case decades after the fact. McDonalds was unfairly punished. Hot coffee cases are routine for every coffee roaster and are routinely tossed out of court. Nobody's getting rich off suing Starbucks for making hot coffee.

All I know is that will buy a lot of burrito bowls... I think the photographer should have put a blanket release on the doors that stated in clear language that if you enter the premises you are subject to being photographed. It's a public place, so I'm not sure how the court will react with todays social media world. I snap a pic in Chipotle, I hashtag them, they see it and share it. How do you quantify commercial use in these situations?

Reminds me of something that happened to me in the early 1990s. An alternative magazine called Photo Metro published a gallery of my collaborations I create with my wife. She creates exotic frames around my photos, mostly nudes in my part. i used a simple arts-use-only model release, which the model in one photo had signed. The gallery in the art-based photo mag included many very small images with several different people as models. One of the women in one the photos contacted me and claimed the use was too public and no longer in an art context, and she was offended that about 50% of one nipple showed in the image, and I had ruined her life. She then claimed that publication of this image in a low-circulation underground art publication would be instrumental in launching my career, and as such she should be entitled to 20% of all the money I make for the rest of my life. This brings up the question of the difference between a commercial use and an art use, which seems like a very grey area. As a rule of thumb, I've understood that a person in an environmental scene in a public place who is a small part of the context does not need to be released. Henri Cartier Bresson never had a single release signed. However, if you were creating personal art and you were to focus on a close-up on a single individual, I'm guessing it would be a smart idea to have a release signed, even for art. In the article above, which happened very near me in Colorado, I would have been very careful to obtain and present to the client a release as it is clearly for a commercial use, and I would totally respect the rights of a person who did not want their image used. It might be a case where the photographer lost track of who was who when trying to match releases to the people in the photos. Of course, everything is likely to change soon as the greedy corporate based Trump administration has already threatened to destroy or dampen our ability to copyright images.

More comments