Dan Howell wrote:
You seem to be an authority on the subject, so why don't you post case law or examples of publications being held liable for content in advertisements that they didn't produce in-house.
I guess if you follow that logic, if the ad was on a billboard, you would sue Gannett-Outdoor who put up and rented the billboard and the farmer who rented Gannett the land.
First off, I said that SI chose to print the ad. That's the sentence you're arguing with. Which is ridiculous, because the ad appeared in SI ... thus, they chose to print it. If you want to argue who, why, or whether or not they were paying attention, that's fine ... but unless another company is FORCING SI to print their magazine without showing them a mock-up, then you have nothing to argue. SI signed off.
More importantly, SI signed off on an advertisement using an image that was made by one of their employees. If you really want your analogy to make sense, it would be as if the operations manager of the billboard company signed off on the billboard even though he knew the photo belonged to one of his employees.
AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
if the images appeared in SI pages then it is entirely the right party. not dumb. its their mag. They are responsible for every bit of content. Its not like something they have no control over. They have hold-harmless clauses for just this.
David M Russell wrote:
Nope. You think every magazine verifies the clearance of every image that appears in every ad? No, they don't. That's the ad agency's job.
Who works for or with SI, depending on their contract. In this case SI is the "parent company." Maybe it's not SI's fault legally, I don't know what their paperwork says. I do know that since they "contract" the ad agency, you start buy suing SI, you win or lose the case, and the fine may or may not come from the ad agency.
Since we're on analogies, it's a bit like a malpractice suit. Some doctors in some hospitals are employed as 'independent contractors.' If you're wrongfully treated, and you chose to sue the hospital (which is the "parent company"), the fine is likely to come at least partially from the doctor's malpractice insurance, and not the hospital's. But you still sue the hospital, because that's where you went, and that's the doctor's boss.
This is why doctors have their own malpractice insurance. This is also why ad agencies have lawyers. But you can still sue the parent company, since they signed off on everything. It may get deferred, but you can start there.
EDIT: I'm an idiot ... Masck was not an SI employee when the photo first ran. The article claims it was sold, but not by SI - clearly I need to get my eyes checked.
That said, I still stand by my main statement that the presence of a waiver indicates that SI knows that they appear to be the guilty party, and the proper lawsuit target.