FDNY Firefighter Outraged After His Image is Photoshopped & Used to Push 9/11 Lawsuits
- Posted on March 28, 2011 at 2:44pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
“I was there,” the text next to the picture of NYC firefighter Robert Keiley, who’s holding a picture of World Trade Center ruins, says. There’s only one problem: he wasn’t.
Keiley’s hazel eyes and rugged face are featured in a new ad for the law firm Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, which is trying to increase participants in its class-action lawsuit against the city in the wake of post-9/11 health issues. “I was there,” the ad reads, “and now Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern is there for me.”
But here’s the thing: Keiley didn’t join the FDNY until 2004, three yeas after the attacks. And he’s furious his image popped up in the ad, despite posing for it as part of a modeling side job.
“It’s an insult to the Fire Department. It’s an insult to all the families who lost people that day,” Keiley, 34, who used to be a cop, told the New York Post.
“It makes me look like I’m cashing in on 9/11, saying I was there even though I was never there, and that I’m sick and possibly suing, trying to get a chunk of money,” he added.
But there’s also another problem. In the original photo shoot, Keiley was never holding a picture of the World Trade Center. Rather, he posed with a firefighter’s helmet — the picture was later photoshopped in.
“I had friends who died on 9/11,” Keiley, who’s considering a lawsuit against the firm, told the Post. “How can I look their families in the eye if they see this picture, thinking I’m trying to make money on their [loved ones'] deaths? They‘d probably think I’m a scumbag.”
To be fair, the ad does have some fine print at the bottom: “This is an actor portrayal of a potential Zadroga claimant,” which refers to 9/11 workers who could receive settlement money under the federal James Zadroga Act.
A representative for the ad agency behind the picture said it didn’t do anything wrong.
“He really signed his rights away,” Kim Tracey, an account director at the agency Barker/DZP told the Post. “[The release] allows for use in ads, promotional usage, really anything you want.”
Megyn Kelly debated the topic on her Monday segment of “Kelly’s Court:”
The controversy is reminiscent of another picture that sparked outrage in New York City last month. Then, a pro-life group used a stock image of a young black girl on a billboard that said, “The Most Dangerous Place for an African American is in the Womb.” The ad agency behind the billboard eventually pulled the ad.
What do you think?
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 537 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 466 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 334 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 308 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 316 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 216 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 308 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (53)
1956Danelectro
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 11:27pmNYFD hmmmm wonder where the IAFF is?
Report Post »Oh yeah, helping the commies with SEIU spending the rank and file dues without helping the rank and file. Look for the union label, its a hammer and sickle.
scottclown238
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 7:09pmfalse advertising… like the Obama campaign!!
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 5:34pmobama’s got his filthy vile scumbags thinking they can get away with ANYTHING & EVERYTHING.
God bless the firefighter, esp for coming forward to reveal what they did with his photo.
Report Post »texasfarmer
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 5:12pmYou take the check and sign the release they can do ANYTHING with the image. Unless there are exception in the contact, tough.
Report Post »Now you want all the development, art work, printing, etc to be trashed. Think of all the pollution that wasted effort will cause.
CaptainSpaulding
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 4:38pmWell it’s false advertising….
Report Post »redneck
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 5:01pmIt’s ignorance on the model. I’m confident he failed to negotiate terms as would having an agent. An agent would specify content associated with image. Where as starving actor would take any money without terms.
Report Post »IntegrityFirst
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 4:25pmI work in the design business, and a contract is a contract. He knew exactly what he was signing when he signed it and those types of agreements state that his image can be used however and whenever. If he didn’t like it going in, he should have never signed it.
If this guy wins, this means that at any time any where for any reason, if someone signs a contract that clearly states what your rights are and what your rights are not, then we are all lost as a nation because there won’t be any glue to hold contractual obligations together.
Too bad for him. He may feel bad, but the nature of the agreement doesn‘t stipulate he can’t feel bad later.
Report Post »1956Danelectro
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 11:19pmOk the contract law is definitive, no doubt. I do however doubt this fire fighter read the legalise. Too bad its not a consumer issue because the Consumer Protection Act is the only law that allows someone to “assume”something is different than what it really is. But on the ethical point, this is reprehensible. I won;t argue case law cuz the firefighter has no case. I will say I hope the law firm never catches fire,the response time may be a bit off. For every great lawyer there must be a billion shysters.
Report Post »LittleLordFauntleroy
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 4:06pmHey it could be worse. It could be his image on an Erectile Dysfunction Ad.
Report Post »tiredofprogressives
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 4:06pmAs a jewish lawyer who I used to caddy for when I was 11 years of age would say,,,,
“Sue the Bastards.”
Report Post »MAEBE
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 4:05pmI don’t think he wants money, he just wants his picture taken off the ad…..I hope he gets his wish
Report Post »teddrunk
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:59pmWhat’s the big story here. leftist union firefighter, gets used legally by leftist supporting blood sucking trial lawyers. Let’s not pretend that either party here has any honor or morals.
Report Post »Bob
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 6:02pmWhat makes you think he belongs to the union? Ohhhhhh, he’s in New York City. Got it. Where I‘m from the FD aren’t unionized. Sorry, carry on.
Report Post »JJCon
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:47pmSucks to be that guy. Although, I’d like to know what his intentions were when modeling for that picture in the first place (the expression on his face is what’s damning, not what is in his hands). The ad agency did nothing “wrong” and probably did not know he was a actual firefighter, as opposed to just being a random model, when they selected to use his picture.
The only thing that might get this ad pulled is if a big enough stink is made about it.
Report Post »Steven63
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:45pmHe signed, he posed, he profited.
That says it all.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 4:10pmagree……but what did he spend the money on?
Report Post »marine249
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:32pmHey guys
as to my post a few days ago about lawyers.
Report Post »I did not call them scumbays or any thing like that.
but I gress its alright when the shoe is on the
other foot.
I will take a no reply as an op.
Fina Biscotti
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:58pmMarine –
the legal industry is the BIGGEST racket of all…..!
Report Post »OneofMany
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:32pmI have to agree with @Strife… I think the Advertiser could possibly a slime ball….but when you SELL your photo AND the RIGHTS that go with that image… you have ZERO say in what happens to it next.
If he won, it would open a GIANT can of worms….models would start suing ad agencies for ads they didn’t like or agree with. Uggh….more rediculous law suits.
Report Post »JJCon
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:52pmWorby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern would then use his picture again holding a picture of this ad to promote that class-action lawsuit.
Report Post »Fina Biscotti
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:28pmIn good faith gesture to photographers,
when one of their photographs is used without permission – the penalty – by law – is only set at $500.00 (Five Hundred) dollars.
Photographers need to change this law – bc it was written in 1920 – to protect the rights of photographers – and the monetary value – for unauthorized use – has never been updated since.
That is why large corporations – and ad agencies run amok – fail to credit a photographer – when using one of their photographs without permission – in the hopes their business will not be tracked – and when caught only have to fork up $500.00 – by law.
Any time a photographer is not given credit, these shady dealings are always blamed on the printer.
The existing $500.00 penalty for unauthorized use – does not provide any incentive for “good business”. It promotes the opposite – to not allow a photographer to be involved in negotiating the price for his work/photo/artwork.
Therefore, photographers should change the law to substanitally increase the penalty – for unauthorized use – and to also have a penalty for the failure to credit the photographer.
It should also include artists – any time a photograph is sold of their artwork – that is used to advertise another person’s business.
(Models are in business, too.)
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:24pmWaa……Waaa!
Report Post »taxedenuf
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:22pmIt’s what is wrong with lawyers in general, Politician lawyers in specific, and class action trial lawyer scumbags absolutely. They lie with virtually everything they do. Did you eat breakfast, and now you are eating lunch, ergo breakfast caused lunch. This model promotes tear jerking sympathy, and should be given millions of taxpayer dollars despite him never being there. Pigford farmers anyone.
Report Post »MeteoricLimbo
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:18pmperhaps his contract with the agency would shed light.
Report Post »sickdog
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:13pmOne, I think he has a case soley on the grounds that the ad makes it look like it is quoting him. It’s one thing to use an image that is released, it is another thing to attribute a quote to that person. Also, since the image was altered, I would think that would affect the release agreement, although I’m sure there is enough lawyer-speak for them to get away with it. At the very least, it is poor judgement by the ad company.
Report Post »SteamedinMichigan
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:09pmAs much as I think lawyers are scumbags looking for an easy payday, this guy did sign a modelling contract and did sign away his rights. Sucks – sucks a lot. I don’t blame him for feeling that way but when you dance with the devil, you sometimes get burned.
Report Post »Fina Biscotti
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:09pmThat is the problem with model and ad agencies – the agencies never have to define “terms of use” – and can sell and use the one photograph anyway – and any time – they want.
“One-time use” is the only thing that can be inserted into a contract – but is not enough to protect a model’s image.
Until someone files a lawsuit over it – to create legal parameters around – the model being photographed – such as to inform the model of when a photograph is being sold – to whom – and for what use – a photographer can sell the photograph to an ad agency – who in turn can sell it a number of times – and with modern technology can crop it, photoshop it – to create an entirely different image than what it was originally.
Other people making changes to the initial photograph – to suit their needs – could be the way in which models can begin to maintain control of their image – and the use of their image.
Plus – most of the time – a photographer gets paid – every time the image is used – but NOT the model.
That is another point – in which ALL models should demand/want the same benefit$, too.
Report Post »Ssenkrad
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:06pmWhether or not he has a case is debateable, but he definitely has the right to be mad. The lawyers who put up this ad make it look like Reily is trying to cash in on 9/11, which he definitely isn’t. I think the law firm should just drop the ad and find another way to advertise their services.
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:04pmLike the mosque, this also is a matter of “class” and doing the right thing. Besides, that is false advertising because he was not there. If an actor was used there could be a legitimate disclaimer but the fact that he is a fire fighter, in my un-lawyered opinion, is the wrong thing to do. They should have had the courtesy to ask about using the photo for this advertisement.
Report Post »sooner12
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 2:59pmTHe ad firm was negligent in preparation for the ad. I don’t know if the fireman has a case to sue though.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 4:08pmIf he sold his image without restrictions………TS
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 2:56pmThje ad is a misrepresentation of actual fact. The agency should have gotten permission to use the fireman’s photo.
Odd how misrepresenting something provides fertile soil for mistrust, isn’t it?! Perhaps the ad agency should think about that!
Report Post »Gold Coin & Economic News
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:02pmIt comes from lawyers, what do you expect?
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:03pmThe. My fingers are cold. Sorry.
Report Post »Strife
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:05pmHe signed the release for the picture and got paid for that picture… I don’t really like the Ad, but the guy has no case for a suit and shouldn’t be that upset about it… that’s what happens when you do modeling for ad agencies… you get put in Ads!
Report Post »JRook
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:15pmLiving in the area of NJ where a number of the wealthy Wall Street folks lived, I can tell you nothing was more ignorant or insulting than the widows of Wall Street bankers who felt that they should be compensated at a significantly higher level than the widows of the firemen and police who went into the building to save their family members. They followed that up with an objection that their $5 million insurance policy proceeds should not be considered when they were compensated. Of course the highest paid, most politically connected lawyers just happen to represent the wealthiest beneficiaries. Ah yes but of course this is capitalism at its best, my banker husband is worth more than your heroic fireman who died trying to save him.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:21pmLiving in the area where some of the wealthier Wall St. folks lived I can tell you the more ignorant and insulting activity was the demanding of the wealthy widows that they be compensated at a much larger amount than the widow of the firefighter. And then object when their $5 million insurance settlement was considered when figuring their compensation. Ah yes capitalism at its best…. i deserve more because my banker husband life is worth more than your heroic firefighters who died trying to save him.
Report Post »Svt4Him
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:22pmAn ad is being misleading? Well, I’ll go grab a tylenol because 3 out of 4 doctors recommend it, then wash it down with an explosion of taste when I drink my Rickard’s Red, then go get the sleep I’ve always dreamed of on my #35 dial-a-matress. I’m also selling something that, quite honestly, is the best snake oil in the market, please send me your cheque and I’m quite honest, honestly, trust me…ads don’t lie do they?
Report Post »LAM2
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:29pmI hope the fact that the agency photoshopped the picture in his hand gives him some legal footing in this case. What a surprise — greedy lawfirm using false image while trolling for plaintiffs in order to cash in during the aftermath of an attack on the United States of America.
Report Post »GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:52pmNothing pertaining to that day will be allowed weight for a trial, No official acct will ever be heard as under oath testimony.
Follow the evidence, the LAWS OF PHYSICS don’t lie.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:54pm?He really signed his rights away,” Kim Tracey, an account director at the agency Barker/DZP told the Post. “[The release] allows for use in ads, promotional usage, really anything you want.”
If he signed the release and they put a disclaimer on the bottom of the photo which it states .. then I don’t think he has a case … same as the little girls mother who didn’t like her daughters photo on the abortion ad last month. If you make a big enough “stink” they might stop using it but I don’t think either are due any “damages”.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 3:57pmI thought we authorized a “pile” of money to pay 9/11 responders .. wasn’t that supposed to put an end to these lawsuits? … I feel for the people but how many times are they going to expect to be “paid” .. if I am mistaken then go for it … but I thought they were going to be “taken care of” by the Federal Taxpayers. Sounds like lawyers just looking for a big payday ..
Report Post »redneck
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 4:02pmAnd he’s furious his image popped up in the ad, despite posing for it as part of a modeling side job.
Must of slipped past him when he said Yeah Yeah what ever, I need the money. I’m certain the agency has the right to use the photo in any way they want. Pin a tail on the donkey.
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 4:21pmIt all goes back to Lawyer Speak. This is also the group (Lawyers )that have “Lawyer Speaked” our country to death. Can’t go to the courts ., they are all Lawyers. Can’t go to the Democrats, they are mostly lawyers, Can’t hardly go to the Republicans, they are Probably half Lawyers.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 5:53pmHey red, you forget about the cute little black girl who complained after signing an agreement (I know actually her mother) and they pulled the ad. These guys used a photoshoped picture of a real firefighter (who joined the department after 9/11) and claiming he was there. He has as much right to complain as the little girl’s mother.
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 6:31pmThey did get the fireman’s permission. He signed a waiver and was paid to model. The waiver most likely says they can use the image for whatever purpose, as is standard for advertising models. Without seeing what he sign, can’t say for sure. Still, it sucks.
Report Post »Cemoto78
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 6:45pmElvis has left the building and he took all the common sense with him.
Report Post »joseph Fawcett
Posted on March 29, 2011 at 4:55amThe law has no passion about morals anymore. It once was the Law would up hold what was moral and right. Not today, the law is not allowed to consider morals. It is a shame that this man has to go through this. I think the Law Firm would pull the ad because it makes them look really bad for using this after being made aware of this guys objections. Which are morally right. The ad firm should have done some researched and got someone real to pose for the ad, not an actor in the first place. Why? to give the ad and the reputation of the Law firm credability. Now, the model has to make an issue of it all and now we know the truth, and it does not reflect well on either.
I am glad that this model/firefighter is standing up for what is right. However, my question would be would he be standing up if he hadn’t joined the firefighters?
http://www.josephfawcettart.com western artist – thank you to those who have sent me wonderful emails about m website. Your comments are a great encouragement to me! You don’t know how much! BGB!
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on March 29, 2011 at 8:15amWhen they photoshopped the image they broke the contract he gave them rights to his image holding a fire helmet.
Report Post »