Email
AMC | ABC
When millions of viewers tune into the hit drama “Mad Men” each week, one of the first faces they see in the show’s iconic, award-winning title sequence is of a top fashion model of the 1950s and 1960s — only for years, she didn’t know it was her image.
Gita Hall, 79, says she had no idea she was part of the iconic title sequence for one of TV’s most popular and lauded shows, which has aired on AMC since 2007.
“I wished they had had the courtesy to get in touch with me,” she told ABC News.
The former model has just filed a law suit with the Los Angeles Superior Court against Lionsgate Entertainment, which distributes the show, claiming her image was ripped off.
“I was surprised because nobody had checked with me about it– they must have thought I was dead,” she said.
Hall’s attorney Kevin Leichter says that the suit has merit because the company would feel the same way about their product. ”If two minutes of ‘Mad Men’ had been taken for commercial purposes, Lionsgate would be throwing thermonuclear bombs,” he said.
Hall, a native of Sweden who appeared in films such as “Wolf Larsen” and the Ernest Hemingway adaptation “The Gun Runners,” says she never gave consent for Lionsgate to use her image.
The lawsuit estimates “Mad Men” has earned more than a billion dollars to date, and calls her image the “center piece” of the show’s opening — the same opening credits that won an Emmy in 2008 for outstanding title design.
The suit also suggests Hall should be compensated for the value of using her image to “evoke recollections of this now distant time.”
“She actually may have a case here, you cannot use someone’s likeness without their permission,” ABC News Legal Analyst Dana Cole said.
Lionsgate told ABC News it has no comment on the lawsuit.
ABC News’ Patrick Doherty contributed to this report.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Unless it is stock photography that has passed into the public domain. Then she has to deal with it.
Posted by: douglas | March 4, 2013, 9:43 am 9:43 am
Ummm…does she have the model release document that proves that was her and the rights involved with the shot? Otherwise, I could say that’s me and I have full rights to the picture. Not sure about the “centerpiece” claim either.
Posted by: D9 | March 4, 2013, 9:46 am 9:46 am
Where’s Gloria Allred when you need her?
Posted by: Bassetwrangler | March 4, 2013, 10:00 am 10:00 am
Anyone else sick of our Sue Happy Society. I sure am.
Posted by: Brave Brick | March 4, 2013, 10:01 am 10:01 am
Only way she has merit is if she owns the rights to the image.. where did they procure the image – did they purchase the rights to use? I would assume so… models generally cant sue for pic images of them since they typically do not own them…. she should be flattered not suing.. geez.
Posted by: NoThankYou | March 4, 2013, 10:05 am 10:05 am
Kinda scary what people THINK they know about the legal system, and happily post it in comment sections to publicly demonstrate how little they know. No, she doesn’t “have to provide a copy of the release” demonstrating she holds the rights. If she could, that would be great, but it’s far more typical that the user has to demonstrate THEY have agreements/releases providing them the right. And a stock image that has lapsed does not mean an identifiable person therein surrenders the rights to their image in perpetuity, and for any use.
Posted by: Alice | March 4, 2013, 10:27 am 10:27 am
…”you cannot use someone’s likeness without their permission”… – I sure don’t see the likeness.
Posted by: You must be kidding | March 4, 2013, 10:53 am 10:53 am
I’ve watched every show and never (consciously) noticed that picture.
Posted by: Stan | March 4, 2013, 10:58 am 10:58 am
I have never noticed it either. All I recall is silouette photography. Most people would thank their lucky stars if they were 79 and, out of the blue, had their likeness portrayed from the time they were in their prime. (I can’t wait to check out where this likeness is at the beginning of the show. (?).
Posted by: barb | March 4, 2013, 11:18 am 11:18 am
I wish the United States was a free country.
Posted by: wtfk | March 4, 2013, 11:33 am 11:33 am
Yeah and I look like George Clooney
Posted by: CH | March 4, 2013, 11:41 am 11:41 am
The real issue is who owns the image that she’s in. It’s very unlikely that she didn’t sign a release back when it was originally made.
Posted by: Tyrone | March 4, 2013, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
i read somewhere else that the photo was taken by a commercial photographer for a revlon advertisement, don’t see how the model could have any rights to the image if that is true
.
Posted by: gb | March 4, 2013, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm
I hope she wins the lawsuit because Hollywood has a bad habit of stealing and not paying people.
Posted by: Nick | March 4, 2013, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
I don’t know for what purpose there are negative comments.
May have a case? This is a case. She is a model, and they used her likeness without permission.
Angry about suing? What would you rather have, have Congress make this into multiple felony counts – like they do with everything else, and then all she has to do is call the police, and everyone can be arrested? WIth statutory damages of 1 billion dollars. Well Congres loves that for copyright cases – because they love big business, and hate the individual. Unfortunately for the individual you can’t get the help of Congress, but – you still have a right to sue.
Suing is how you collect the money when this happens, the preferred method, is the company contacts you and comes to an agreement before hand – in this case, back in 2007.
Stock image that has fallen into public domain? Unless she released her likeness into the public domain, which nobody does – this doesn’t fall into the public domain. Some states are even protecting these images after death – but the problem for the studio is she isn’t dead – period – not dead.
She doesn’t have to dead in one of those states, on account of her still being alive.
Her lawyer may be exaggerating the claim, but their lawyers will minimize it – the judge will have to come to a determination.
Posted by: rollyp | March 4, 2013, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm
“The real issue is who owns the image that she’s in. It’s very unlikely that she didn’t sign a release back when it was originally made.”
It’s her image unless they can come up with a release form with her signature, for this use.
If it was a release for use in magazines and not TV – well its still hers.
This is a guessing game, but my guess is most likely she never signed a release for this use, because nobody thought about it and didn’t know what would happen 50 years later.
Nowadays, you pretty much sign everything away – even things not imagined yet. But back then – nope. They probably didn’t think of it.
Posted by: rollyp | March 4, 2013, 12:46 pm 12:46 pm
It will all come down to ownership of the photograph. If her contract at the time left ownership with either the photographer or the ad agency employing her and the photographer, she’s out of luck.
Posted by: Bob | March 4, 2013, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm
Good for you Gita. Mad Men takes another tumble. We need more Gita’s in our midst, strong minded elderly who are not to be trifled with.
Posted by: Angelgroove | March 4, 2013, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm
Obvious gold digger….
Posted by: Bruce | March 4, 2013, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm
As long as she can prove that has has the exclusive ownership rights of the photo she is ok. I highly doubt she has that. Considering the day and age when the photo was taken, she was likely paid for her time and that is all.
Posted by: ihatepeople | March 4, 2013, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm
If she sold all rights, she can forget it. But perhaps television rights, cable use, did not apply when she took that shot. I’m a writer and sometimes I sign away all rights, but mostly first north American rights. In the early 1990s I wrote a piece for a national publication that later used it on its website when online hit big. They had to pay me for the electronic rights (which had just been established).
Posted by: Missy | March 4, 2013, 3:09 pm 3:09 pm
Has it been established as fact that the image is of Gita Hall? I always thought it was Suzy Parker.
Posted by: Carys | March 4, 2013, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm
Sad thing about women who made a living off their looks, they don’t know how to age gracefully. End up looking like monsters with all the plastic surgery, heavy makeup.
Posted by: Missy | March 4, 2013, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
ALICE: Actually, you’re wrong. The defendant, Mad Men, is accused of using this lady’s picture w/out compensation. Like all lawsuits, it is up to the plaintiff to show proof that the photo is of her, that she has rights to its use and/or she did not receive proper compensation. If neither her or anyone else can show legal rights to the photo, Mad Men is within their rights to use the photo as public domain. Simply stating that it’s you in a photo that you were compensated for at the time as a model and whose rights were thus owned by the photographer and/or agency who paid for the shot, entitles you to nothing.
Posted by: D9 | March 4, 2013, 5:06 pm 5:06 pm
I doubt very much she own the rights to that photo. Now if the agency she had posed for sued it would be different. I’d be very surprised if she wins this case.
Posted by: Dartmouth | March 4, 2013, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm
Well, another Weiner makes the news…
Posted by: JLS1950 | March 4, 2013, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
The purpose of the law suit isn’t to go in front of a judge. Very few cases that are filed ever go before a judge and jury. They’re usually either dismissed or settled out of court, and they get settled out of court because litigation is expensive.
Posted by: Kerri | March 4, 2013, 9:17 pm 9:17 pm
And, WOW, time has not been her friend. At all. Just sayin’
Posted by: Kerri | March 4, 2013, 9:18 pm 9:18 pm
Dear Gita,
You are so beautiful you deserve to be compensated for your Richard Avedon picture used in “Mad Men” opening credits. Your photo makes the credits. You will always be a big inspiration to us all!! We look up to actresses/models like yourself and respect the fact that you have worked so hard to get to where you are in life. You have made a name for yourself and paved the way for the younger generation. You are a true ICON from the 50′s and 60′s era. We are your biggest fans!!! We love you!!! Go Gita Go!!!
Posted by: NikkiMink | March 5, 2013, 7:07 am 7:07 am