The papers filed on Friday claim that Dita’s face is “a valuable and integral portion of her celebrity persona” and that the company “commercially exploited her image and likeness to their own gain.”
Looking at the cover ( Larger popup version here) I wouldn’t have guessed that was Von Teese, though I’m reasonably familiar with what she looks like. She, or someone who alerted her, must have recognized the image and known she was the source.
I personally think it’sunderstandable for Von Teese to pursue damages if her image was used without her consent for profit, and if a photo agency sells images they don’t have the rights to sell, then, well, ruh roh indeed.
However, you and I and other members of the Bitchery know that Authors Are Not In Control Of Their Cover Images – but does the average person reading E!Online know that? My hope is that O’Shea doesn’t suffer any fallout from ignorant dipshits saying she oughtn’t have used Von Teese’s image. Patti O’Shea likely didn’t have a thing to do with the decision. Will her name and book title in the press under these circumstances be a good thing or a not so good thing? Let’s hope the “any press is good press” adage holds up for her. Good luck, Ms. O’Shea.