ECHO OF "BEAUTY" COMPETITION.

Shannon News, 27 September 1927, Page 3

ECHO OF "BEAUTY" COMPETITION.

' 'SORRY EVER WENT IN FOR IT.' ' CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. WELLINGTON, Sept. 20. On the ground that the publication of her photograph in a toilet advertisement without her consent had caused her considerable worry and annoyance. Lucy Lanceley, aged 19, a popular entrant in a "beauty" competition last year, claimed £SO damages from a Wellington photographer, S. P. Andrew, Ltd., and an advertising agency. The case came before Mr W G. Biddell, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court vesterday. Mr L. J. Maulo appeared for plaintiff and Mr R. Kennedy for the defendants. - , Mr Maule said that Miss Lanceley had been an entrant for a beauty competition conducted last year, and that arrangements had been made by a firm of hosiery manufacturers to have Messrs Andrew take a photograph for advertising purposes. The question of payment arose, and it was decided that another photograph be taken and given to her. Subsequent to this, Andrew sold a copy, which was used in connection with a perfume advertisement. At no time had the plaintiff consented to the photograph being put to such use, and she had been caused considerable ' trouble and worry as a result. Had she known what was to be done, she would never have given her consent. Messrs Andrew, Ltd., were approached, and the principal said that the photograph had been sold by his photographer, Mr Digby, without his authority, and that something would have to be done about it. The advertising agency, however, said that they had purchased the photograph in good faith, and nothing further could be done so far as they were concerned. Counsel then read correspondence in connection with the claim for damages, one letter, which had been written by a friend of Miss Lanceley assessing the amount at £SOO. "CHEAPENING HERSELF."

In the box. Miss Lanceley gave corroborative evidence. Mr Maule: "Were you caused annoyance as the result of its publication?" —"Yes. My friends said I was cheapening myself." "And did vou have any quarrels as a result?"—"Yes." "Did many people talk to you about it?"—"Yes." To Mr Kennedy, the plaintiff said she had not been paid one penny for the use of the photograph. Mr Kennedy: "You were caused great pain and annoyance?"—"Yes." "You were in a beauty competition, wore you not?"—"Yes." "And your photograph was published throughout New Zealand?" — "Yes." "Did that occasion you any pain or annoyance?"—"Yes (emphatically) 1 was sorry I ever went in for it." "You don'Mike to see yourself •famous? "—"No." "SHOWED TOO MUCH KNEE." Mr Kennedy then drew the plaintiff's attention to the hosiery advertisement for which she consented to pose.

Miss Lanceley said that she received six photographs for this, also two pairs of stockings, a pair of gloves, and £2 10s in money. Mr Kennedy: "Did that photograph occasion you'much worry ?"—" Yes." "I suppose it showed too much knee?"—"Yes."

After it had been explained that this photograph was used for advertising in 'shop windows counsel asked the plaintiff if she supposed that mere men would not see it. Plaintiff: "No. Men don't usually go nosing around windows full of women's underclothing." (Laughter.)

Mr Kennedy: "I suppose you were taken in your "bathing suit for the competition?"—"Yes. That was about a year ago.'' "Then you have altered since then?" —"Yes."

"About the original claim for £SOO did you not think that was a wee bit too much?"—"Yes. But my friend suggested it." "I suppose he had his own way?"— "Yes. Like all of them do." (Laugh'tor.) "I suppose you thought that if you asked for £SOO you might get 500 pence?"—(Smilingly) "Yes." "Do vou ,ever pose as a model?" — "No."'

"I expect you know that the usual fee for a model is half a guinea?"— "Yes."

Clara Barton, with whom the plaintiff was residing at the time the photographs were published, gave corroborative evidence regarding Miss Lancelev's dealing with the firms concerned. This closed the plaintiff's case. In opening the case for the defence Mr Kennedy claimed that Miss Lanceley had been handsomely remunerated. The usnaP fee for posing was 10s 6d, yet she had received about four pounds' worth of photographs, in addition to the gloves, stockings, and £2 10s in cash.

Mr Maule objected that this had nothing to do with the defendants, the remuneration, apart from the photographs, having been received from the hosiery firm. Mr Kennedy: "It is mere talk about hurt feelings when one remembers the way her photographs were bandied about the country during the beauty competition." The photograph had not been taken in the ordinary course of events to the order of a customer in consideration of payment, and its copyright was therefore vested in Andrew, Ltd., who could, if they chose, prepare copies for sale. He quoted authorities in support of his contention. After hearing further evidence his Worship awarded plaintiff £1 damages against each of the defendants and costs.