Woman Who Harassed Starbucks Barista Now Wants Half the Money He Raised (nytimes.com) 229
destinyland writes: Amber Lynn Gilles walked into a Starbucks without a mask, later complaining on Facebook about the server who'd asked her to wear one. ("Next time I will wait for cops and bring a medical exemption!") She says she's surprised by the attention "my little review" attracted. A GoFundMe campaign supporting the Starbucks barista who had to deal with her has now raised $105,450.
So she now says she wants at least half of that money, "because they're using me to get it." She complained to the New York Times that "They're using my name, they're using my face, and they're slandering me."
Meanwhile Lenin Gutierrez, the Starbucks barista, is meeting with a financial adviser to discuss the generous donations he's received from all around the world. Though he's still working at Starbucks, with these donations, he tells a local newscast, he'll now be able to go to college and pursue a degree in kinesiology (the scientific study of human movement). But he also plans to donate some of the money to charity. "I can't be grateful enough," he adds, saying he hopes to show back some of the kindness that people have shown to him.
The GoFundMe page supporting him adds, "Thank you CNN and Chris Cuomo for closing out Cuomo Prime Time with Lenin's story and the GoFundMe." And the page also calls attention to what it sees as the larger theme in this incident. "In the words of Chris Cuomo: 'This is not about your freedom. Your freedom to wear, or not wear a mask, ends where it encroaches on somebody else's freedom not to get sick from you. Surrender the me to the we.'"
So she now says she wants at least half of that money, "because they're using me to get it." She complained to the New York Times that "They're using my name, they're using my face, and they're slandering me."
Meanwhile Lenin Gutierrez, the Starbucks barista, is meeting with a financial adviser to discuss the generous donations he's received from all around the world. Though he's still working at Starbucks, with these donations, he tells a local newscast, he'll now be able to go to college and pursue a degree in kinesiology (the scientific study of human movement). But he also plans to donate some of the money to charity. "I can't be grateful enough," he adds, saying he hopes to show back some of the kindness that people have shown to him.
The GoFundMe page supporting him adds, "Thank you CNN and Chris Cuomo for closing out Cuomo Prime Time with Lenin's story and the GoFundMe." And the page also calls attention to what it sees as the larger theme in this incident. "In the words of Chris Cuomo: 'This is not about your freedom. Your freedom to wear, or not wear a mask, ends where it encroaches on somebody else's freedom not to get sick from you. Surrender the me to the we.'"
Worth a shot I guess (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose if you act stupid to begin with it is no stretch at all to act stupid for the prospect of pocketing $50K found money.
I hope she gets slapped down hard though.
Re:Worth a shot I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct response would be to start another GoFundMe.
Re:Worth a shot I guess (Score:5, Informative)
There actually was a GoFundMe from her sister in law trying to raise money to hire a lawyer to help evict her from her mothers house. Didn't really look too deeply into what that was all about but needsless to say theres some massive Jerry Springer level nonsense coming from that womans world. She's a parasite.
Re: (Score:3)
There actually was a GoFundMe from her sister in law trying to raise money to hire a lawyer to help evict her from her mothers house. Didn't really look too deeply into what that was all about but needsless to say theres some massive Jerry Springer level nonsense coming from that womans world. She's a parasite.
Still manages to find an "extra" $8 to buy Starbucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Worth a shot I guess (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like you're afraid to wear a mask.
Re:Worth a shot I guess (Score:4, Funny)
She could use the money to change her name to Karen?
Re:She has a point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m no fan of Karenâ(TM)s of any type.
That being said, money was made off of her likeness without her consent. She could demand it all, there is certainly plenty of precedent for it. She was also publicly humiliated and could well sue for damages for that as well. She certainly has a pretty good legal case to get hold of a chunk of the money.
Re:She has a point. (Score:4, Informative)
Not in the US. She was in a public place, the Truth is a defense for slander here.
You can sue for anything, but she'll lose.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial use includes any undertaking intended for profit, so her claim clearly falls into that realm. Also, there's a difference between reporting a fact and profiting from the use of someones name and likeness. Gilles right of publicity has been infringed by the Gofundme account creator by using her name and likeness to raise money. Giles Facebook post was simply informational. She did not derive any income from it.
It will be interesting to see where this goes if/when it hits the courts.
Re: (Score:3)
Commercial use includes any undertaking intended for profit
Why won't it read?!? Donation are not "Profit".
Get help.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless the recipient is a charitable donation, they're going to pay taxes and the donations most certainly will count as income/profit from a legal standpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m no fan of Karenâ(TM)s of any type.
That being said, money was made off of her likeness without her consent. She could demand it all, there is certainly plenty of precedent for it. She was also publicly humiliated and could well sue for damages for that as well. She certainly has a pretty good legal case to get hold of a chunk of the money.
If you could quote some precedence or provide a link it would really help your case, I just don't see your side.
Re: (Score:2)
"there is certainly plenty of precedent for it."
No there is not. She was in a public space aggressively harrassing people.
This myth that you need someones permission to use peoples "likeness" in a video has. never been true, and Journalism would be impossible if it where. The courts have *never* recognized it, not in America, not in anywhere else.
Re:She has a point. (Score:4, Interesting)
You are referring to a right of publicity in the likeness. So I'll address that first. The right of publicity has no federal statue, so it varies from State to State. In this case we're dealing with California. Here in this State there is a celebrity clause for their right to publicity. I'll skip ahead, she doesn't qualify. So then it devolves into the first amendment tests. I think of the multiple tests that California uses, this would very comfortably fall into the newsworthiness protection. At least, I believe that a lawyer defending the kid would pick this route as it checks a lot of boxes. The biggest is the "public's right to know". That is: It is factual, it happened in a public space, it is newsworthy even if it was newsworthy after the fact, and is it reasonable to expect that maintaining someone's privacy could not happen? (She did post the video herself to Facebook, so that would lend to no expectation of privacy). Again, it's the route that makes the most sense, but that said, it's ultimately up to the those representing them.
As for the publicly humiliated. That's going to be a really hard sell to not be dismissed outright. She's the original source of the video.
She certainly has a pretty good legal case to get hold of a chunk of the money
In some State's perhaps, but California is not going to be kind to her case. It's a much harder bar to overcome if you don't fall into any of the special exceptions outlined in California's laws relating to publicity. Additionally, the State having anti-SLAPP laws will make it that much harder for her lawyer to make it out of the discovery phase successfully without something really solid. Her lawyer could pursue copyright case, but it would have to be with Facebook and not the kid. I think if she really wants some cash, she's going after all the wrong people here. Heck maybe go after GoFundMe, but going after the kid, that's not going get really far, California requires juries in a civil case (which the publicity case would fall into) and the lady would need to convince at least 75% of the jury to award her money, which would be really difficult to do. Especially after watching the video. Like she might be able to convince roughly half on the technicalities, which I don't think they would be able to present a really solid case on, but getting three quarters. I just don't think she'd be able to clear it.
Re: She has a point. (Score:3)
I havent read the article, just the post. So I dont fully underdtand what she did. That said, it sounds like what your suggesting would imply the officer that muerdered george floyd would be entitled to any donations raised because of that to help support the surving family since his name face and likeness were used to obtain said donations...
That doesnt sit well with me...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:She has a point. (Score:4, Insightful)
Iâ(TM)m no fan of Karenâ(TM)s of any type.
That being said, money was made off of her likeness without her consent. She could demand it all, there is certainly plenty of precedent for it.
The barista certainly didn't post her likeness anywhere, she did. Starbucks didn't post her likeness anywhere, she did. No one used her likeness but her. So, who is she going to demand the money from?
She was also publicly humiliated and could well sue for damages for that as well.
Who's she gonna sue? The barista didn't post humiliating videos of her, she did. Starbucks didn't post humiliating videos of her, she did. She did something stupid, then posted it online, so who do you think she's going to sue now?
She certainly has a pretty good legal case to get hold of a chunk of the money.
You certainly are delusional.
Re: (Score:3)
That being said, money was made off of her likeness without her consent.
WRONG. You don't need money to write about a person, and it was the paper that published her picture. It's called "news" and no, they don't have to pay her. NO ONE has to pay her anything.
Newspapers or TV stations aren't required to pay everyone they write about or report on. Hold on to your hat, skippy, because it turns out that it's totally legal to write about someone and make money off their name.
She certainly has a pretty good legal case to get hold of a chunk of the money.
She has no case at all and if she's stupid enough to take it to court, she'll be obliterated.
Re: (Score:3)
That being said, money was made off of her likeness without her consent. She could demand it all, there is certainly plenty of precedent for it. She was also publicly humiliated and could well sue for damages for that as well. She certainly has a pretty good legal case to get hold of a chunk of the money.
Using that logic, the cop that killed George Floyd could demand a cut from all of the various go-fund-me efforts; after all, it is his "performance art" that is being used without compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong about all of that.
Re: She has a point. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Still doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
Despite her actions, it does not negate or remove her right to publicity. You still cannot use her name and image freely for profit.
Horsecrap. It's adorable that you think that's the way it works.
Celebrity rights apply to everyone, it is not selective.
Horsecrap. Do you know why they're called "celebrity" rights? I'll give you one guess. Take your time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that gives you no rights.
You have zero rights over footage other people obtain by pointing a camera at you in a public space..Even if your frigging Kayne West. Journalism would be impossible if that was true.
Re:Still doesn't matter. (Score:5, Informative)
Did you even both to look at the GoFundMe? They didn't use her name, unless her name is "San Diego Karen". The only thing they used is a screenshot of the tweet where SHE used HIS name and likeness (misspelled as it is). She is the one that put her own information out there, as well as his. If anyone's privacy was violated, it was his (though I don't think his was either).
Re: Still doesn't matter. (Score:2)
That's her secret codename when working for the Hooded Claw.
Re: (Score:2)
She used his name and image without permission in an attempt to shame him and feel righteous in her Karen-ness. That just turned out not to be very profitable for her.
Re: (Score:2)
False. If what you're saying is true, Trump has to pay Biden and Obama everytime he says something about him or tweets a video of him? If he were claiming she endorsed him, then maybe .. but it's the literal opposite happening here.
Re: Depends. (Score:2)
So CNN has to pay everyone they ever reported on?
What are you crazy? You seem to have no grasp of how the law works.
Re: (Score:2)
Her tweet, which is publicly available for free, contained nothing copyrightable. It wasn't a creative expression of anything, her zero-value tweet would fails minimum criteria for copyrightability. She would be lucky to get nothing, she might even have to pay court costs for frivolous lawsuits. And that's without even invoking the fair-use statutes.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are using her image and name, they have to pay out.
Horsecrap.
Now please shut up and go soil another part of the internet.
Interesting thought. Not applicable for a few rea (Score:5, Informative)
That's interesting you thought of that. Here is the statute you're thinking of:
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/c... [findlaw.com]
The law says: ...
--
Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent
--
(Cal. Civ. Code  3344(a))
Note they did not use her "name, voice, signature, photograph ...", so she is not entitled to recovery under the law. They merely mentioned an event that she happened to be part of. The other customer standing next to her, looking at her funny, is also not entitled to money just because he was there.
Note also it applies only to " in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases"
This is not on or in products, for the purpose of advertising or selling products. So she's doubly not entitled to squat.
The statue continues:
--
(d)âFor purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required
--
This event is is news. So she's a 3X loser as far as the relevant law.
Re: (Score:2)
Also known as "personality rights", which vary from state to state.
However in this case the person who took the video isn't selling anything; he's fundraising and using the video as documentary evidence. It seems likely to me that First Amendment protections would trump any publicity rights statutes, but this could be an interesting corner case.
wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I was gonna say the same thing, you beat me to it: +1 Quickdraw
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You just can't make this kind of shit up. File under the - if it wasn't true nobody would believe you section....
Can we instead file it under a website that isn't Slashdot?
Re: wow (Score:3)
I think the OMG Pink Ponies tag applies to the article.
Slashdot has done many an article like this since inception.
Reminds me (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe people could stop sucking (Score:5, Insightful)
If everyone stopped doxing and posting videos and crap whining online about the stupidly minor offenses committed upon them by other people then the world would be a better place.
Her Starbucks encounter was not a civil rights violation or a felony. If she didn't want attention (she did), she shouldn't have posted it.
I'm nobody, I'm happy being nobody, I don't exist, I don't want to, I do not call out named people on social media. I feel no pity for those who engage in this behavior and get annoyed with the results of their own actions.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your last two paragraphs, but not with the first.
Sometimes I think a little naming and shaming is both appropriate and deserved. As you said, "I feel no pity for those who engage in this behavior and get annoyed with the results of their own actions."
Me neither, and if they act offensively and get their ass whupped on social media, so be it.
And to be honest, sometimes I see a certain value in it if they do suffer some real-world consequences. Not everyone should be dumped for name-calling, but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want to get too specific here, but I think it's designed for exactly that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
She can't be a cunt, she lacks depth and warmth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought all Starbucks baristas were already college graduates!
They're book publishers and movie/TV producers, that's why all the "writers" hang out there with their laptops.
I think.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Is this a case of someone saying "Stop slandering yourself!" over and over while she keeps doing stupid shit online?
So i attacked a barista (Score:2)
LOL, seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
I burned down this guy's house and a GoFundMe campaign raised more than enough to pay for a new house and so I want the extra money. They even used the news stories about the arson that mentioned my name (!!) so clearly I deserve some money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure but that's my house; like I don't wanna be inconvenienced, I just want to be the 'victim' of a 'tragedy' or 'inequity' so I gets da moneys.
Also, I think you may have profiled and marginalized me by assuming I have a house (even though I do) and the trauma and emotional distress you inflicted on me are unbearable, who's your attorney?
Awesome logic (Score:3)
Scum o the Earth (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GoFundMe...The modern panhandler (Score:2)
I know there are plenty of examples of likely good uses, but in this case I don't see it. He likely wouldn't stand on a corner with a sign explaining what happened, yet he's perfectly fine sitting on his couch and just collecting money for as far as I can tell is no reason at all. It's not about whose side you are on, but I just don't get why he would be given money. And this goes for the majority of gofundme stories that make the press.
Re:GoFundMe...The modern panhandler (Score:5, Informative)
I think your cynicism is a bit misplaced. The barista didn't create the GoFundMe page, and was prepared to just leave the experience behind him. Someone else decided this young man just deserved a nice tip for having to put up with such a complete bitch who abused him for absolutely no reason, and thousands of strangers agreed. It would be beyond bizarre for him to refuse a gift like this, so I don't begrudge him this for a second.
Sure, he didn't do anything all that noteworthy, except for doing his job. It's not about that. I think it's a reflection of the frustration people have with idiots like this abusive woman, not to mention annoyance at people who refuse to wear masks in public for the protection of everyone. I interpret this as a statement of societal condemnation by proxy, all by doing a nice thing for a stranger - the exact opposite of what that women did.
What's hilarious is that, in many people's view, by demanding half of this kid's windfall, she's just confirmed that, yes, she's in fact an extremely selfish and horrible person. She might have just driven up his donations by another $50K.
Re: GoFundMe...The modern panhandler (Score:2)
We're talking about Starbucks, here. That alone makes doing his job most definitely newsworthy.
Stating the Obvious (Score:2)
Expect a law suit soon: Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine Mine!!!!!!!!!
What is this mysterious "medical exemption"... (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, I'm pretty sure that an overdeveloped sense of entitlement is not actually considered a real medical condition, so I'm otherwise at a loss as to what it could be.
Re:What is this mysterious "medical exemption"... (Score:5, Interesting)
They are the same people with fake 'service dogs' that shit on the floor; reciting the magic words from the ADA that you aren't supposed to question disability accommodation.
https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/s... [ada.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
addendum: https://www.ada.gov/covid-19_f... [ada.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Well one example of who can't wear masks I heard was infants, which seems to describe her.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a medical condition* that's not related to the lungs or the respiratory system at all.
* the actual medical term is fucking asshole.
Good luck with that (Score:2)
If you put content out on facebook without getting a written contract from a third party it may be kind of tricky to get money later.
Otherwise facebook would have a problem.
Are you watching the news? (Score:2)
There's some shit going on. YES, if you have a medical exemption, DO bring it.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like anyone that has a medical condition preventing them from wearing a mask would be particularly at risk
Concluded Conversation (Score:2)
This is for Amber (Score:2)
He said he will, for a small fee, have someone inform you about your 2 conditions.
1) you have no suit
2) how fucking stupid you are not to wear a mask.
If Starbucks could bottle this feeling and sell it (Score:2)
...I would definitely start going there. Mmmm, schadenfreude. Better than a triple espresso latte extra hot double sugar with whip.
Degree in kinesiology (Score:2)
That's about 52k (Score:2)
I dunno about the US, but in most countries you could get a hitman for way less than that.
I prefer solutions that have a lasting effect.
Chris Cuomo, really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, Chris, get on that high horse and lecture people about their personal responses to this. Hypocrite. Liar. Typical.
Re: (Score:3)
imagine (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a big Youtube viewer (let alone poster), but I've seen a couple of skitts in my time. There are for instance a couple of variations on the "gold digger rejects poor shmuck/goes for rich ass, then the tables turn" theme - which are amusing and entertaining, but maybe just a little too acted to be real. But hey, Youtubers need the views. Not sure how that works, but presumably there are ways to monetize that.
So I'm thinking, PURELY hypothetical of course, that say I get my pals, uhhhm Leonard and Corinne (not their real names), to do something HUGELY outrageous but believable. Which I happen to film. POTUS, COVID and BLM all three represent motherlodes of issues that get people out of any residual rationality and into full-blown emotional responses. Next, I get the footage publicised to trigger that response, and as a third step I set up some fundraiser in support of Leonard, who played the politically correct (see, you have to know you target market) underdog. And more donations can be gained by going for another round or two. And, as they say, the final step is PROFIT!!! which is split up between the actors and producers.
Now I'm not saying that is what happened here, but it seems like a business plan that should be milked while the going is good.
Don't comment (Score:3)
Re:Don't comment (Score:5, Funny)
"The editors are posting them because people read them "
You must be new here, welcome.
Re: Don't comment (Score:2)
Often found that an improvement on a lot of tech sites.
Re: (Score:2)
So you prefer a site that nobody reads and nobody comments on?
Pro Tip: you can install Apache on your own PC and then refresh http://localhost/ [localhost] [localhost] all day.
Well, I'd say that's a damn sight better than the chyron on CNN, but I only watch that when forced to in an airport lounge or at a friend's house who's mother is a CNN/MSNBC addict. On the other hand, CNN and MSNBC are very useful for monitoring the current insanity - even if you don't believe their chatter they seem to have a finger on the zeitgeist (or perhaps they create that).
Not to go off-topic but does anyone think that the covid epidemic might possibly end that horrible overly-loud incessant chatter
Re: (Score:3)
So you prefer a site that nobody reads and nobody comments on?
We should direct this person to salon.com
Re:Great Tech Story For Nerds (Score:5, Funny)
Matters greatly, too.
Indeed it does. It includes crowd funding, coffee, and psycho-bitches. All we need now is to find out one of them code python and I'll get a stiffy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great Tech Story For Nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
The code for “GoFundMe” was written in Python! Are we excited yet?
(I have no idea if this is true, but it might be).
This story is about the oft disproportionate effects of technical activities, ie the internet and social funding platforms. I see it as relevant.
Also, it’s funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I am greatly entertained by the inclusion of this article, but not the article itself (trashy clickbait) but the comments here are GOLD!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
"Matters greatly, too."
The bitch wins the Unpopularity contest of the planet and she apparently wants more.
It's funny, really.
Re: (Score:3)
Because there's no difference between women being forced to wear a head covering to dull the lusts of uncontrollable men, and basic sanitation during a pandemic, gotcha.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Four big corporate entities that have nothing to do with nerding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: slash (Score:2)
And how has that changed in the last 25+ years?
If I linked to every story that was old by the time it hit fp, I'd have indexed everything but the pink ponies April fools jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
All you people could help out individuals like this Starbucks employee without waiting for an opportunity to make a meaningless statement about yourselves. What if you just helped others out in general? Can you imagine?
Maybe you'd be happier.
I've given $136k to friends in need (and $28k to charities) over the last 15 years. My wife Sue died [tumblr.com] in Jan 2006 and I was still working, making good money. I had more than I needed and they needed more than they had. I'm more reserved now since I got laid off in June 2017 at 54, but am happy when I can help out.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep pressing F1 but nothing's happening!
Re:If only Starbucks would provide for its own pol (Score:4, Insightful)
What kind of idiot are you?
Re: If only Starbucks would provide for its own po (Score:3)
Actually, there is. So long as a policy is non-discriminatory businesses are entitled to impose whatever restrictions they like.
Re:If only Starbucks would provide for its own pol (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever seen a sign that said "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service"? Add No Mask, and tell us why those businesses should provide shirts and shoes.
Sorry, not sorry, but your comment won the internet's dumbest post of the week award.
Re: Karen didn't learn (Score:2)
Six months plus interest. And there's a lot of interest, to judge by the comments.
Re: Disagreeable Customer (Score:2)
The disease is airborne. And in America, tipping is a part of the culture. This is not about disagreeable customers, this is about covid safety violations being countered with a tip jar.