27 year old has daddy make legal demands for her - is she spoiled?

perhaps because it'll get the job done faster?
i wouldn't think spoiled in this case at all personally.

For once I can't see a problem with this.
Remove the names and this is what you end up with:

Dad writes a letter to a restaurant asking for them to remove the photo of his daughter that they did not gain permission to display.



Seem perfectly reasonable to me.

bartelby said:

For once I can't see a problem with this.
Remove the names and this is what you end up with:

Dad writes a letter to a restaurant asking for them to remove the photo of his daughter that they did not gain permission to display.



Seem perfectly reasonable to me.

Click to expand...

and lets not forget that its because of her dad that she is 'famous'. i she doesn't really seem to want the fame at all, which is in part why she doesn't want her picture displayed.

Would I send a letter on my letterhead - or make the call, or sic my lawyer on them) if my 29 year old daughter was aggrieved by some establishment?

D*mn straight I would. She's my daughter, forever.

Wow, she's 27 already? Time sure flies...

CanadaRAM said:

Would I send a letter on my letterhead - or make the call, or sic my lawyer on them) if my 29 year old daughter was aggrieved by some establishment?

D*mn straight I would. She's my daughter, forever.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Especially given the circumstances...she, on her own, is not famous except by reason of her parents. One of whom is running for public office. Also, let's not forget that "Dad" in this case is a former president as well as a lawyer himself, so it's not that surprising that she'd want to leverage his name/experience. And again, she's not out there being famous in every other context and is singling out this restaurant; she doesn't want the fame, stays out of the public eye, and so she deflected something that would have generated MORE publicity to her father, who lives in the public eye anyway.

Makes total sense. Does not strike me as spoiled so much as publicity shy and private.

Stampyhead said:

Wow, she's 27 already? Time sure flies...

Click to expand...

and the time has done well for her too....

Why is this even news?

There are many reasons why I can't see a problem with this. The most glaringly obvious one to me being perhaps she's shy?

I know adults who can't talk to checkout workers because of this.

If Bill Clinton was my dad I'd have him sort my affairs out too.

I don't think it's so bad.

iBlue said:

If Bill Clinton was my dad I'd have him sort my affairs out too.

I don't think it's so bad.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I really don't see the problem here.

Hey that's not a bad situation. Take down the photo, and put the letter from Bill in the photo frame, and hand that up on the wall.

fuzzwud said:

Hey that's not a bad situation. Take down the photo, and put the letter from Bill in the photo frame, and hand that up on the wall.

Click to expand...

Probably a great idea.

But "Photo removed at the request of the Clinton legal department" would be funny as well.

nbs2 said:

Just wondering why she can't do this for herself?

Click to expand...

It probably has to do with a reasonable expectation of privacy, which she loses ground on both as a "famous" person and as a person posing for the photo.

ChrisBrightwell said:

It probably has to do with a reasonable expectation of privacy, which she loses ground on both as a "famous" person and as a person posing for the photo.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not sure what she expected when she posed for a photo with the owner(?) of the place.

Counterfit said:

Yeah, I'm not sure what she expected when she posed for a photo with the owner(?) of the place.

Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. If she want the photo removed then the photo should be removed.

The owner of the place should respect her choice!

If my dad is Bill Clinton, and I'm his 27 year old daughter, I'd sort this out myself.

CanadaRAM said:

Would I send a letter on my letterhead - or make the call, or sic my lawyer on them) if my 29 year old daughter was aggrieved by some establishment?

D*mn straight I would. She's my daughter, forever.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. And I WOULD put it on my firm's letterhead......

If it was me, I'd do it myself, but maybe her Dad's lawyer is her lawyer.

The current pres has done similar things for his Daughters. Don't agree with it, but I understand. It is what it is. And besides, maybe it was his idea not hers. Or she asked and they didn't listen to her, as they aren't now.

So could this be just a case of the savvy Selimaj trying to drum up some publicity for his restaurant?

When asked if he was going to comply with the former president's request, Selimaj told CBS 2 HD's Scott Rapoport: "Not at this time. Unless I'm forced. I'm not gonna go to jail ... (laughter)."

Click to expand...

I dont think I'd let Clinton handle ANY of my affairs, legal or not...

So having not clicked the links...everything seems like a normal event...even finding out Bill is doing it doesn't change the picture

nbs2 said:

Except her trying to have it taken down wouldn't affect that.

My problem is that if this had been a certain California socialite, most of us would have expected her to retain her own lawyer. In that case, I would expect the same. Moreover, her father isn't the lawyer - it's her father's office's lawyer. Essentially, it would be the hotel chain's lawyers acting on our socialite's behalf.

Using the office's in-house counsel on behalf of your kid just isn't kosher.

Click to expand...

Except Chelsea doesn't hold herself out as a socialite. She purposely stays under the radar and barely appears unless she is at an event with her parents. Your example includes someone who retains counsel in part because she exposes herself to these situations. That's not the case here, and I think the intense privacy wanted by Chelsea explains a great deal of this...she does not want any of the trappings of fame, including demanding things being taken down.

ChrisBrightwell said:

It probably has to do with a reasonable expectation of privacy, which she loses ground on both as a "famous" person and as a person posing for the photo.

Click to expand...

I don't agree -- she could certainly argue that she is not a celebrity.

Also, if someone takes a snapshot, that's one thing; the presumption is that it is for their personal use. However, commercial use of a person's image requires consent.

If she signed a model release consenting to the commercial use of her image, then the restaurant is in the clear. If not, the restaurant would have to argue that she was in public AND that she is a sufficiently famous person that her image can be used in reporting of news. She could still argue back that the commercial use of the photo implying endorsement is not permissible without consent, and that their commercial use of the photo is not protected by fair use in the production of news, criticism, education or parody. She'd win. IMO