A few years ago, when joining Facebook was still as exclusive as pledging a fraternity and Myspace was de rigeur, the profile picture was worth a thousand words.
It said so much about who one believed him- or herself to be, and marked a movement for everyday folks to consider their personal brand in an impersonal world. A profile didn’t have much biographical text or enough space to let members push boundaries, so that picture was key. It was a badge of honor sometimes, and sometimes a mark of authenticity, regardless of whether or not the person it identified matched their advertised persona. Sometimes it can link directly to employment—American Apparel (in)famously requires that all applicants for in-store positions submit photos of themselves, for example.
Once social networks got more open, the reverse was the case. Photos of nights of excess and debauchery are easily tracked and can sink a person professionally as well as personally. Because of privacy settings, that’s all controllable. But what’s beyond your control? Let’s ask Kim Kardashian and Morgan Freeman.
The reality show starlet’s getting litigious this week because she believes a clothes ad features her look-alike suggestively endorsing the brand on her behalf. What do you think? Does she have a point? Does she have a case?