Comments on: Girl from Check n Go Totally Looks Like Briana from dating site

By: 0xym0ron

0xym0ron — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:05:54 +0000

It’s really funny when you see this girl you wanna [spoiler] and then you go onto a dating site and see she’s there.

By: PJ

PJ — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 01:49:06 +0000

yup shes been there lmao XD

By: anglclaw

anglclaw — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:09:24 +0000

yes its a stock photo.

but both ads proclaim this person to be a real person so it stil belongs here.

By: Marialuvrupe

Marialuvrupe — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:57:27 +0000

LOLZ!
that just a same girl

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:30:57 +0000

its a different picture look at her arms they are posed differently

By: PieratKING

PieratKING — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 06:24:55 +0000

It probably is the same girl. If the model signed a release form that gave the photographer to use the picture for whatever he/she wanted, the photographer could take all the pictures and sell them all over the place to whomever he wants. So ladies and gents remember if you take modeling pictures read the release form otherwise you might just end up in a Herpes medication advertisment

By: Veroncia

Veroncia — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:42:03 +0000

They look alike because they are the same girl!!!!!!

By: Dreolin

Dreolin — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:19:42 +0000

I thought is was kinda funny, because the odds aren’t that great that they would both be used and noticed and posted.

By: Kodi

Kodi — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:47:16 +0000

They r not the same pic her left arms hand is on top of her right arm in the dating pic and not the check and go and also her head is slightly turned in the dating pic. They must of been doing a photo shoot where they take hundreds of pics and only pick a couple.

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:08:19 +0000

true dat!

By: chubbychickie

chubbychickie — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:42:20 +0000

go watch the movie “Crazy People” w/Dudley Moore [1990]

By: jjmblue7

jjmblue7 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:39:52 +0000

Well they do, really. Drink enough alcohol and you really will be convinced the girl is hot and/or attracted to you and that sports are interesting…

By: bookenout

bookenout — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:05:07 +0000

To all of you that liked it: Thanks! Its my first post… Thought it would be funny given the context of how the girl was used in the ads.

To all of you trolls: Your hypothesizes of why I posted and how it got so high on votes is just plain dumb and you reek of jealousy, lol…

By: byowllight

byowllight — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:57:39 +0000

It’s called you shouldn’t use a stock photo when you’re claiming that she’s an actual person.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:14:09 +0000

You guys have all summed up why I feel the way I do.

By: hasabrain

hasabrain — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:23:01 +0000

It’s called stock photography

By: Hoopy Frood

Hoopy Frood — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:18:08 +0000

So does the fact that they submitted only this, but 4 times. And that it was fav’d by 24 users, most within a few moments of each other – about the same amount of time it takes to make a new account – and all of them seem to be “throwaway” accounts.

Hmmm.

By: Hoopy Frood

Hoopy Frood — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:14:31 +0000

I have a friend who models. She does stock-photo shoots, as well. It’s not being “exploited and ripped off,” it’s getting paid to model for photos that will be widely used (and thus get the model more exposure).

By: Hoopy Frood

Hoopy Frood — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:11:42 +0000

But it IS the same model.
“This stock photo totally looks like this stock photo from the same shoot” is just lazy and not very amusing.

By: H3xx

H3xx — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:55:50 +0000

That’s because beer is a good idea!

By: memememe

memememe — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:58:03 +0000

obviously it was the same picture but taken from two parallel dimension where the only difference between the dimensions was her arm placement. Oh, and in one of the dimensions Sparkly vampires were considered cool. But otherwise just the arms.

By: Phoneboy

Phoneboy — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:00:44 +0000

This is the exact same photo. It’s called stock photography. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think it counts as a look-alike if they ARE the same image.

By: Miri

Miri — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:07:56 +0000

Rent the movie “Truth in Advertising”. Do they realize they could sell more stuff if they just told the truth in a catchy way (selling a laxative by saying “tell your pharmacist – I want to poop!”). Yeah – whoever does beer commercials has it dead on.

By: David

David — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:01:50 +0000

All the good ideas in advertising go to the beer companies.

By: metallichyk

metallichyk — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:58:39 +0000

Apparently they don’t even pay her enough to take a picture in a new shirt…

By: jackie31337

jackie31337 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:06:05 +0000

Enough with the stock photos already!

By: Rohvannyn

Rohvannyn — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:49:37 +0000

No, no, this gal was just desperate to get a date, and out of work, so she got a job at the check cashing place and helped out at the dating site too, and was so busy she had to run from one photo shoot to the next, cause she totally didn’t want to waste the good hair!

Right? Right?

*crickets chirping*

By: JT

JT — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:02:56 +0000

If you put these 2 together, is she saying, if you want to ‘date’ me, you are gonna need a cash advance?

By: WarDragon

WarDragon — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:38:53 +0000

*claps* >.> beautiful

By: OrionRed

OrionRed — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:19:15 +0000

Ummm…this woman got paid once, when they took the picture. The stock photo prolly made the cameraman money several more times than this. All fair and legal, but when the woman starts seeing her picture and knows she only got about $75, while her face is being used to make thousands of dollars…it seems unfair.

Neighbor’s daughter had some “portfolio” pictures taken, then six months later, one of them showed up in Allure magazine. One of those short “how to have great skin” articles or something, and there she was. A little different, since she had paid the guy for the pictures, but it was prolly the same contract.

By: sou1shriek

sou1shriek — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:47:24 +0000

i think this says a lot about the person who discovered it….

By: Clues for Hire

Clues for Hire — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:13:29 +0000

Of course it’s a stock photo. What do you think stock photos are? A model goes into a studio or other setting, a photographer takes pictures, the photos are offered for use by pretty much anyone who pays the licensing fee.

This is clearly 1) stock photography 2) the exact same model and 3) the exact same model on the same photo shoot, i.e., these photos are from the same session, or batch.

By: yosh

yosh — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:03:36 +0000

Because she’d be exploited and ripped off.

By: fiaspice

fiaspice — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:50:17 +0000

I’m quite fed up with the stock photos on here these days. It’s just “photo originality fail”

By: wheeeeedoggie

wheeeeedoggie — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:37:35 +0000

So, this model totally looks like herself? This is lame.

By: Ehh...

Ehh... — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:00:06 +0000

When did they ever even HAVE ideas…. other then how to sell cigarettes.

By: Brad

Brad — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:47:32 +0000

…because she might get work and get paid?

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:53:26 +0000

I was blessed with a good looking daughter. This is why I won’t let her do any modeling.

By: Achi

Achi — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:23:22 +0000

In Soviet Russia, sandwich talks to you.

By: GandWuser

GandWuser — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:09:34 +0000

So I can be a talking sandwich in Russia?

By: Dano

Dano — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:42:05 +0000

Yeah, I’m sure that the “membership consultants” never use their real name and surely wouldn’t use their real photo. It’s the interweb, dog, you can be anyone you like!

By: yosh

yosh — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:38:45 +0000

That depends on the way the contract was written and where. Certain states don’t honor other states’ contracts. That would allow a lawsuit to be opened in another state. For the most part, it would hardly be worth it by the time legal costs are thrown in.

By: Blarg

Blarg — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:27:17 +0000

Except that, you know, it ISN’T the same pic. Details, Danielson, details.

By: Blarg

Blarg — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:26:04 +0000

First to say “fail.”

By: rulezdaworld0

rulezdaworld0 — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:38:23 +0000

Ownage

By: Eryn

Eryn — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:56:56 +0000

While this is true, if it was in their contract that she wouldn’t sue for royalties, she couldn’t.

By: Breakdown

Breakdown — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:16:12 +0000

She has been there Indeed…

By: Emma

Emma — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:04:11 +0000

probably stock photo.

By: Izadocktor

Izadocktor — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:38:48 +0000

“I’ve been There”

By: yosh

yosh — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:22:20 +0000

Actually, it’s a smart move business-wise to use stock photos. If they used an employee, that would open them to more lawsuits. If the person was fired, the company could be forced to provide royalties for the use of the photo of that employee.