If it's on Flickr... anyone can use it for anything!

lapeen · 10-01-2007, 04:01 PM

Virgin Mobile uses Flickr photo for ad campaign

I assume this applies to any free photo site... yikes.

Peter Zack · 10-01-2007, 04:22 PM

Well I guess I'm gonna put a signature on all my shots from now on. Of course that's assuming that anyone would want anything I shot Lol. I new that this stuff could be copied even from this site but assumed that it wasn't public property and the resolution was so poor that it wouldn't be good enough for a billboard. Guess if you put it out for others to view then it's fair game for all. Sucks. Thanks for the heads up!

carpents · 10-01-2007, 05:03 PM

You can bet every penny that all those images on the Pentax site are going in to advertisements, too.

I don't like Flickr anyway, looks like I'll have to stay away from both. Thanks for the heads up.

Peter Zack · 10-01-2007, 05:36 PM

Carpents, I'd assume that Pentax would ask permission from the photographer since we are their customers. Plus they are using some sort of encryption in the flash player so right clicking the photo doesn't allow a copy function (unlike most sites). Of course some computer genius could probably get around that. But I'll keep trying to get some shots accepted (1 out of 5 so far).

betsypdx · 10-01-2007, 10:03 PM

Looks like the photographer offered up the rights to use his images through creative commons licensing - and was credited with his flickr url on the ad. The "model" however, did not. I would assume that they wouldn't use images that are marked "all rights reserved", but, who knows.

Igilligan · 10-01-2007, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by lapeen

Virgin Mobile uses Flickr photo for ad campaign

I assume this applies to any free photo site... yikes.

Thanks for posting this Colleen... There were rumblings of copyright issues with songs posted on myspace by bands, and youtube video ownership issues as well. But this is a very interesting case. If it is a picture of cup of tea, well that may be one thing. But an underage girl's image being used in an ad without consent... really pushing the fair use issue IMHO.

I wonder if it is a paid account on a photo hosting site if there is a different level of protection of our online images? Anyone know if there is a difference between the paid hosting and free?

Go ahead Hobby Lobby or Michael's... use this, I dare you!

George Lama · 10-02-2007, 12:11 AM

It's very irresponsible for Virgin Mobile Australia to use a photo with a model, acquired from a website, with a minor as a subject, and use it without consent! I seriously doubt they received a model release, and if the photog granted it, then he will get sued next.

Regardless, it's very irresponsible of Virgin to ignore what sounds like repeated cease and desist requests from the family, then from an attorney, to get them to stop using the photo.

They will likely settle and the teen will get a college scholarship out of it and someone at Aussie Virgin, probably a lowly advertising/marketing intern, will get the blame.

And I want to know, Like Peter Z asked... how did they get a crappy flicker photo to blow up to well over 30"x50" and is the software available for purchase?

carpents · 10-02-2007, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

Carpents, I'd assume that Pentax would ask permission from the photographer since we are their customers. Plus they are using some sort of encryption in the flash player so right clicking the photo doesn't allow a copy function (unlike most sites). Of course some computer genius could probably get around that. But I'll keep trying to get some shots accepted (1 out of 5 so far).

Nope! If you read your agreement for submitting photos, Pentax has the right to use all images for their own purposes.

(The computer genius could do a 'print screen'...)

Mike Cash · 10-02-2007, 06:08 AM

JCSullivan · 10-02-2007, 08:28 AM

Yup, the Print-screen should work just fine.

I've never, as far as I know been that lucky to have anything of mine stolen or borrowed

If any one wants to, all they have to do is send an email.

On the other hand, the reason why I don't enter competitions is that I don't want to forego any rights to big companies including but not limited to Pentax, should I be so lucky.

jshurak · 10-02-2007, 11:58 AM

uugg that's awful. I don't know what's worse. All the legal concerns or the fact that the campaign is using the model in a derogatory fashion.

JahJahwarrior · 10-02-2007, 01:12 PM

What I don't understand is why Virgin couldn't take a similar picture themselves. That's not a particularly good shot, no special lighting or technique seems to have been used....just hire a model, get to to stand in front of a wall and give the peace sign with her mouth open. Snap a shot with a PnS digicam and bam, no problems. Hiring a model shouldn't be THAT expensive.

Heck, I can get a friend to pose like that, sign a model release, then I'll sell the picture to Virgin.

If you are going to steal an image, couldn't you atleast steal one that's remarkable for some reason? Or am I missing something that makes this an incredible shot? (I didn't watch the entire thing, I just wanted to see the picture)

As to who owns it, whomever took the picture owns the picture and no one should use it without his consent, and the person inthe picture might need to have signed a release. I get confused with all of the rules about it, because it seems like they are in a public place, so there wasn't an "Expectation of privacy," but I still think it's proper to get a signed release. There's no question in my mind that Virgin needs to cough up some money to the photographer and to the person in the image.

stewart_photo · 10-02-2007, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Frogroast

It's very irresponsible for Virgin Mobile Australia to use a photo with a model, acquired from a website, with a minor as a subject, and use it without consent! (snip)

Actually, Virgin Mobile did have consent to use the photograph of 16-year-old Alison Chang flashing a peace sign. The photographer, Alison's youth counselor identified only as "chewywong" on the Flickr website, posted the image under a Creative Commons Attribution license (a licensing option at Flickr) which basically allows absolutely anyone to use the image for non-commercial or commercial purposes with only attribution required (Virgin Mobile did properly attribute). As such, I don't think Alison Chang has a leg to stand on when it comes to a lawsuit against Virgin Mobile. The company is clearly going to argue the photographer is the one solely at fault for not obtaining a model release prior to releasing the image (to them and everyone else) for commercial use, and a judge in a lawsuit would likely agree fully with that argument.

stewart

raz-0 · 10-02-2007, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by stewart_photo

Actually, Virgin Mobile did have consent to use the photograph of 16-year-old Alison Chang flashing a peace sign. The photographer, Alison's youth counselor identified only as "chewywong" on the Flickr website, posted the image under a Creative Commons Attribution license (a licensing option at Flickr) which basically allows absolutely anyone to use the image for non-commercial or commercial purposes with only attribution required (Virgin Mobile did properly attribute). As such, I don't think Alison Chang has a leg to stand on when it comes to a lawsuit against Virgin Mobile. The company is clearly going to argue the photographer is the one solely at fault for not obtaining a model release prior to releasing the image (to them and everyone else) for commercial use, and a judge in a lawsuit would likely agree fully with that argument.

stewart

Expecting all releases to be signed for stock photography is standard. However, for other types of photos, it is common practice for the end publisher to ensure that all model releases are on file. Flikr cetainly is not a stock photo site, so assuming even something with a creative commons license or something else releasing it for anyone's use is the same as having a model release would be kind of short sighted. They might still have liability as obtaining copies of model releases for their records might be considered due dilligence. But then again it's Australia, so who knows.

George Lama · 10-02-2007, 09:20 PM

Stewart, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the legal leg that Virgin is standing on in this situation. In my original comment I failed to mention "her consent" wasn't obtained. The counselor is certainly liable for releasing this photo without consent/model release, etc.

But in this situation, Virgin was, in my opinion still very irresponsible. It's like a world class photographer buying equipment from the back of a guy's truck (and for a major corporation to be shopping for images at Flicker, it might as well be the back of a truck), only to then find out that it's someone's stolen property... It's not like they were purchasing it from a reputable stock photo shop. I mean, seriously, they could have gone to Istockphoto and obtained images for under 10 dollars.

Although Virgin can claim it was sold to them legally and it's the vendor's fault for selling an image without release, it still doesn't look good on them.

Otherwise, sue the counselor for his bank account! lol

10-01-2007, 04:01 PM	#1
lapeen Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: bangor, maine Posts: 380	If it's on Flickr... anyone can use it for anything! Virgin Mobile uses Flickr photo for ad campaign I assume this applies to any free photo site... yikes.

10-01-2007, 11:46 PM	#6
Igilligan Guest	A difference between paid and free hosting? Originally posted by lapeen Virgin Mobile uses Flickr photo for ad campaign I assume this applies to any free photo site... yikes. Thanks for posting this Colleen... There were rumblings of copyright issues with songs posted on myspace by bands, and youtube video ownership issues as well. But this is a very interesting case. If it is a picture of cup of tea, well that may be one thing. But an underage girl's image being used in an ad without consent... really pushing the fair use issue IMHO. I wonder if it is a paid account on a photo hosting site if there is a different level of protection of our online images? Anyone know if there is a difference between the paid hosting and free? Go ahead Hobby Lobby or Michael's... use this, I dare you!

10-02-2007, 06:08 AM	#9
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	On flickr I just set "All Rights Reserved" on my photos. It won't stop people from stealing them (I've had it happen before).

10-02-2007, 06:10 PM	#13
stewart_photo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Heidelberg, Germany Posts: 1,864	Virgin Mobile May Not Be At Fault Originally posted by Frogroast It's very irresponsible for Virgin Mobile Australia to use a photo with a model, acquired from a website, with a minor as a subject, and use it without consent! (snip) Actually, Virgin Mobile did have consent to use the photograph of 16-year-old Alison Chang flashing a peace sign. The photographer, Alison's youth counselor identified only as "chewywong" on the Flickr website, posted the image under a Creative Commons Attribution license (a licensing option at Flickr) which basically allows absolutely anyone to use the image for non-commercial or commercial purposes with only attribution required (Virgin Mobile did properly attribute). As such, I don't think Alison Chang has a leg to stand on when it comes to a lawsuit against Virgin Mobile. The company is clearly going to argue the photographer is the one solely at fault for not obtaining a model release prior to releasing the image (to them and everyone else) for commercial use, and a judge in a lawsuit would likely agree fully with that argument. stewart

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
My Flickr	Danny Delcambre	General Talk	1	06-01-2010 04:09 PM
Flickr - Is it useful?	Hali	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	15	01-09-2010 04:35 AM
do you have a flickr?	MJB DIGITAL	General Talk	43	05-28-2009 09:54 PM
Flickr	dima	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	14	02-22-2009 02:09 AM
Trying flickr	axl	Post Your Photos!	12	09-30-2008 04:51 AM

10-01-2007, 04:22 PM	#2
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Well I guess I'm gonna put a signature on all my shots from now on. Of course that's assuming that anyone would want anything I shot Lol. I new that this stuff could be copied even from this site but assumed that it wasn't public property and the resolution was so poor that it wouldn't be good enough for a billboard. Guess if you put it out for others to view then it's fair game for all. Sucks. Thanks for the heads up!

10-01-2007, 05:03 PM	#3
carpents Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: West Chester, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,420	You can bet every penny that all those images on the Pentax site are going in to advertisements, too. I don't like Flickr anyway, looks like I'll have to stay away from both. Thanks for the heads up.

10-01-2007, 05:36 PM	#4
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Carpents, I'd assume that Pentax would ask permission from the photographer since we are their customers. Plus they are using some sort of encryption in the flash player so right clicking the photo doesn't allow a copy function (unlike most sites). Of course some computer genius could probably get around that. But I'll keep trying to get some shots accepted (1 out of 5 so far).

10-01-2007, 10:03 PM	#5
betsypdx Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Portland, Oregon Photos: Gallery Posts: 475	Looks like the photographer offered up the rights to use his images through creative commons licensing - and was credited with his flickr url on the ad. The "model" however, did not. I would assume that they wouldn't use images that are marked "all rights reserved", but, who knows.

10-02-2007, 12:11 AM	#7
George Lama Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Buffalo/Rochester, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,133	It's very irresponsible for Virgin Mobile Australia to use a photo with a model, acquired from a website, with a minor as a subject, and use it without consent! I seriously doubt they received a model release, and if the photog granted it, then he will get sued next. Regardless, it's very irresponsible of Virgin to ignore what sounds like repeated cease and desist requests from the family, then from an attorney, to get them to stop using the photo. They will likely settle and the teen will get a college scholarship out of it and someone at Aussie Virgin, probably a lowly advertising/marketing intern, will get the blame. And I want to know, Like Peter Z asked... how did they get a crappy flicker photo to blow up to well over 30"x50" and is the software available for purchase?

10-02-2007, 04:48 AM	#8
carpents Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: West Chester, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,420	Originally posted by Peter Zack Carpents, I'd assume that Pentax would ask permission from the photographer since we are their customers. Plus they are using some sort of encryption in the flash player so right clicking the photo doesn't allow a copy function (unlike most sites). Of course some computer genius could probably get around that. But I'll keep trying to get some shots accepted (1 out of 5 so far). Nope! If you read your agreement for submitting photos, Pentax has the right to use all images for their own purposes. (The computer genius could do a 'print screen'...)

10-02-2007, 08:28 AM	#10
JCSullivan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Windsor, Canada Posts: 3,056	Yup, the Print-screen should work just fine. I've never, as far as I know been that lucky to have anything of mine stolen or borrowed If any one wants to, all they have to do is send an email. On the other hand, the reason why I don't enter competitions is that I don't want to forego any rights to big companies including but not limited to Pentax, should I be so lucky.

10-02-2007, 11:58 AM	#11
jshurak Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: philadelphia Posts: 626	uugg that's awful. I don't know what's worse. All the legal concerns or the fact that the campaign is using the model in a derogatory fashion.

10-02-2007, 01:12 PM	#12
JahJahwarrior Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Gainesville, Fl Posts: 102	What I don't understand is why Virgin couldn't take a similar picture themselves. That's not a particularly good shot, no special lighting or technique seems to have been used....just hire a model, get to to stand in front of a wall and give the peace sign with her mouth open. Snap a shot with a PnS digicam and bam, no problems. Hiring a model shouldn't be THAT expensive. Heck, I can get a friend to pose like that, sign a model release, then I'll sell the picture to Virgin. If you are going to steal an image, couldn't you atleast steal one that's remarkable for some reason? Or am I missing something that makes this an incredible shot? (I didn't watch the entire thing, I just wanted to see the picture) As to who owns it, whomever took the picture owns the picture and no one should use it without his consent, and the person inthe picture might need to have signed a release. I get confused with all of the rules about it, because it seems like they are in a public place, so there wasn't an "Expectation of privacy," but I still think it's proper to get a signed release. There's no question in my mind that Virgin needs to cough up some money to the photographer and to the person in the image.

10-02-2007, 09:15 PM	#14
raz-0 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Central NJ Posts: 470	Originally posted by stewart_photo Actually, Virgin Mobile did have consent to use the photograph of 16-year-old Alison Chang flashing a peace sign. The photographer, Alison's youth counselor identified only as "chewywong" on the Flickr website, posted the image under a Creative Commons Attribution license (a licensing option at Flickr) which basically allows absolutely anyone to use the image for non-commercial or commercial purposes with only attribution required (Virgin Mobile did properly attribute). As such, I don't think Alison Chang has a leg to stand on when it comes to a lawsuit against Virgin Mobile. The company is clearly going to argue the photographer is the one solely at fault for not obtaining a model release prior to releasing the image (to them and everyone else) for commercial use, and a judge in a lawsuit would likely agree fully with that argument. stewart Expecting all releases to be signed for stock photography is standard. However, for other types of photos, it is common practice for the end publisher to ensure that all model releases are on file. Flikr cetainly is not a stock photo site, so assuming even something with a creative commons license or something else releasing it for anyone's use is the same as having a model release would be kind of short sighted. They might still have liability as obtaining copies of model releases for their records might be considered due dilligence. But then again it's Australia, so who knows.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-02-2007, 09:20 PM	#15
George Lama Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Buffalo/Rochester, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,133	Stewart, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the legal leg that Virgin is standing on in this situation. In my original comment I failed to mention "her consent" wasn't obtained. The counselor is certainly liable for releasing this photo without consent/model release, etc. But in this situation, Virgin was, in my opinion still very irresponsible. It's like a world class photographer buying equipment from the back of a guy's truck (and for a major corporation to be shopping for images at Flicker, it might as well be the back of a truck), only to then find out that it's someone's stolen property... It's not like they were purchasing it from a reputable stock photo shop. I mean, seriously, they could have gone to Istockphoto and obtained images for under 10 dollars. Although Virgin can claim it was sold to them legally and it's the vendor's fault for selling an image without release, it still doesn't look good on them. Otherwise, sue the counselor for his bank account! lol