Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-01-2007, 04:01 PM   #1
Veteran Member
lapeen's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bangor, maine
Posts: 381
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, 04:22 PM   #2
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
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
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
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
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
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.
10-01-2007, 11:46 PM   #6
Igilligan
Guest




A difference between paid and free hosting?

QuoteOriginally posted by lapeen Quote
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, 12:11 AM   #7
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,420
QuoteOriginally posted by Peter Zack Quote
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, 06:08 AM   #9
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,952
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, 08:28 AM   #10
Veteran Member
JCSullivan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Windsor, Canada
Posts: 3,058
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
Veteran Member
jshurak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 627
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
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 103
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, 06:10 PM   #13
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
Virgin Mobile May Not Be At Fault

QuoteOriginally posted by Frogroast Quote
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
10-02-2007, 09:15 PM   #14
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 469
QuoteOriginally posted by stewart_photo Quote
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.
10-02-2007, 09:20 PM   #15
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
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, photo, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:31 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top