Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Forum Moderators: not2easy
Anyway, the long and short of it is someone else (an adult) posted an image of this 16 year old girl on Flickr. Virgin Mobile (AU) used it in an ad campaign and claim that it was their right to since the pic was posted under Creative Commons.
Now, anytime I have had to deal with images of people on a professional level, I was always told you had to have a model's release form signed before you could use a person's face commercially. Is this wrong?
I was always told you had to have a model's release form signed before you could use a person's face commercially. Is this wrong?
I thought so as well... but I have never tried releasing a photo spread under a creative commons license before.
Also... was she a paid model? And if so what did she sign as part of her contract? If she isn't a paid model then is a signature required?
What I don't know is how the internet has changed that aspect of the law. Flikr and others might create a legal grey area.
The details and strengths of privacy/copyright/etc laws vary from place to place, but the courtesy and transparency of doing it right remain important.
PS. In many places, eg the UK as I understand it, there are no particular protections for individuals in public places, but it would still be at the very least rude to pick a face from the crowd for (say) a poster on child molestation or fraud or whatever.
[edited by: DamonHD at 8:18 pm (utc) on Sep. 24, 2007]
[edited by: RandomDot at 8:53 pm (utc) on Sep. 24, 2007]
The problem is the creative commons license which it was submitted under.
I can't imagine how a company as big as Virgin Mobile screwed-up so badly.
That isn't the only problem. There are three:
(1) They didn't follow the terms of the license
(2) They apparently didn't verify that it was even licensed under Creative Commons. They simply accepted the licensing information posted on Flickr. But anybody could have uploaded the picture and they could have gotten it from anywhere. The person uploading the picture may or may not have had rights to the picture in the first place.
(3) They didn't have a model release from the persons in the picture. This is quite separate from the copyright issue.
The picture is a full shot of the girl facing the camera. There is no one else in the image as it was used, though the original image had one other girl in it.
To tell the truth, It is a pretty poor picture to be using in a professional campaign. The cropped out the other girl in the pic but left her elbow in it. I was thinking when I saw the ad that they should at least have cloned out the elbow.
The picture was taken by her youth counsellor. It was uploaded by her cousin (not her and not the photographer) to Flickr using the creative commons attribution license. But they are not suing the party that is the most responsible for the issues here - her cousin - who had no right to post the picure under ANY permissive license.
Virgin Mobile Australia was foolish to base an ad campaign around a picture on flickr, but I can't imagine the family getting very far without naming the party that released the pictures without permission.
Virgin Mobile Australia was foolish to base an ad campaign around a picture on flickr...
Looks like this is only one image in a whole series of ads using Flickr images. Do a search on Flickr for "virgin mobile australia". There are a number of people shocked to see images they've uploaded being used by a major company without paying them. Welcome to the wonderful world of web 2.0 ;)
In this case the people most at fault are 1) the one who uploaded someone elses picture and 2) Virgin for using it in such a high profile way without checking.
At least, that's my layman's interpretation of it.