Virgin/flicker VS 16 year old privacy.

Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
627
Location
so cal
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Hmm that thread is about two kids sending pictures of one another? This is about Virgin Mobil using a photo of a person in an advertisement, without model release, ect, am I missing something?
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
35,255
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
Robert, this has already been discussed here :wink:
That's a completely different issue Julien, involving different people and different circumstances, and Filckr's mis-appropriation of them. This thread is about ownership of one's own pictures. That other thread is about over-zealous prosecution of minors for being human.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
7,873
Location
Paris, France
Wow I'm soo sorry about that, I don't know where my mind was :redface: Probably the fact that I had read both already on flickr and it was early in the morning here.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
13,855
Location
Massachusetts
I know the thread was opened here, b/c I read about it here.....but I don't remember the name of it, and I don't think there was a ton of discussion.

As I read it, the person with the Flickr account clicked some box that said the photos could be used by others for other purposes. Pretty stupid in my opinion.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
13,855
Location
Massachusetts
So if I post a photo here at the Cafe anyone can do what they want with the photo because of fair use policy?
Huh???? Where did you get that from? :confused:

I don't like Flickr, most of what's there is way too young for me. I haven't read through their agreements, but what was stated in the article is that the photographer (who posted the pics on Flickr) clicked some box in his Flickr agreement allowing others free use of his pictures. In my opinion, this was entirely stupid.

If you post pictures here, and retain the rights to them (via your hosted site), they are yours and should not be used by others.

That said, anyone who GENUINELY thinks that their work (once posted ANYWHERE on the internet) has not been copied/stolen is a bit naive. In order to pursue a legal case, you usually need to be able to prove damages/loss (or an attorney is not going to waste their time).

Once you put something on the internet, consider it public domain. I'm fully aware of copyright laws, but I'm also fully aware that many people today have very few personal ethics/morals.
 
B

bene

Guest
On flickr the default license is "all rights reserved", which can be changed to creative commons if you like. But "all rights reserved" in no way allows a picture to be used for commercial purposes, am I not mistaken?

Cheers
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
13,855
Location
Massachusetts
On flickr the default license is "all rights reserved", which can be changed to creative commons if you like. But "all rights reserved" in no way allows a picture to be used for commercial purposes, am I not mistaken?

Cheers
From the article:

"People who post photos on Flickr are asked how they want to license their attribution. The youth counsellor chose a sharing licence from Creative Commons that allows others to reuse work such as photos without violating copyright laws, if they credit the photographer and say where the photo was taken. His Flickr page appears at the bottom of the ad."
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
35,255
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
As I watch the video of her lawyer, I get the impression that her case is built on Virgin using he likeness without permission, not on their appropriation of the photo. In my unlicenced opinion however, I suspect that a click of a internet button by a minor is not considered a binding contract.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
5,262
Location
NJ
Ok Flickr bashers before you start yelling "Flickr is evil":

#1 youth counseler (not the teen) takes picture
#2 youth counseler (not the teen) posts picture overruling default Flickr "all rights reserved" setting and using "creative commons" instead.
#3 Virgin uses (rightfully or not, not sure if they credited youth counseler) picture in global campaign.

It's really simple.
1) The girl never signed a model release
2) The youth counseler should not have posted the picture
3) Virgin uses the picture, probably appropiately. Although they should have known better and asked the photographer to show the model release.
4) Teen sues Virgin. It makes more sense to sue the youth counseler, but Virgin has deeper pockets.

This has nothing to do with Flickr, and less with Virgin, but everything with the counseler. But that doesn't make cool headlines.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
3,625
Location
Houston, TX
From the article:

"People who post photos on Flickr are asked how they want to license their attribution. The youth counsellor chose a sharing licence from Creative Commons that allows others to reuse work such as photos without violating copyright laws, if they credit the photographer and say where the photo was taken. His Flickr page appears at the bottom of the ad."
There are two separate issues at play though. The Creative Commons license in no way relieves Virgin Mobile from needing a model release to use somebody's likeness for advertising. From what I've heard the laws in Australia are similar to the US on this matter, so the girls's family has a very strong case and should win. Whoever made the decision at Virgin Mobile to do this made a big mistake and they're going to pay for it.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
3,625
Location
Houston, TX
4) Teen sues Virgin. It makes more sense to sue the youth counseler, but Virgin has deeper pockets.

This has nothing to do with Flickr, and less with Virgin, but everything with the counseler. But that doesn't make cool headlines.
Wrong. It's Virgin Mobile who used the image for commmercial use, not the photographer. It was Virgin Mobile's responsibility to obtain a model release or else run the risk of not having one and using the image anyway.
 
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
184
Location
Earth
Personally, I think it's a marketing scheme from Virgin Mobile.

Even this might be a bad publicity, however after the CNN segment, everybody in world now know what Virgin Mobile is. You can't buy advertising like that.

Even if the payout of the lawsuit is hefty, I am sure it's not even close to what the revenue might generate after this ordeal. In the end, Virgin Mobile still win. However, if Virgin Mobile wins the lawsuit, then their bottomline would look even better.
 
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
9,393
Location
Hazlet Township, NJ USA
Huh???? Where did you get that from? :confused:

I don't like Flickr, most of what's there is way too young for me. I haven't read through their agreements, but what was stated in the article is that the photographer (who posted the pics on Flickr) clicked some box in his Flickr agreement allowing others free use of his pictures. In my opinion, this was entirely stupid.

If you post pictures here, and retain the rights to them (via your hosted site), they are yours and should not be used by others.

That said, anyone who GENUINELY thinks that their work (once posted ANYWHERE on the internet) has not been copied/stolen is a bit naive. In order to pursue a legal case, you usually need to be able to prove damages/loss (or an attorney is not going to waste their time).

Once you put something on the internet, consider it public domain. I'm fully aware of copyright laws, but I'm also fully aware that many people today have very few personal ethics/morals.
Oh so its just a Flickr thing. You click clicked some stupid box agreement and you allow others free use of the pictures...this is crazy, why would anyone do this?
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
5,262
Location
NJ
Oh so its just a Flickr thing. You click clicked some stupid box agreement and you allow others free use of the pictures...this is crazy, why would anyone do this?
No it's not crazy. What is crazy is that a photo sharing site decides for it's customers what they can or cannot do with their pictures. Flickr doesn't do that - it gives its customers a choice.

People can decide to share pictures under creative commons licenses for varied reasons. There are various CC licences available, depending on what way you want to share them. Why they do it is up to them, but it's nice to know that if they want to share their pictures with the rest of the world for everybody to use (and love and peace and stuff), they can do that.

JeffKohn said:
Wrong. It's Virgin Mobile who used the image for commmercial use, not the photographer. It was Virgin Mobile's responsibility to obtain a model release or else run the risk of not having one and using the image anyway
Oops, you're right, I stand corrected. Virgin did have the obligation to get permission from the subject. There's a pretty good discussion at Flickr going on about this. Although at first the case looks actually pretty secure, it seems that VM knew what they were doing, because the subject is foreign and the picture is taken in a foreign country (from an Australian point of view).
Of course, the subject could choose to sue in the US, but good luck with getting money from a foreign company - they just won't pay.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom