Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Family's Christmas Photos Hawk Groceries In Prague

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the smiling-happy-faces dept.

The Internet 263

Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that Jeff and Danielle Smith sent a photo of themselves with their two young children to family and friends as a Christmas card, and posted the image on her blog and a few social networking websites. Then, last month, a friend of the family was vacationing in the Czech Republic when he spotted a full size poster of the Missouri family's smiling faces in the window of a local supermarket in Prague, advertising a grocery delivery service. The friend snapped a few pictures and sent them to the Smiths, who were flabbergasted. Mario Bertuccio, who owns the Grazie store in Prague, admitted that he had found the photo online but thought it was computer-generated and promised to remove it, and 'We'll be happy to write an e-mail with our apology,' he says. Meanwhile Mrs. Smith has received 180,000 visitors and over 500 comments on her blog since she posted the story. She says she is glad the photo wasn't used in an unseemly manner. 'Interesting. Bizarre. Flattering, I suppose,' writes Mrs. Smith. 'But quite creepy.'"

cancel ×

263 comments

Really... (5, Insightful)

NervousNerd (1190935) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332205)

Anything (well unless it's something I'm trying to find) you post on the internet can be found. It's common sense.

Re:Really... (4, Insightful)

evalhalla (581819) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332261)

That's true, but a supermarket owner should know that they're not supposed to use a random image from the internet for commercial use; the defense "it looked like computer generated" does not work: there wouldn't be model rights, but the image would still be under copyright, unless the image was posted under some permissive license like CC-BY.

Re:Really... (1, Flamebait)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332407)

Czech Republic, don't think they care too much about copyright over there.

Re:Really... (3, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332413)

Czech Republic, don't think they care too much about copyright over there.

Do you want a bet?

Re:Really... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332585)

Czech Republic, don't think they care too much about copyright over there.

Well they care the same as in UK, France, Germany.... Czech Republic is a member of the EU...

Re:Really... (1, Offtopic)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332659)

Read my sig and guess where I am from :-)

Re:Really... (1)

bod1e (1576909) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332871)

"Mario Bertuccio, who owns the Grazie store in Prague....." Mario Bertuccio doesn't sounds as typical czech name to me.

Re:Really... (1)

Petersson (636253) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332939)

"Mario Bertuccio, who owns the Grazie store in Prague....." Mario Bertuccio doesn't sounds as typical czech name to me.
Their website says the company is importer of brand products from Italy and other countries. So we can expect some Italians are involved...

From their address I realize where the shop is located, I'll go to check it out soon since the area is quite familiar to me.

Total Hijack (2, Informative)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332445)

Sorry to be totally offtopic, but I'm very bothered by the junk showing up on slashdot articles, specifically, short horizontal and vertical gray bars and grey, green, and red dots/pills which do nothing but obscure content. Here's an example: http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu187/weirdslashjunk/dots.png [photobucket.com]

Is there a way to fix this?

Re:Total Hijack (0, Offtopic)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332479)

Never mind -- mod me off topic. I finally notice the "default design" link at the top of my user account page. Junk is gone.

Re:Total Hijack (0, Offtopic)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332495)

No - never mind this last one. The obscuring junk is back.

Re:Total Hijack (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332519)

Stop messing with my head.

Re:Total Hijack (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332539)

If you're using no-script, whitelisting fsdn.com as well as slashdot.org seems to do the trick.

Re:Total Hijack (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332701)

Dunno. It happened to me too. I'm using firefox + noscript.

Seems random though. Probably a bug in Slashdot.

I dunno why Slashdot is doing all these changes. They're making it slower and less usable IMO. If I turn on javascript, the slashdot mainpage takes ages to load up.

Re:Total Hijack (2, Informative)

wgoodman (1109297) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332769)

yeah, *must* be a bug in slashdot where if you block scripts that they use to make things show properly, things don't quite show properly. couldn't possibly be that you're blocking said previously mentioned scripts.

Re:Total Hijack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332807)

yeah, *must* be a bug in slashdot where if you block scripts that they use to make things show properly, things don't quite show properly. couldn't possibly be that you're blocking said previously mentioned scripts.

I have two slashdot accounts - one at work and one at home. On both systems noscript blocks ALL javascript on slashdot pages - even the stuff from fsdn.org.
At work I get those weird blocks and shit, at home I do not. Off the top of my head, the only difference between accounts is that the work one was offered to disable adverts because they like me and I took them up on the offer, the home account also offered but I chose not to take them up on the offer.

Re:Total Hijack (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332877)

I don't use any script blocking stuff (past the standard popup blocker) in Firefox or Safari and I'm getting the linked issues and worse. Slashdots broken something.

Interestingly enough, on my Windows 7 computer I have lost the ability to post to Slashdot on *any* browser - they all do the same thing, I hit 'Preview' and it sits there for a while 'Loading...' and then just reverts back to the initial comment box. Why would this happen on IE, Safari, Firefox and Opera? What common components related to AJAX form submission do these browsers have? Is this a Slashdot issue or is this a Windows 7 issue?

Re:Total Hijack (1)

kaaposc (1515329) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332757)

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!" (random vertical and horizontal bars between text lines - a design idea worth patenting.. hmm...)

Re:Total Hijack (1)

grrrl (110084) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332777)

mod parent up.

Re:Really... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332695)

I thought Slashdot was against all copyright law, which would mean anyone can use any public images they find of you for anything they want. Or is this like "stolen" GPL code articles where suddenly we're all in favor of copyright again. I'm confused; what's our position on copyright today?

Re:Really... (5, Informative)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332737)

    His admission of guilt and means of acquiring the photo appeared to be a second hand quote. Hearsay, if you will.

    More than likely, he hired someone to do his advertising campaign or at least make the graphics for it. I can't say that I've known many business owners who do their own graphics work, unless it's a graphics firm. They would be the ones that made the photo, and edited the background and text into it. Not an amazing feat, but it was done none the less.

    Probably whoever did it was confident in that no one would ever find out. Heck, who would expect that someone who knew the family in America would happen to travel to the Czech Republic and happen to spot the sign? It's not to say that it was right by any means, it just was impractical to think that they would find out.

    Hell, one of the edited photos that I made, which had absolutely no bearing on the original other than the human form (substantially edited even at that), showed up on a national news broadcast. It was the main image from my site, and showed up in a flash in a set of other photos showing anonymity on the Internet. No, we didn't catch it on the DVR, and I didn't care enough to try to find the clip online to verify it and complain about it, but it was still my original work used improperly by a major broadcast company. If I hadn't happened to have looked at the TV just then, I wouldn't have even known it ever happened. People are generally pretty confident in the idea of "what they don't know won't hurt them."

    Hopefully they learned a little something from this. Don't post hi res pictures. There's no need to anyways, bring it down to a reasonable displayed resolution. If they had, that photo would have been skipped over and another would have been used. As it is, that photo is probably floating around in a few stock photo libraries now, tagged as "average family, man woman children". Maybe whoever stole it assumed that it was already a stock photo, so they were even less likely to get caught.

    I've seen that quite a bit. Places use stock photos that they were provided, but don't know anything about the original licensing. Consider going to a template site. Do you *know* that every photo there is properly licensed for resale? Maybe they're only licensed for the first user, and you're way out of line reusing it on your project, and/or reselling to someone else. Maybe when the same webmaster reuses it on a dozen sites, they were breaking the license for all of them.

    So, shoot your own damned photos, and then you're sure. :) You want to put an average family up on a billboard, put a Craigslist ad up for an average family photoshoot, and pay the $50 it would take to get them to come to you, and sign the model releases.

Re:Really... (4, Insightful)

Aereus (1042228) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332873)

I think the obvious assumption is that he chose the photo specifically because they were from the US and unlikely to ever see the advertisement in his window. He just had the bad luck of the 1 in a million coincidence that someone else who knew the family also happened to be in Prague and notice the picture.

Re:Really... (0, Flamebait)

tumbleweedsi (904869) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332971)

Ha, yeah, Americans never go outside of America so they'd never see it.

Re:Really... (2)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332955)

The guy obviously didn't think he just threw up an excuse, a bad one at that.

second post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332221)

fag biscuits

For chrissakes, you're American, right? (5, Informative)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332239)

Re:For chrissakes, you're American, right? (4, Interesting)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332315)

Some follow up. It appears the verdict was reversed on appeal to the CA Court of Appeals, and from there went to the CA Supreme Court which recently heard the case. According to this article from June 4, 2009, a decision is due in 90 days.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/la-fi-coffee4-2009jun04,0,7389392.story [chicagotribune.com]

Re:For chrissakes, you're American, right? (5, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332759)

Trying to use the Wheels of Justice to grind Nescafe...

I wonder what will be the grounds for their decision.

Anyone going to spill the beans?

Re:For chrissakes, you're American, right? (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332831)

Hands on your head and step away from the coffee pot. SLOWLY.

Do it better (5, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332553)

Don't sue them. Give them permission.

How cool is it to have your family shown in Prague? As noted it's not for unseemly use, and it's some small grocer just trying to get by.

Don't make him go to the expense (and waste) of having to print a new poster.

Instead, do the adult thing - accept the apology and let him keep using the image officially until he moves on. Everyone wins.

Your definition of "better" intrigues me (0, Offtopic)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332579)

Everyone wins.

In this day and age of feel-good, everyone's a winner anti-competitiveness, it should be no surprise that someone would come along and claim that giving up is the same as winning.

It's not giving up. It's solving for the answer. (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332733)

In this day and age of feel-good, everyone's a winner anti-competitiveness, it should be no surprise that someone would come along and claim that giving up is the same as winning.

Incorrect. It's not giving up at all. In fact it's rather the opposite - it's obtaining the best possible result from the situation.

Sue the owner? We all know they would get nothing. A store owner would be out of business, and the family would be out legal expenses. A great ending if you're a law firm.

Tell him to take it down? Again, how have you really "won" anything. You have caused more waste through reprinting. You have done some harm to a small business, and done nothing at all to help your family. Your family looks like cads.

So you explain to me how saying "you know what, just keep using the photo and retire it when you are ready" is not the most sensible and best result possible. The family gets a kick out of knowing they will be seen in another country, again in a positive fashion. The grocer gets to keep using a nice photo, and again everyone wins - not because of anti weird anti-competitvness (which I abhor) but because in the best human fashion you have solved for the most optimal result.

There are plenty of other conditions in which I would say fighting would be the best option. You make the mistake of not realizing conditions can determine the best solution, and this is not one of the conditions in which a solution you seem to be advocating (fighting) is best.

Of course we all know at this point the true story is that it was obtained as a stock photo, which means he's not using the photo improperly at all and if anything the family needs to have a word with the friend who sold them to microstock without asking. Is she making money off them? Well then, that's a whole different story...

Re:It's not giving up. It's solving for the answer (1)

flewp (458359) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332833)

We all know they would get nothing. A store owner would be out of business, and the family would be out legal expenses. A great ending if you're a law firm.

Tell him to take it down? Again, how have you really "won" anything.

Maybe someone can correct me, but I was under the impression that usually when someone sues another person and wins, the judge may rule that the defendant has to pay the plaintiff's counsel costs. Or, the more likely case usually seems to be that often lawyers take on cases on a "no fee unless we win" deal - that is, if the plaintiff wins, the lawyer(s) take a cut of the settlement. On the flipside, I believe that if the defendant wins the case, they can usually counter-sue for damages including lawyer costs (or possibly, especially in a suit the judge finds to be frivolous, he may be able to directly order this). Again, I could be completely wrong, and if I am, I'd be glad to be corrected.

It all depends, but basically no (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332913)

Maybe someone can correct me, but I was under the impression that usually when someone sues another person and wins, the judge may rule that the defendant has to pay the plaintiff's counsel costs.

That depends on many variables, an I'd not even venture to guess what the answer would be to that question for for someone in the UK suing someone in Prague!

But the fact is they simply would not win - most especially when (as seems very likely) it turns out the grocer really got the photo from a microstock site. The grocer probably paid to use it properly...

Or, the more likely case usually seems to be that often lawyers take on cases on a "no fee unless we win" deal - that is, if the plaintiff wins, the lawyer(s) take a cut of the settlement.

Which makes it very unlikely you'd get any lawyers to bite on this mess. It's not like some large phone company used it, it's a small grocer - there's no money anywhere in this for anyone.

Re:Do it better (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332829)

Well, depending on how much traffic they want for their personal blog... I know I'd take it a step further and ask the store to send back a pic of the owner with the photo and his shop to tack it to my page and claim I'm a celebrity in Prague.

Ride the meme while it lasts, I say!

Re:For chrissakes, you're American, right? (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332789)

Do it right.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002168937_coffeemug03.html [nwsource.com]

Sue them.

While America has a law requiring a model's consent for photographs of them to be used for commercial purposes, this is not generally true in the rest of the world. I don't claim to know anything about Czech law, but I suspect if the story you linked happened there he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

OTOH, it seems in this case the image was also used without a copyright license, so some form of legal redress would be available. The likely procedes, however, are probably too small to be worthwhile: single instance of copyright violation, I'd guess there's no statutory damages in Czech law so you'd have to prove actual losses, which would amount to a reasonable fee for using the photo, which would likely amount to a stock photo licence fee of about $1-500.

Actually as far as costs go (3, Insightful)

deft (253558) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332255)

It would be amazingly hard to sue them, so finding pics of someone in another country that will more than likely never see it, is a fairly safe way to go, and zero costs, with little risks.

Re:Actually as far as costs go (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332613)

It wouldn't be amazingly hard. Just travel over there and hire a Czech lawyer. Amazingly expensive yes, but not that hard.

Re:Actually as far as costs go (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332851)

For what gain? You're suing a small grocery shop. If he gets by and can pay his mortgage he's already doing far better than most groceries around the area. You might win the suit after a while, driving that guy into bankrupcy so you'll be out a sizable amount of dough.

Oh, so to "set an example"? Oh, that works great, the RIAA showed that, since they started suing like crazy filesharing has left the planet.

Eh (2, Insightful)

Daemonax (1204296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332267)

Eh, I don't see the problem really. If our culture had instead developed along the lines of liberal copyrights, such as the creative commons licenses, rather than the restrictive copyrights that are common, I don't think anyone would care about this. It's a nice photo and wasn't being used in any malicious way. I don't see what is creepy about this.

Re:Eh (0)

tinkertim (918832) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332341)

I don't see what is creepy about this.

I suspect that you don't have children. If you do have children and feel this way, I admire your mindset.

It is hard to avoid a sense of the "creeps" when you see pictures of your child(ren) used without your knowledge or permission, especially in another country. While in this case, any rational brain would conclude that there is no harm done, it still feels .. well .. creepy.

Re:Eh (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332409)

But why creepy? So many people keep sending pics of their children to everyone anyway. That pic was posted on a blog and sent to lots of people.

If they're the sort who'd find it creepy they shouldn't do that then.

There are now thousands of strangers downloading the pics of their children. Oh noes!

Re:Eh (1)

beowulfcluster (603942) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332651)

These people have no idea what creepy means. Imagine how creepy life must be for the goatse man.

Re:Eh (3, Insightful)

bloobloo (957543) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332819)

I don't know. He can probably get by fine. It's not like he's known for his face.

Re:Eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332949)

Incidently he has an assface.

Re:Eh (4, Interesting)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332657)

The problem is commercial usage.

As I mentioned in another post, I am an exclusive contributor to iStock. I once made a session with a girl (over 18), very simple and decent stuff - business-like clothing and setting. She did sign a model release and was perfectly happy with it. But when her mother found out, I got a phone call -- she did not agree to her daughter's actions and that she was concerned about how some might use her pictures. I tried to explain to her that iStock's TOS disallow any pornographic or sensitive usage (including 'edorsement' and such) but she was still upset. I did not want to cause any problems, so I deleted all pictures and tore up the model release. Since I'm a parent myself, I can understand how other parents tend to be (over)protective.

BTW, if you think about doing pro/semi-pro shoots with a model, have a read. [twin-pixels.com]

Re:Eh (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332925)

Wait, what?

You took pictures of an adult (over 18) and her mother complained about this so you deleted the pictures?

I'm sorry but this doesn't quite make sense to me.

Re:Eh (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332969)

You let down your model.

She was 18, she signed the release, and if any of your photos had ended up used in a big advertising campaign it could have kick-started a semi-pro modelling career. But no, you had to cave into her mother, waste everyone's time. and help tighten the apron strings.

Jerk

Re:Eh (1)

number11 (129686) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332547)

It is hard to avoid a sense of the "creeps" when you see pictures of your child(ren) used without your knowledge or permission, especially in another country.

Why would any rational parent put pictures of their children on a publicly accessible website, if they were not prepared for that to happen? If they hand out pictures of their children to 1 billion strangers, what in the world would a thinking person expect? That first "W" in "www" is for "world", after all.

Re:Eh (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332863)

Ask the people who put videos of their kids on YouTube. Doesn't make sense to me either.

Re:Eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332565)

You know what? Light bounces off your children the same as anything else. You must get used to that fact.

Re:Eh (1, Interesting)

lxs (131946) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332689)

Let's see overblown fear of pedophiles, latent xenophobia (that "especially in another country" is very telling)

Let me guess...
Are you perhaps British?

Outside of Anglo-Saxon culture people are a lot less freaked out by this stuff. You guys and kids are a lot like the muslims with the Mohammed cartoons. Irrational to the core.

Re:Eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332937)

"It feels ... well ... creepy' - says a lot about your mind. Fsckin' sad if you ask me.

Re:Eh -- Support CC! (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332347)

Excellent point! In that case a friendly "Can we use your photo, please?" Wouldn't be bad either.

(This post is licensed under a CC attribution non-commercial share alike license)

Re:Eh -- Support CC! (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332685)

Without DMCA and similar restrictive "YOU TAKE IT DOWN NOW OR WE SUE YOU!!" notices the grocerier would probably have. If I would get an email about using someones stuff I would had also just said "sorry, we'll take it down" instead of actually asking for permission seeing the general approach of companies.

Re:Eh -- Support CC! (1)

woof69 (952829) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332881)

Excellent point! In that case a friendly "Can we use your photo, please?" Wouldn't be bad either. (This post is licensed under a CC attribution non-commercial share alike license) original post by by pinkushun on slashdot.org

Re:Eh (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332669)

Actually, its not about USA copyrights since the grocer is in Czech. Lots of americans seem to think their laws apply everywhere (not trying to be hostile, but they usually do). Now, I dont know about Czech laws, maybe they have a point in the copyright laws that would cover it.

Re:Eh (2, Insightful)

Daemonax (1204296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332715)

Copyrights being used predominantly in a restrictive fashion is common in every country I know of. I'm not American myself, and here in NZ copyright laws are used in the typical restrictive fashion 99.9% of the time.

Re:Eh (2, Informative)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332839)

I don't think there's anything about copyright laws in not wanting your photos used by everyone and their pervert uncle without permission. Duly noted, in this case no big harm was done, but I can easily imagine a few uses where you probably wouldn't go "eh, creative commons all the way" about your photos.

As a still mild example, a case on The Register a couple of years ago involved a family discovering their daughter's photos -- which apparently they did realease under some kind of cretive commons license which allowed that -- being plastered all over the town on some "ditch your girlfriend by SMS" ads. If you don't see how being the poster girl for a "ditch your girlfriend" campaign can be stressful, I dare say you don't remember high school too well.

Or what if I used your photo in some glowing testimonial about herbal viagra or penis enlargement pills? I'm sure that'll be some fun talks all around. Or in some drug rehab ad? Kleptomaniacs Anonymous? Disgruntled employee of the month? I'm sure that'll be fun when HR runs into that before your next job interview. You might not even know they did. Or an ad for a gay sex hotline? Now that will be fun in the bible belt.

If nothing else, at some point or another, your image or reputation might actually be important. Having some control over how it's used is just common sense. It has nothing to do with copyright culture, but just with the fact that libel -- even vaguely implied, like associating your image with something you don't want to be associated with -- can and does cause real harm.

Re:Eh (1)

Daemonax (1204296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332899)

What I was trying to say is that the reaction here I think has been influenced by copyright and how we treat stuff like music, art and software that we make. That the typical response is to want complete control over it.

If our culture had developed the other way, I think that is this situation there wouldn't have been any problem as it wasn't being used in a way that I think the people would have objected to if they'd been asked first.

The examples that you gave I think are different, because people are fairly obviously more likely to not want their photos used for those things even if they were asked in the first place.

I'm just saying that it would be nice if we didn't have this automatic reaction to "Oh they didn't ask for my permission to use that, so I'm going to demand they remove it, even though I have no other objection to it."

800 800 188 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332291)

I heard they got Battletoads Wii.

You can... (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332317)

"You can make that apology out to Jeff and Danielle Smith. Don't forget to sign it."

Murky Legal Boundaries (1)

tecc91 (1232638) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332329)

[is too busy pulling down his own photos to post] The bit where this becomes exceptionally mushy is at what point does any certain legal authority release or take up the power to determine the ramifications of things like this. Clearly, this was an instance where no harm was done, but what if it were to be something incriminating that was leaked, without your permission, and then illegally used in another country. Where do the boundaries start and end?

Re:Murky Legal Boundaries (1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332373)

I'd be interested to hear your views on filesharing and copyrights.

If you think that using a person's picture without consent or knowledge is fine, I'd be willing to bet you think that violating copyright is also fine, since, as you say, no harm is done.

Re:Murky Legal Boundaries (2, Interesting)

tecc91 (1232638) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332513)

I'm sorry for the lack of clarity. I did in absolutely NO intend to support any kind of copyright infringement. I merely meant that the woman who posted the picture didn't feel that she was in any kind of position in which her security was compromised. She found it to be "quite creepy." I was simply trying to show a circumstance with more contrast in which someone felt they had suffered something more personal as a direct result. In some cases, it would be possible to be damaging to the individiual's reputation and therefore impact their business or personal life. This is a clear infringement of their rights that someone else stole their image and unlawfully used it for marketing purposes without prior consent, but the woman in this particular case wasn't slighted as badly as she admits the possibilities are. It begs the question of what could happen with other such abuses of information. I am pleased that this woman has made it off relatively unscathed while I am scared for the doors it may open and abuses we aren't even aware of.

and now ... (1)

ImaRootofALLEVIL (623740) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332355)

it will appear on 4chan and be used in an unseemly manner

You need a time machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332381)

News story. Week old. Slashdot. Catch up.

Amazing what you can find online ... (3, Informative)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332387)

... when you use common file names that typical cameras use for their stored photos. Most people never change them. I took the part of the file name of that family's photo (removing the appended reduced size that was used) which was "img_1053". Google images found this [google.com] . People should think about what they put online. Google is watching.

Re:Amazing what you can find online ... (3, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332883)

Could you at least give out a warning? This ain't goatse, for $deity's sake!

Mr. Sparkle (1)

Pulse_Instance (698417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332389)

Now the Czech Republic only has 11 more years of the Simpsons to catch up on.

Can we go more global? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332433)

Italian guy in Czech Republic has used a photo of american family. It was pizzeria, was not it? If it was chineese restaurant....

And this is news? (0)

dingram17 (839714) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332441)

Given this story was in the local throw-away newspaper (dead tree version, not online) last week, it looks like /. is waaay behind the times. Goes to show however that any image, when it is on the internet, can be used for all sorts of things!

Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All. (5, Interesting)

Karganeth (1017580) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332501)

From http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Stolen_picture_used_on_a_huge_billboard_in_another_country [digg.com] "Her blog post and most of the comments here are retarded. That image was not stolen. There's no way that large format print was produced from a 500 pixel wide Facebook rip. If you read her post she says a professional photographer "friend" took the image. The friend most likely sold it to a microstock agency which is where the design agency for the Czech supermarket chain bought it and is now denying it. With tens of thousands of decent quality high resolution images taken on pro/semi-pro equipment available for a few dollars each on microstock sites, there's no way any designer would troll blogs to find a usable random photo of a family among point&shoot and low rez photos."

Re:Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All. (1)

jaymz2k4 (790806) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332531)

i was just about to say something along the same lines. that photo is huge. the thing i find most weird is so few people actually pointing this out. i've seen this story now in the local papers here (london), reddit, digg and now slashdot and a whole lot of people actually seem to believe that this is possible.

you are not printing out meter-sized prints from a photo a few hundred pixels across. you'd be lucky if it looked good at a couple of inches across: photo sizes/resolution [microsoft.com] .

Re:Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All. (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332711)

I though that too. Which (along thousand other times) makes me think how much stuff in newspapers is wrong or missing information, either by their unknowledge or someone not knowing all the details

Re:Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All. (2, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332891)

Yeah, right. My Mum is an amateur photographer. That is, she doesn't do it professionally, but she owns gear worth many thousands, and has done lots of photography courses. She'll still try emailing me twenty multi-megabyte photos, and ring me to ask why the mail isn't going through. Clueless people uploading hi-res photos isn't anything to form conspiracy theories over.

Re:Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All. (1)

kklein (900361) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332577)

There's no way that large format print was produced from a 500 pixel wide Facebook rip.

See, that's what I thought as well, and wondered why I was the only one. Now I know I'm not. The image is clearly a professional shot; if you're looking for a culprit, that's where I'd start looking.

Re:Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All. (2, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332631)

What "culprit"? He's the photographer.. he owns the shot.

Re:Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All. (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332779)

What "culprit"? He's the photographer.. he owns the shot.

Not unless the subjects signed a model release.

Re:Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All. (3, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332857)

... this is like the 3rd post where I've had to explain to someone that a photographer is not required to get model releases.. the publisher is required to get model releases.

Re:Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332947)

Sorry, but no. You own the right to your image (unless you're a celebrity or another "person of public interest"). It varies from country to country to what degree, but one thing works for most countries I know: An image that has clearly YOU as the subject requires YOUR ok to be published.

I wouldn't be so sure (5, Funny)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332593)

Perhaps the supermarket has access to the same sort of computers as they use on CSI, NCIS etc. They probably have 3d models of the family, reconstructed based on DNA obtained by enhancing the Facespace photo and zooming in to the atomic level.

RTFB (2, Informative)

dabadab (126782) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332665)

If you would have read the linked blog entry you would have seen this, written by the wife:
"I take FULL responsibillity for posting this picture with the incorrect resolution (read: too high)."

So we can take this "their friend sold their photo out" theory to rest.

Re:Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All. (3, Informative)

martijnd (148684) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332965)

Not necessary the high res shot was available on her blog:

http://www.extraordinarymommy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/img_1053.jpg [extraordinarymommy.com]

Looking at the URL she is going to be to pleased about this whole brooha as she is running her own blog as a potential business. Links from Slashdot are going to make her happy.

The moral is (3, Insightful)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332521)

The moral is: "DO NOT POST YOUR PERSONAL LIFE ON THE INTERNET!"

Really, besides your loved ones, nobody gives a fsck about your personal life unless they can make a bob or two out of it.

Also, be unmistakeably clear to provide licensing conditions to your content.

Last, don't whine if you're an idiot. Then again, you're probably still in the long lasting denial phase anyway.

Re:The moral is (1)

Wilvis (1557761) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332543)

Mod the parent up!!! Apart from all the copyright and legal issues here would you really want photos of your family, children, and loved ones floating around on the web? There are some sick people out there and I'd be real concerned if photos of people I cared about where in the public domain.

Re:The moral is (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332963)

People want to be famous! American Idol, Big Brother and similar shows are proof of it. What they fail to see is the drawback: You don't necessarily get famous for something "good", something you want to be famous for.

For reference, see Star Wars kid.

Photography Copyright (3, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332555)

The vast majority of people don't understand copyright. If I take a picture of you, I own the copyright on the image, not you. Even if you pay me. For some reason the "work for hire" system never got applied to photographers. This is probably because photographers are typically hired on contract, not on retainer. This is clearly as a case of a photographer selling his portfolio to a stock image reseller. It's not unusual and the people in the picture are not entitled to anything.

Re:Photography Copyright (3, Informative)

m_ilya (311437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332673)

It is not completely true. If you take picture of me the copyright might be yours but you are often limited in what you can do with the picture. Unless I sign a model release form [danheller.com] . As I understand according to USA law there are some cases when non-private use is allowed without the signed form but you definitely are not allowed to sell to stock image agencies without this.

Re:Photography Copyright (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332721)

If you had actually READ the page you linked to you would have seen where it specifically said you *can* sell your pictures to stock image agencies without a model release form. It is entirely the responsibility of the publisher to obtain model releases. Sheesh.

Re:Photography Copyright (1)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332713)

Not completely true. You still need a model release (e.g. like this [e-model.net] ) to use the photos commercially. No stock agency will accept your photos without one (some will accept photos of persons without a MR for editorial purposes only, but unless you're photographing a celebrity, it's still useless).

Re:Photography Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332747)

If I take a picture of you, I own the copyright on the image, not you.

But it has my SOUL in it! You can't just do anything you want with that!

Imagine, people in another country could be looking at me. Horrifying!

The way it looks (4, Interesting)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332605)

I've read about this over a week ago and it's very strange: There's no way anyone can take a 600px wide pic and blow it up to 1-2 m. 2m is about 80 inches; so that picture would have to be printed at 7.62 dpi (ppi would be more accurate). No way.

The only way that pic could have been used is if the ad people had access to the original file, which is assumed to be a hi-res picture from a dSLR. How could that happen? I see a few possibilities:

  • The lady printed the high-res pic somewhere and a clerk took the pic, forged the model releases and submitted it to a microstock agency;
  • She uploaded the full size pic to Facebook and they used her pic. I am not familiar with Facebook's TOS (don't use it) so I don't know if you grant them the use of the stuff you upload;
  • The photographer sold the pic - again, model releases should have been required; 'extraordinarymommy' says she did not sign any model release. I don't want to accuse the photographer of anything, I'm just stating the options.

To keep things in perspective, copyright is mostly respected in all Central and East Europe - it's not like it's a jungle. Stock images from sites like iStock are very cheap and of good quality. A 12-15 Mp file costs $20 at iStock, that's nothing when you have a paying customer. There's no NEED for anyone to steal the pic.

Course of action: contact the grocery store, find out who made their ad. Contact the ad agency. If they got the file legitimately, they will have no issue cooperating. If the file was from a stock agency, contact them and they will resolve the issue. If the ad agency cannot provide and proof, get a lawyer, threaten to sue but look for a settlement; a trial would be long a costly.

Disclosure: I am an exclusive contributor to iStock [istockphoto.com] myself and I live in another Central European country.

Re:The way it looks (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332707)

Ya, you don't need a model release [wikipedia.org] to sell pics. It's the publisher's responsibility. Of course, many publishers won't buy pics without an attached model release, but there's nothing illegal about it.

Re:The way it looks (2, Informative)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332719)

If you read her blog post she says she accidentally posted the original high resolution picture instead of posting a thumbnailish version

Re:The way it looks (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332817)

Which is all well and good, except AFAIK Facebook (and I imagine most such social networking sites) automatically resizes images as part of the upload process.

I'm not sure it's even possible to download the full-resolution image.

Of course, it's entirely possible she put the photo on a photo sharing site like flickr. They tend to store the image in its original resolution.

Why is this such a big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28332661)

I wonder why people are surprised at this. This kind of stuff is somewhat part of the eastern european (I'm of that originality myself) and even russian culture.

A few years back, I did web design for a bunch of people from eastern europe. If we'd need an image for their site, I'd suggest a stock picture and they would just say "Why can't we use this one off of Google Images?". I literally had to convince a bunch of people not to steal some random pictures off of google images for use in ads.

It wouldn't surprise me if they hired some random teenager to Photoshop that ad and the guy was just going "davai! davai!" and instructing him to take any image.

And yes, the moral of the story is to not put random stuff on the Internet that might be stolen. Create some password-protected site if you want to share family pictures with your extended family. I'm sure that random people visiting your site do not care how your kids look like.

In East Europe, that's considered Fair Use (2, Informative)

Klistvud (1574615) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332731)

Not legally, but for all practical purposes it is. For instance, it is a popular practice in Slovenia for local businesess to use pop songs as background music in their advertising without ever paying for the copyright. Most recent case in point: a TV ad running on all Slovenian TV stations uses Orbison's song "You Got It" not only as background music, but it actually builds its message on it. The ad, advertising Merkure -- a major Slovenian superstore chain -- suggests that "anything you need, anything you want," you just come to their store and "You Got It"! I could bet they never even asked if they should pay the copyright holder anything before (ab)using the song. In ex-socialist states, this phenomenon is still endemic, it's like a sort of folklore.

The logical conclusion (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 5 years ago | (#28332957)

This will become more and more common, and then eventually the whole concept of "here's a random image of an unrelated happy family! BUY OUR PRODUCT!" will fall out of favor.

When it's just a random image, sure, it's stupid but apparently gets the message across.
When it's just a truly random image from the internet... would you buy from /b/? I mean, for reasons other than lulz?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...