Beta
×

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!

Texas Family 'Sues Creative Commons'

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the that-will-be-a-challenge dept.

The Internet 524

An anonymous reader writes "A Texas family has sued Creative Commons after their teenaged daughter's photo was used in an ad campaign for Virgin Mobile Australia. The photo had been taken by the girl's youth counselor, who put it on Flickr, and chose a CC Attribution license, which allows for commercial use. Virgin did, in fact, attribute the photo to the photographer, fulfilling the terms of the license, but the family is still suing Virgin Mobile Australia and Creative Commons. 'The lawsuit, filed in Dallas late yesterday, names Virgin Mobile USA LLC, its Australian counterpart, and Creative Commons Corp, a Massachusetts nonprofit that licenses sharing of Flickr photos, as defendants. The family accused the companies of libel and invasion of Chang's privacy. The suit seeks unspecified damages for Chang and the photographer, Justin Ho-Wee Wong.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why the License (5, Insightful)

Adradis (1160201) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708293)

Why sue Creative Commons? Did they have anything to do with the picture in question, other then being the license used to display the picture with?

Re:Why the License (5, Informative)

topham (32406) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708313)

It's realtively standard practice in such a lawsuit to include every party and let the judge determine which ones are actually potentially liable or not.

Re:Why the License (4, Insightful)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708373)

It's realtively standard practice in such a lawsuit to include every party and let the judge determine which ones are actually potentially liable or not.

And I'm guessing Creative Commons and Virgin Mobile have somewhat deeper pockets than the camp counselor who posted the image.

Re:Why the License (5, Informative)

Walpurgiss (723989) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708691)

The counselor is one of the parties seeking damages actually, so the current depth of his or her pockets is not in question.

Re:Why the License (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708511)

It's realtively standard practice in such a lawsuit to include every party and let the judge determine which ones are actually potentially liable or not.
Not to mention generate some paying work for a different lawyer for each party too. What a freaking racket - just about anything a lawyer does causes other lawyers to get paid. Cha-ching!

Re:Why the License (5, Funny)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708871)

Well the good news is that when you're an organization like Creative Commons, you're basically a team of lawyers with a marketing department.

Re:Why the License (3, Funny)

Jartan (219704) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708643)

Well thank god for that. For a minute there I couldn't figure out who to get mad at.

1) Someone suing creators of $OS_LISCENSE
-or-
2) $CORPORATE_ENTITY exploiting random $VICTIMIZED_PERSON

Clearly we can go with 2 and blame everything else on laywers.

Re:Why the License (5, Insightful)

azenpunk (1080949) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708659)

then why isn't she suing the photographer who submitted the image to the photograph and through negligence selected the license that allowed this to happen?

why is she only suing the involved parties who are corporations, including the only party in this whole debacle that has shit loads of cash?

the invasion of privacy happened when the image was submitted to flickr, not when it was used according to its license in an ad campaign.

how is the slogan 'virgin to virgin' derogatory to a faithful churchgoing 16 year old? aren't girls like that supposed to be proud to be virgins?

the only party i can see that has any fault is the party who put the image on flickr, the only party too poor to get any cash out of

CC gets out easy. (1)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708779)

The first thing their lawyer is going to do is file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim -- or whatever the equivalent is in Texas; I'm not sure if Texas uses the FRCP rules or not, but an equivalent rule should be present. Creative Commons can get their part in this case removed easily since they had absolutely nothing to do with the alleged wrong acts.

Now the photographer on the other hand may have a more difficult fight if the photographer didn't get a model release, and Virgin may be in trouble for not doing due diligence on that -- I don't know the rules of this at all, so I don't know how much trouble Virgin's in for.

Re:Why the License (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708873)

How is Creative Commons a party in this case? Because they provided a collection work words that make up a text labeled as License?
Why isn't Flickr being sued? Or the company that made the ad. Or the company that did the catering during the creation of the ad.

Re:Why the License (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708341)

Because they might have money. They probably think it's obvious that the counselor doesn't.

Re:Why the License (1)

dragons_flight (515217) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708595)

Well hypothetically, lets consider what claim might be made against the Commons?

Not to say that any of these are plausible, but if you had to argue something, perhaps:

A) Commons contributed to the abuse by misleading the photographer regarding the rights involved by assigning the license.
B) Commons contributed to the abuse by encouraging the photographer to enter into a legal agreement that Commons should of known he did not have the authority to enter.
C) Commons contributed to the abuse by encouraging the photographer to use a contract that is intrinsically unenforcable.
D) Commons constructed CC-BY in a way that recklessly encourages or was designed to promote libel.

None of these seem likely to me, but in the world of sue 'em all and let the judge decide, I can believe that a lawyer would be willing to try and generate billable hours by arguing that Commons' promotion of the CC-BY license contributed to the libel/infringment claims via one or more of the arguments suggested above.

Frankly, I doubt the Commons organization has direct liability here, but they could see the judge rule on the legitimacy of all or part of the CC-BY license in a way that material affects the work that Commons has been doing.

Its the girl's fault (1)

janrinok (846318) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708297)

Shouldn't the girl in question have had some form of licence agreement with the photographer in the first instance to prevent this sort of thing? The photographer has copyright of the image, he has issued it under a licence and the company has fully complied with the licence.

Actually its the photographer's fault (4, Informative)

mozumder (178398) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708309)

for not acquiring a model release before putting his image out for commercial use. Both the girl and Virgin could sue the photographer.

Re:Actually its the photographer's fault (2, Informative)

janrinok (846318) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708345)

I agree that a model release is often used but I understand that it is for the model's protection i.e. it is not legally binding upon the photographer to obtain one but it is the interests of the model to make sure that one exists to limit usage of the photograph such as, in this instance, by Virgin. Of course, the MR also provides protection for the photographer but it isn't essential. For example, how about a photograph of the centre of a busy city. The photographer cannot be expected to obtain a MR for each person that is in the picture. But where a model agrees to be photographed, e.g. for her own use, then she would be wise to ensure that an MR was agreed limiting the photographs subsequent use by the photographer who still holds the copyright for the image.

Re:Actually its the photographer's fault (5, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708419)

The rules for model releases specifically exclude crowd scenes, where the person is a public figure, or photos where the person is not identifiable or not the subject of the photo. There must also be some exception that allows news programs to do street interviews.

You need a model release if you're going to use a photo commercially though.

This is something to remember for anyone who decides to slap a CC license on their work. I wonder who's legally at fault... the photographer or the company who sold the photo to Virgin for not confirming that there was a model release. Probably both.

Its not the photographer's fault if he got permiss (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20708671)

I dont know what kind identity laws are on Australia but on Finland you only need permission from model to use your picture. And it dont even need to be on paper. But of course it would be much easier to proof on court that model gave own permission to use photo if it's on paper.

And here, photographer 'needs' permission if picture has 1-3 recognisable faces. It's just good custom to ask from them. Because law allows taking pictures from subjects if they dont get connected something what they dont like.

Like if photographer takes picture from a man standing next to gay parade, it is easy to understand that man is a gay. (gay as homosexual, not happy in this example). And then there is more things about it how to show person in it or how journalist writes it.

And here i can go and take normal street photos from normal people without permission and sell those pictures to news or for any other commercial places, because they were on public place and not doing something what would insult their identity. But if i take those pictures from place what is not public (needs exm. invitation to get inside building, a hospital, a police deparment or inside a store), then i need permission to photograph in there and permission from subject. And permission dont need to be on paper, it can be just sayed loud.

But like i told, i dont know Australian law and if there is big differences on this kind things.

But i would like to see those pictures if there is something bad. Like if that girl is on commercial from surgery clinic what sells breast implants or somekind face surgery.

I just think that this is something where family wants easy money....

Re:Actually its the photographer's fault (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708707)

There must also be some exception that allows news programs to do street interviews.

No, what there is is a production assistant off-camera with a clipboard and a stack of release forms, that they'll ask everyone who is interviewed to sign.

Re:Actually its the photographer's fault (1)

rynthetyn (618982) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708845)

Nope, not true. I've been interviewed on camera for news stories and have never been asked to sign any kind of release for the use of my image.

Re:Actually its the photographer's fault (2, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708425)

You need a model release when a person is identifiable and comprises a significant part of the photo. I.e., a street scene in New York doesn't require a model release from every person on the street, because none of them are really critical parts of the photo. They're just scenery. And probably they're hard to make out individually anyway, so it's not like anyone's 'image' is really being used.

Where things become different are when it's a photo of a particular individual. In that case, the individual has a certain level of control they can exercise over how their image is used. E.g., they can object to their image being used to promote something they disagree with, or for some commercial purpose. There are exceptions to this, but the courts have historically given people a pretty wide 'bubble' around how their identity is used in the commercial sphere.

A model release protects a photographer and the photographer's clients (people who might buy his photos and use them commercially) from exactly this sort of problem: a model coming back after the fact and saying 'hey, I didn't want you to use my photo in that way.' A model release is a blanket permission basically saying "I grant you permission to use my image for anything, in any medium, forever..." It's protection for the photographer, and it does so by giving up a right that the model would normally have over their image.

Re:Actually its the photographer's fault (4, Informative)

arkarumba (763047) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708555)

A model release is NOT a blanket permission saying "I grant you permission to use my image for anything, in any medium, forever..."

That depends on the specifics of the model release contract.

For instance, someone may be okay with their photo being used "in good taste" but not happy for it being used to sell annal insertion sex toys. More specifically, a supermodel may restrict rights for photos from a shoot for one product, to be used only with that product, in that particular campaign, is a specific magazine publication/edition, for a specific number of prints.

By default the phototographer has NO RIGHTS for the image to be used commercially. The model rlease grants specific rights. However for these to be useful for stock photos, where the purpose is not known in advance, the model relase is generally fairly broad brush.

Also note, that a model release IS a contract. To make it valid you need to make sure that the model receives some valuable consideration (money/free print) and is aware of this point.

Finally, to my mind, CC is completly in the clear as a non-involved third party. The main fault lies with Virgin for not ensuring the image had a model release. Note that the photographer is allow to sell his copyright images without a model release - ie as individual framed artistic images. It is the pairing of the image to endorse a product that is core issue.

Doesn't sound like commercial use (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708411)

Actually, it doesn't sound like he was posting the picture for commercial (or at least for profit use). He just posted it on the flickr website, and then it was picked up randomly by virgin without paying for it (which according to CC they can do) and also without obtaining a model release (which may not be covered by the CC license).

OK then Virgin would be at fault (2, Insightful)

mozumder (178398) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708507)

Since they're the ones using it commercially, and the photographer had no commercial intentions. (which would be separate from copyrights that creative commons allow.)

Re:Actually its the photographer's fault (5, Informative)

dragons_flight (515217) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708451)

Yes. Most likely, the photographer lacked sufficient rights to make the image available for commercial use in this way, and so the photographer would seem to bear the largest share of the blame and legal responsibility.

However, the libel claim adds interesting wrinkles. If a court really buys into the idea that the girl was unfairly placed in a position to be ridiculed (which is not obvious given the description of the ads), then a whole additional sets of rights come into play distinct from copyright. You may freely own an image, but you can still commit libel with that image, by portraying the people in the image in an unfair light.

So there is an argument to be made that even if Virgin were legally authorized to use the photo with respect to copyright, they still hadn't neccesarily recieved sufficient permission to use it in a way that would bring negative attention to the person pictured. That one could turn on the details of what the court considers CC-BY to mean and cover. Ordinarily one would expect a signed contract specifically addressing this before using a person's image in a way that could be characterized as negative. So it's possible (though not neccesarily likely) that Virgin could be found to have acted reasonably with regards to copyright and still have committed libel.

Re:Actually its the photographer's fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20708835)

You sinful Amerikanos. Being a virgin is a great honor.

Re:Its the girl's fault (4, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708355)

No, as others have pointed out it's not the girl's fault but the photographer. Letting someone take a photo of you doesn't (usually) imply that they have gotten your permission to use your image commercially. They have the copyright to the image, but you still have some control over how your image is used.

This is why when a photographer takes pictures for stock collections, in addition to the copyright to the photo, they also need to show that they had a model release from anyone in the photo (at least those people who can be identified).

In this case, the photographer took a picture and put the picture on Flickr ... but he put it up under a license that he really didn't have permission to use. In effect, it's like he sold something that he didn't rightfully own.

So the girl definitely has a case against the photographer, and could probably get some money out of Virgin (perhaps for not performing due diligence after grabbing the photo from Flickr, when anyone with a brain should have realized that ripping some photos from the web and dumping them into your ad campaign without checking up on them first is a bad idea), but I think the CC people are reasonably safe. They'll probably end up spending a few grand in lawyers' fees, but that's the cost of breathing these days.

Re:Its the girl's fault (3, Interesting)

janrinok (846318) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708463)

I definitely do not agree. Virgin need the release to use the photograph - not the photographer himself. He has not used it for commercial purposes because he was not paid by Flickr. However, Virgin have used it and they should have ensured that they have permission to do so. This is usually done by the photographer because he has contact with the model, but there is no legal obligation upon him to do so if he does not have any intent to use the photograph commercially. This is why it is in the model's interest to make sure that a MR is agreed and it also provides additional protection to the photographer but it is still not legally required of the photographer to do so if he does not use the images commercially.

Re:Its the girl's fault (3, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708539)

Except that by putting it up under a license which would clearly allow exactly the use Virgin made of it, the photographer's representing that he does have the right to grant that license for that use. Virgin accepted that in good faith, they'd no obvious reason to believe he didn't. My guess is that the photographer will be found to be primarily liable, with Virgin possibly held liable for actual damages due to their use and probably enjoined from using the photograph in the future but no more than that. Creative Commons will move to be removed from the suit and they'll get that. Since the family didn't name the photographer in their suit, they're likely to end up holding the bag for a big legal bill and a very small award unless their lawyer convinces them to shift their target fairly quickly.

Re:Its the girl's fault (1)

janrinok (846318) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708609)

OK, I see your point. You are correct.

However, I still think that the girl has some degree of responsibility here. She (presumably) posed for the photographs yet didn't agree with the photographer on how they could subsequently be used. The law might say one thing, but commonsense should have suggested that the girl agreed with the photographer what he could subsequently do with the images. The girl is 16 years old. I would have hoped that either she or her guardian would have taken adequate steps to prevent commercial use of the photographs if they felt so strongly about it. I wonder if this is now a case of them realising they have missed an opportunity and trying to get something back in recompense?

Re:Its the girl's fault (5, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708541)

Yes as I have been thinking about it more I'm starting to come around more to your line of reasoning.

It really depends on how you interpret the CC licenses that don't prohibit commercial use. I could see a fair argument that by putting a photo on the Internet with such a license, you are effectively saying that anyone can use it for a commercial purpose. This would put the photographer at fault.

However, I think the response to that (and one which as I've thought about it a bit more, I agree with) is that simply putting a photo up with a license that doesn't prohibit commercial use, does not mean that all commercial use is OK: it doesn't indemnify the downstream users of the photo, in other words, nor does it make any representations about the legal status of the photo, except regarding the photographer's copyright claim.

That's the real crux: by putting the photo under the CC license, was the photographer making a representation about how the photo could be used? Or was he only waiving his own copyright? I'm convinced now of the latter, but in front of a judge, I think it could easily go to the person with the better lawyers.

Re:Its the girl's fault (1)

log0n (18224) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708667)

I wanted to bump this up (no mod points, and noone else has mod'd yet).. this is definitely the case (dealt with a lot of releases for film/video and photo work).

Ultimately, the buck stops with Virgin. As they were the entity who ultimately benefit from the use of the image, it is their responsibility to ensure they have the right to use it. As Virgin had no contract (agreement-intent/active) from the photographer for the work (or to do the work) that specified the model was clear, then they can't hold him accountable that she wasn't cleared. All they had was a license (permission-passive) to the work itself. Crediting the photographer satisifies the 'terms' of the license only to use the work. The responsibility for how the work was actually used falls on Virgin.

Re:Its the girl's fault (3, Interesting)

WilliamX (22300) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708795)

The contract with the photographer was the CC license that granted them the right to use it in a commercial setting provided they attributed him. The photographer clicked to allow the license most likely without understanding what he was doing, and the legal consequences of his action. If the court finds Virgin liable, then they are opening a huge legal issue in regard to all non-signed contract licenses, including the GPL.

Re:Its the girl's fault (1)

farkus888 (1103903) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708361)

I think the only person with any potential fault is the photographer for not getting permission to post the picture with that license from the girl and her family. Virgin Mobile and Creative Commons are the ones being sued because they have money to pay and may find it cheaper to settle instead of fight it. personally I think they should fight it on principle these greedy pigs deserve to lose money, their legal fees, for such sleaziness. I also think that if it can be proven that the motive I put forward is true, the lawyer should be disbarred for agreeing to bring the case. its a pointless burden on the courts to pick through this shite.

Re:Its the girl's fault (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708851)

"Shouldn't the girl in question have had some form of licence agreement with the photographer in the first instance to prevent this sort of thing? The photographer has copyright of the image, he has issued it under a licence and the company has fully complied with the licence."

Common experience would seem to support that idea, every magazine stand I have ever seen trades off photo's of the "rich & famous" passed out in the gutter with their skirt araound thier ankles. Somehow I just don't see the courts having a great deal of symathy or patience for this complaint.

Does anyone in army of photographers that make up papparazi obtain permission to sell the photo?
Do the gossip magazines get permission to print what they have paid for?
As another poster pointed out, she could argue libel but then she needs to show that she had a reputation as a non-virgin and somehow the ads damaged it? Besides, the model who's legs appeared at the start of the movie "My stepmother is an alien" got $300 for the scene. When the movie was released billboards around the world had her legs on them. Same deal for the "screaming woman" on Pink Floyd's "Dark side of the moon", one of the biggest selling albums of all time. The work itself is worth jack shit in the grand scheme of things, she may have been able to stop it with a "model release" but by the sounds of it she could simply have said "don't put it on the net".

Well (3, Funny)

Anonymous Custard (587661) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708299)

Pix or it didn't happen.

Re:Well --- Why Not?? (5, Informative)

JavaManJim (946878) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708669)

So Pix it is. Today I read the Dallas Morning News (print) which had a picture. That same picture is also on Flickr. Note the HEAVY editing; 1) The white sleeve is to the left instead of right as in the original picture. 2) a brick wall has been added 3) a caption has been added "Dump Your Pen Friend".

From DMN. "Alison's feelings are on view at Flickr.com, where she kicked off a three-month discussion of privacy and copyright law with a post below a picture of the ad that reads, "Hey that's me! No joke. I think I'm being insulted.""

Your obligatory pix is below.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ [flickr.com]

Then the Dallas Morning News article, sans pix. And registration is probably required (don't you hate it?). There are some good privacy quotes in this article that haven't yet been covered in this /. discussion.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/ptech/stories/DN-suevirgin_21bus.ART.State.Edition1.35bdb09.html [dallasnews.com]

Cheers, Jim

Just goes to show... (-1)

lavid (1020121) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708303)

Don't mess with Texas

Is this girl the type of Texan ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20708877)

Don't mess with Texas
... that needs to ask permission to stand under a tree?
What a weird country you have.

Where's the model release? (3, Informative)

Derling Whirvish (636322) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708311)

Without a model release signed by the girl (and her parents if under 18) the counselor will lose the case. Use of someone's image in a commercial context requires a model release [stanford.edu] from any identifiable people in the image.

Re:Where's the model release? (2, Insightful)

ScaryMonkey (886119) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708357)

But it's not the counselor being sued (although it should be). In fact, it sounds like he is claiming damages as well.

Re:Where's the model release? (3, Interesting)

theophilosophilus (606876) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708479)

Without a model release signed by the girl (and her parents if under 18) the counselor will lose the case. Use of someone's image in a commercial context requires a model release from any identifiable people in the image.


You make a good point about the necesity of a release but the counselor is in the clear. From TFA the counselor wasn't named in the suit. Further, the lawsuit is seeking damages for libel (written defamation). One of the elements of that cause of action is some sort of false or damaging statement. The counselor did not make such a statement and therefore couldn't be held liable for libel (law student joke).

The TFA did say the Plaintiffs named Creative Commons which is a big mystery. Creative Commons holds no rights in the license and makes clear it is not providing legal services. The closest analogy to this situation is a third party suing the attorney that drafted a legal document. The only way people win in these suits is if they were the intended beneficiaries of the contract/instrument (easiest case is the will case where an attorney error screws someone out of money from the will).

Re:Where's the model release? (2, Funny)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708821)

couldn't be held liable for libel (law student joke).

*groan* No wonder everyone hates lawyers.

Model releases may not apply internationally... (5, Informative)

VidEdit (703021) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708493)

"Without a model release signed by the girl (and her parents if under 18) the counselor will lose the case. Use of someone's image in a commercial context requires a model release from any identifiable people in the image."

Well, in the US, but that isn't where the the ads were made and displayed. Keep in mind that the law is complex. Talent releases are based on the nebulous "invasion of privacy" principle, which in the US doesn't apply in the case of photos you take outside of the US since the US right to privacy doesn't extend to foreign nationals photographed in their home country. Similar exceptions may apply in reverse, as this photo was used in an ad in **Australia** not the the US.

Re:Model releases may not apply internationally... (1)

zavyman (32136) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708847)

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

There is even more legal complexity than meets the eye. Virgin Mobile Australia is an Australian corporation, with its principal place of business in Sydney, doing business only in Australia, using the photo publicly only in Australia. The girl files suit in... a state court in Texas. Does that sound like the right place to file a lawsuit? Civil Procedure geeks will ask whether Virgin Mobile Australia had the requisite "minimum contacts" with the state of Texas to satisfy the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe [wikipedia.org] .

Also, has anyone asked why they also sued the counselor who took the photo, a friend of the girl? Wtf? My wild guess -- he's also a resident of Texas, preventing the case from being removed to Federal court. Ah, the subtleties and gamesmanship of civil procedure.

Re:Where's the model release? (1)

azpenguin (589022) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708651)

Unless he specifically stated that the image is suitable for commercial usage, the counselor should not lose the case here - it's Virgin and/or whatever advertising agency put together the advertisement. Creative Commons license or no. The license only covers the image, not the person in the image.

I work as a production graphic artist. We have very strict policies about image usage. If you don't know for sure that we have permission to use an image, you don't use it. Period. If we have permission to use the photo, but there is someone identifiable in it aside from the photographer or the employees of the business we're building the ad for, we either do not use the image or we use Photoshop to take them out of it. We subscribe to three different stock photo services for this reason, and all photos they have are model-released. (We actually had a woman threaten us with a lawsuit once a couple of years ago, saying we'd used her daughter's photo, but we had a model-release for it.)

For these reasons we also do not use sites suck as StockXchange or Morguefile. While they grant a license on the site to use the photos in any way, including commercially, there's no guarantee that it would hold up in court. The money we pay to the stock photo services ensures that we will not have to even get as far as a courtroom.

Simply put, picking up a photo off the internet is a very dumb move in advertising. Sooner or later, it will get you sued.

Virgin should pay them nothing (-1)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708315)

This is crazy. The image was posted under the CC-BY license, so neither the company, or Flickr should pay them anything. The family should just get more familiar with the CC licenses and be more careful when they choose a license for their stuff.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (1)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708335)

And btw, when you are on a public setting, photography is allowed. So the guy who took the picture, owes nothing to the family, and it's his prerogative to license the picture any way he wants to.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708431)

That's not quite true. Photography is allowed, but commercial use of those photos is not, unless you have a model release or it falls under one of the exceptions.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20708483)

Then how exactly does the paparazzi exist. Are they considered a news organization, and thus exempt from requiring waivers?

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20708565)

Have you EVER seen a paparazzi photo being used this way in a commercial? No? Oh...

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20708449)

Huh? So I can take a picture of you in public, and put in block letters "Butt-fucking children is fun" over it and post it?

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (1)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708475)

Nope. Indeed, model release is needed.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20708695)

I just wanted to say kudos for being so massively, completely wrong, yet barging in and spouting off ignorant comments regardless. Kudos!

My favorite part was when you said it was the family's fault for licensing under CC when if you'd so much as read the summary you'd know that wasn't true. Actually, no, my favorite part was when you talked about laws as though you know them, when really, you know a few 'public property' legal rules-of-thumb and proceeded to act like you're actually knowledgeable in this area. Which you are not.

Please never post again. You're making the world a worse place with this garbage.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (2, Insightful)

Adradis (1160201) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708339)

If I understand it right (I glanced over the article itself [Yes, I blasphemize!]), but it looks like the photographer chose to do this on his own without asking the family. He took a picture at a summer camp, and used it later, they say they had nothing to do with agreeing to it.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (1)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708353)

Yes, but the law says that when you are on a public setting, you CAN be photographed, and the photographer determines the license terms. So the photographer decided to release his picture in CC-BY, which is his prerogative and right to do so. The girl and family can't do anything about it. She should have asked right there to not take her picture, or to not publish it. From the moment she didn't express any disconcern, then she has NO SAY in what happened afterwards.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708445)

Yes, she does. She can say that she doesn't want the photo used commercially. She can't stop the photographer from doing anything else with it though, including publishing it on the net.

It sounds like the company, Creative Commons Corp is the one really at fault. They should have confirmed that the photographer had a model release.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (1)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708461)

Creative Commons in not a company, it's the project that wrote the license. Virgin is the company. And I agree, it requires a model release.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (5, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708453)

err, a summer camp is a private function, not public. And she is underage, in which case she can't sign a release to begin with, or give permission to have her photo taken.

are you really so stupid as to suggest it's a minor's responsibility to understand contract law ? i'm pretty sure anywhere you go you'll find photographing kids and giving away their photo's on the interwebs isn't legal.

mod +1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20708739)

can't believe some of the fucking retards on this site.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (2, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708499)

You can be photographed in a public place, but your image cannot be used commercially without your permission (with some minor exceptions).

E.g., I can stand outside your house on the street and take a photo of you when you walk your dog in the morning, holding a cup of coffee, but I can't take that same photo and use it in the promotional materials for "Kadin's Pretty Good Coffee Co." Although you can't stop me from taking the picture, you still have some control over the use of your image commercially, particularly to support or endorse a product.

So the photographer was probably OK to take the picture. I'm not really sure if he was OK to put it on the Internet, if he didn't have the parents' permission (I think that's sort of a legal grey area at the moment). He was probably not okay to license it under the CC license, although he may be able to argue successfully that simply putting the photo under the Attribution license doesn't imply that it can be used commercially, simply that commercial use isn't prohibited by him (there's a fine but significant difference there). I suspect Virgin is going to be liable for something, because they took the photo, assumed that the CC license implied that a model release existed, and ran the photo, when in fact they only had the photographer's permission, but not the model's.

In a photo that shows a clearly identifiable person, there are two intellectual property issues. The first is regarding the actual copyright on the photograph. That is held by the photographer and it's what the CC license releases for others to use. The second piece of IP is the model/subject's image, and that is controlled by the subject/model unless they sign a model release and turn over control to the photographer.

Most stock repositories won't accept photos of people without a model release, for exactly this reason. However, Flickr doesn't care, and Virgin's PR people blew it when they treated Flickr like a stock-photo repository.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708395)

1. the girl is under 18, a model release form is required

2. without the release the photographer HAS NO RIGHT to release her image for commercial purposes

3. She didn't license the photo, the photographer did it, why the fuck should she need to understand a license when she doesn't know it's being applied to her image?

imagine if you can, suddenly seeing your image on tv and in newspapers when you didn't give consent for it to be used? I'd sue the fucking pants off them as well.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (1)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708439)

You are right. This is a model release case. The photographer is liable.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (-1, Offtopic)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708473)

sweet black baby jesus! someone listened to an opposing view and agreed with it!!! i can't be on /.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (1)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708517)

I'm not so sure about that. If the CC-license is anything like the GPL or BSD licenses, they claim that the issuer is not responsible for infringements of other rights and that it is up to the licensee to do determine if use of the material would be legal based on their local laws. Patents are the most common issue, but I don't see why model release would be any different.

There is a difference between saying "I copyleft my rights under copyright, including those restricting commercial usage of my work." and saying "I assert that the following content is commercial usable for all purposes." The former statement seems more logical, especially considering that CC-licenses deal with copyright.

In such a case, it is Virgin or their contractors that are at fault.

Re:Virgin should pay them nothing (1)

zdarnell (16295) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708777)

Considering the photographer had no right to state that the image could be used in such a manner in the first place, the Licensee is not at fault.

It would be as if I took the Linux kernel source, put it on a website and said it was BSD licensed. If a company then took the source and used it with the terms set by the BSD license, they should not be ultimately culpable, since I had no right to state what terms the source could be used.

The photographer was wrong to use a license that allowed commercial usage of a photo he had no right to state could be used commercially.

this is dumb dumb dumb (0)

rgaginol (950787) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708319)

Why is that some people get greedy and ignore even the common sense which prevails a court room, let alone common sense in the real world. It would be like suing me for saying: "Here's my really crappy license agreement (furthermore know as the RCLA), I don't know about RCLA's quality, but if you can use it as a standard footer... but the license won't really do anything" Dumb. Seriously, I'm struck by that moment in Idiocracy where the defense counsellor yells, "And he broke my window". Dumb dumb dumb dumb.

Copyright laws are not the only use restrictions (3, Informative)

3Suns (250606) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708333)

Virgin is in the wrong here, and CC has nothing to do with it, obviously. The CC license only releases certain provisions of copyright, but doesn't touch the kind of legal restrictions that require people's consent to use their image.

And Creative Commons the organization doesn't license anything, which the article mistakes. They provide license texts that other people use of their own accord. In order to license anything, you need to own the copyright first... and CC obviously doesn't own the copyrights to all material released under Creative Commons licenses.

Re:Copyright laws are not the only use restriction (2, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708467)

Virgin is in the wrong here

I don't think so. They used what basically amounted to a stock photo according to its license. Were they supposed to personally vet all parties involved? Do you personally vet everyone in stock photos you use? Or audit all the software on your machine to ensure that the people who licensed it to you really had permission to do so?

At some point, you have to be able to trust that your sources are legitimately representing themselves. IANAL, but this seems like one of those "good faith" dealings, and Virgin didn't have any reason to think that the photographer was illegally offering his work. They obeyed their license with him, and it was his job to make sure he was allowed to offer it.

Flickr is not a stock photo repository. (5, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708645)

Virgin is in the wrong here
I don't think so. They used what basically amounted to a stock photo according to its license. Were they supposed to personally vet all parties involved? Do you personally vet everyone in stock photos you use? Or audit all the software on your machine to ensure that the people who licensed it to you really had permission to do so?

At some point, you have to be able to trust that your sources are legitimately representing themselves. IANAL, but this seems like one of those "good faith" dealings, and Virgin didn't have any reason to think that the photographer was illegally offering his work. They obeyed their license with him, and it was his job to make sure he was allowed to offer it.
I think that the argument the photographer could make -- and a pretty good one IMO -- is that simply by putting up the photo under the BY-SA license (or whatever license he chose that wasn't one of the 'NC' ones), he *did not* make any representations that it was OK to use commercially. He may have waived his own copyright, and said that he had no problem with it being used commercially, but he didn't say that the image was clear of other IP claims.

That's a pretty crucial difference: "I don't prohibit you from using this commercially," is a very different statement from "this image is OK to use commercially." Only in the latter case is the photographer making any representations about the suitability of the photo for a particular use. In the former, he's just saying 'I don't have a problem with commercial use,' the implication being that someone else might, and it's on you to check.

In a stock photo repository, you are told specifically by the stock company "these images are all OK to be used commercially." (Usually in very explicit terms, somewhere in the small print, and the better ones will usually indemnify you from any problems like this, which is why companies use them.) But I don't think Flickr is saying that, and it's a mistake to assume that just because a photo is under a license that doesn't prohibit commercial use, that it's implied.

Basically, although my initial response was to blame the photographer, on more consideration I think the majority of the blame lies with Virgin, for treating Flickr like a stock-photo gallery, when in reality it's anything but. Flickr has a lot of images on which the photographers have put very permissive licenses on their own copyrights, but that doesn't necessarily imply anything else.

I could see enough room though for a good attorney to argue the case either way. If this actually goes to trial it could be pretty interesting, since I suspect Virgin probably isn't the only company using Flickr as a source for stock photography.

Re:Copyright laws are not the only use restriction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20708491)

CC is an explicit license regarding usability of material given by owner of the image.

CC is a form of license, not an "insitution". It doesn't own anything. When one signs picture using CC-by license, he is giving consent to public to use it in certain manner.

Streisand effect, anyone? (1)

CAR912 (788234) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708387)

And now the ironic thing is that this lawsuit is bringing more publicity to the family and the photo than if they had sat back and done nothing. I.e. the "Streisand effect" [wikipedia.org] .

The "Streisand effect" does not apply (1)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708515)

And now the ironic thing is that this lawsuit is bringing more publicity to the family and the photo than if they had sat back and done nothing. I.e. the "Streisand effect".
You are under the impression that the family wants to suppress the photo itself, but there's no indication of that. The family either wants to distance themselves from the impressions and associations created by Virgin's marketing campaign, or they want a "piece of the action" (get paid for commercial use). Again, since the photo in and of itself is not embarrassing, attention can only help the family.

There's no irony there.

As the radio talk-show lawyer always asks... (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708441)

What are your damages?

"What did you lose (in monetary terms) by this picture being used?"

Like other cell phone companies where lining up to use the picture... now they are backing off.

I'd say damages are $1.00 for each random person off the street who can name the pictured individual. (Take 10,000 samples if you want.)

Ridiculous (4, Insightful)

CTachyon (412849) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708457)

It's like suing FedEx because some thief stole your credit card and used it to buy something online, and FedEx delivered the package.

Creative Commons didn't do jack squat to her. What's worse, neither Virgin, nor the photographer, nor Flickr have any sort of contract with Creative Commons. Creative Commons just wrote some nice copyright licenses; if they hadn't written them, the photographer could just as well have posted them under another liberal license, or made them public domain. Hell, even Flickr has more guilt here than Creative Commons, since the photographer probably never would've heard of the CC licenses if Flickr didn't have handy radio buttons to choose among them.

If the photographer didn't have permission from her to redistribute the photo under those terms, then that's the fault of the photographer and the girl for not discussing it — i.e. the photographer should've asked "Hey, can I post this to Flickr?" and, if she didn't know, mention that he uses a CC license.

Worse, Virgin is innocent in all this as well. They used the photo in a good faith assumption that the permissions granted to them by the photographer were his to give. They should immediately pull any advertising with her photo, sure, but they shouldn't be liable for damages if the photo is pulled immediately.

Virgin is not innocent (5, Insightful)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708535)

If some stranger takes a picture of me on the street without my explicit knowledge and posts it to Flickr with a Creative Commons license, would Virgin be allowed to use that image in an ad?

Sure, in this case, the subject actually knew the photographer and consented in some sense to the photo being taken, but how would Virgin know that by merely surfing Flickr? This is Flickr, not stockphotos.com. It's not reasonable to assume that releases have been signed for every photo on Flickr.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708573)

Worse, Virgin is innocent in all this as well. They used the photo in a good faith assumption that the permissions granted to them by the photographer were his to give. They should immediately pull any advertising with her photo, sure, but they shouldn't be liable for damages if the photo is pulled immediately.

This is not true, if the talk of the "model release" is true. With no model release, it's not legal to use the photo commercially. Assigning copyright does not mean there is a model release.

CC actually helped the virgin daughter (0, Offtopic)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708647)

If anything, Creative Commons actually helped her, by providing simplified licensing options, with clear explanations. If she didn't get it, or if her family disagreed with what she did, then that's a matter for them.

More importantly... I read this as "...Virgin daughter..." on the second reading. My question obviously would have been, "do we know she's a virgin, and if so, how?" Strangely, that question still interests me ;)

Re:CC actually helped the virgin daughter (1)

warrigal (780670) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708775)

It probably wasn't even Virgin that chose/used the photo anyway. What's the bet that it was done by an advertising agency?
A bored intern, a rush job, a photo remembered from browsing for pr0n. Bingo!

Hmm (3, Insightful)

Selanit (192811) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708459)

It's pretty clear from the article that the photographer chose the CC license, and the company fulfilled its terms. However, I'm pretty sure that the CC license doesn't actually affect the primary claim of the lawsuit, which is that the girl's privacy was broken and her reputation smeared. The CC license constitutes permission from the photographer to use the photograph for commercial purposes, but doesn't constitute permission from the subject of the photograph to have the image so used. If the picture had been, say, a nice picture of a mountain lake with no people in it, then nobody would care. The lake wouldn't care that its reputation might be damaged. But when there are people in the photo, then you need consent from each one before publishing it, particularly if you're making money off doing so. That's pretty standard operating practice.

Basically, it looks to me like Virgin Australia screwed the pooch on this one.

Oh, and it's unclear to me whether the counselor is 1) being sued; 2) suing; or 3) not currently involved directly in litigation.

Re:Hmm (5, Informative)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708529)

Except the laws for this kind of thing are different in australia, here, you don't need the subject's consent to use an image, you just need the copyright holder's permission, which in this case would be the photographer. I'd say they did indeed fuck up, but it's probably an honest mistake.

Model Release (1)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708477)

Okay, to start off, when I was taking Senior Pictures, I remember getting back the demo prints and they all had a (c) DO NOT COPY stamped on the bottom. I found this funny since it was a picture of me, but I understand that the photographer, not the photographed, owns the rights to the photo. Now another thing they did, if I remember correctly, is have me sign a release allowing my image to be used by them however they see fit (whether on a website, company brochure, etc). If the picture in question was taken somewhere professional, the girl may very well have had to sign something similar. IANAL, but wouldn't that be equivalent to a model release? Then the photographer, with his copyright power releases the photograph as CC and Virgin takes the picture and uses it. Once again, it all depends on the context the photo was in (whether it was an amateur Flickr scrapbook shot or professional work where releases would be signed by default).

Re:Model Release (1)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708761)

"I found this funny since it was a picture of me, but I understand that the photographer, not the photographed, owns the rights to the photo." - true is some cases, but not in others.

Photographers would like you to believe they own the rights in all cases. (Wedding photographers are as guilty as sin of doing this) However, in the US and many other jurisdictions, if you pay a photographer to take a picture, it becomes a work for hire [wikipedia.org] and the person who paid the photographer owns the copyright.

Wee Wong (1)

Forrest Kyle (955623) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708553)

There's a joke in there somewhere...

Re:Wee Wong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20708577)

You're thinking of wang.

In other news... (1)

MeditationSensation (1121241) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708559)

People sue Richard Stallman for inventing the GPL. Terms of the suit include requiring Mr. Stallman to shave his beard.

Greedy BS... (3, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708593)

Suing the people who made the effing license? I hope they get stomped in court like the insects they are.

Read the flickr thread. (1)

Jartan (219704) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708607)

The flickr thread referenced in the article has some pretty good info.

The CC seems to have a FAQ question on this issue. It sounds like Virgin was supposed to verify no matter what. It doesn't make clear though whether or not the photographer is supposed to get this sort of thing cleared up before putting it under CC though.

Seems like the picture was taken in a (restaurant?) parking lot where their group was giving car washes. Certainly in public but I wonder if it's in public enough for commercial use?

Ruined Model Future (0)

detain (687995) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708621)

I truely hope that after this family has done this, that this girls future as a possible model is ruined. I know I would stay very clear of people with a history like this if I was looking for someone to shoot.

Free (good) publicity for someone that is otherwise unknown and currently would have had almost no chance of any type of modeling career, this kind of thing could have really set her up to jump start a career, but no she has to go and get greedy and hopefully ruins her chances of ever making it.

I think its ludacris that the Creative Commons is being suid, and while Im sure that nothing will come of it, it just goes to show you that these people really are just after money and nothing else.

Virgin is the ONLY one the girl can sue (4, Insightful)

arkarumba (763047) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708623)

The issue is NOT about copyright. The photographer is perfectly able to sell a six foot framed picture of the picture of the girl, to which he own the copyright, as an individual artwork.

The issue is about the use of the girl to endorse a product, which requires a model release specifically granting permission for it to be used in that way.

Again, its not about copyright. So CC having anything to do with it is non sequitur.

The girl can really only sue Virgin, who are the ones who paired her image to endorse their ad campaign. Virgin may then on-sue the photographer if he falsely made any assurances about there being a model release - however as standard practice, Virgin really shoudl have had the model release in hand before publication.

I don't see how the tagline is derogatory (2, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708631)

"dump your pen friend" "free text virgin to virgin".

Uh she's a young female teen.

I don't see how it's derogatory that she is being associated with being a virgin. "A lot of her church friends saw it".

Derogatory in this context would be "free text slut to slut".

As for "dump your pen friend", as far as I know, teens nowadays don't have pen friends - they use IM and SMS/"text", so that's true too.

She should be compensated though, not for being insulted, but for whatever the usual photo model gets for that sort of thing.

Now if someone put an image of a 40 year old slashdotter and used that same taglines it would be naughtier, maybe even funnier ;).

Re:I don't see how the tagline is derogatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20708665)

Uh, dude, when they say "free text virgin to virgin", they mean "free text, virgin mobile customer to virgin mobile customer". It's, you know, shorthand?

If you've ever spent any time here in Oz, you'll know that Aussies *love* to shorten names/words/sentences/whatever.

Oh, and BTW for anyone that's interested, "Aussie" is pronounced with a soft 's', like "Ozzie", not a hard 's', like "bossy". :-)

Re:I don't see how the tagline is derogatory (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708723)

You failed reading comprehension?

From the article:

"The experience damaged Alison's reputation and exposed her to ridicule from her peers and scrutiny from people who can now Google her, the family said in the lawsuit.

"It's the tag line; it's derogatory," said Damon Chang, 27. "A lot of her church friends saw it."

Damon Chang apparently is her brother.

From the other link: "aleeviation says: hey that's me! no joke. i think i'm being insulted...can you tell me where this was taken."

I'd have thought it would have been more of an insult to be accused of virginity in Oz than USA - after all didn't a joke go:

Question: "Why couldn't Jesus have been born in Australia?"
Answer: "No virgins"*

* of child bearing age presumably.

Re:I don't see how the tagline is derogatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20708685)

I hate your fucking sig. You're such a dick. BTW if she needs help with that virginity thing, ya know, to help "relieve" her from the distress it's causing her, I'm game. She's hot!

Re:I don't see how the tagline is derogatory (1)

Televiper2000 (1145415) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708811)

It's the "dump your pen friend" that's derogatory. The ad's suggesting you get rid of your weird-o pen-pal.

This Just in (2, Funny)

MrCopilot (871878) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708637)

This Just in, HoWee Wong.

Great new pet name for genitalia.

New CC based revenue stream (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708711)

1. Take a photo and release it under CC with attribution
2. Wait till the attribution leads you hear about someone using it
3. Sue
4. Profit!

Next to be added as defendants (1)

LochNess (239443) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708725)

The Sydney Morning Herald, who have put a copy of the photo on their website

The manufacturer of the camera that took the picture. Didn't they know that there was the potential for this when they made it?

Did this family hire Steve Dallas as their lawyer or something?

this lawsuit makes no sense (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708747)

but it doesn't surprise me. long gone are the days when americans would earn an honest living working in a steel plant, building cares, mining or in my case producing adult video entertainment. Nowadays everybody wants to sue and get rich very quickly. Is it any wonder our currency keep losing its value in the world?

http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX&v=d6 [ino.com]

Why not sue the daughter's... (1)

walter_f (889353) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708829)

... youth counselor instead, who put the photo into Flickr and chose a CC licence for it?

And in addition, perhaps, Flickr itself (although I am not sure about that)?

Please note, IANAL.

Sueing Creative Commons here looks like sueing the publisher of a law textbook because "my case in court did not work like the example in your book"...

Walter.

permission (1)

SuperDre (982372) | more than 7 years ago | (#20708883)

Using a picture which is CC isn't bad ofcourse, but not asking for permission from the person on it, is a bad thing, especially if the person is underaged, they should have asked permission of the parents.. You should always have the permission of the person in a picture if you are going to use it commercially (hell even if you are not using it commercially). Hell, I would also sue any company for using any pictures of me if someone else took them and put them somewhere on the internet, unless ofcourse I gave that person specific permission for letting other people use that picture.. What's next, we just shoot a picture of someone on the street and use it since I put it on the internet with a CC license, without the person even knowing it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?