DSLRUsers.com

Here's something interesting from todays news reports. FULL STORY HERE

Short version - Virgin mobile is using images from Flickr as part of a current Australian billboard advertising campaign. They haven't paid the person who took the photo,nor obtained model releases from subjects nor even notified the photographer they have used their photo. And Virgin Mobile said yesterday it had "acted legally and in accordance with the licensing agreements agreed to by Flickr users. " Reason being the photog used a Creative Commons Licence on the image - thus making the only requirement for use of the photo being attribution of the photographer.

And for lots more discussion on this see the Flickr site HERE

Bottom line - beware handing away the rights to your work.

What I don't get here is that people are agreeing to let their photos be used under the conditions of Creative Commons... and then when they are used in accordance with those conditions they get upset. In this particular instance I feel for the subject of the photo, because even if the photographer posting the images wasn't quite aware of what they'd consented to be done with their image, it's even less likely that the subject knew, or would have consented.

I'm surprised, though, that the Company involved would have opened themselves up to the can of worms that could result from doing this. In the company I work for, the legal department are the most-conservative / least-gung-ho people in the place. They think DEFENSIVELY. I'm not one of them, but I'm pretty sure they would not have allowed this.

That said, at the time I signed up I'm not sure what copyright status I took (I use flickr to host the images I post here). When I go to make changes, the default that's there is "all rights reserved" so it would appear I'm okay....

This will be an interesting one to see how it plays out. The issue of copyright is minor as it appears the rights were given by the photographer. The issue of the missing model release will be where the fight is.

This is how I see it will play out.

Subject of photograph takes legal action against Virgin Mobile.

Virgin Mobile will argue that as the images were released for "commercial use", a model release is implied. They will then take legal action against the photographer for making the photograph available without a model release.

Virgin Mobile will more money and bigger lawyers and will squash the photographer.

Subject may get a pay out.

Virgin Mobile will lose very little money.

Photographer will be ruined - unless they get a very good lawyer pro bono.

ATJ wrote:The issue of the missing model release will be where the fight is.

I was thinking this as well.

So the onus is on the photographer to secure model release, even if they don't consent to their images being used for advertising (or, I suppose the Creative Commons licence is technically "consent")?

Hmmm

Two things for me in this

1. Stupid to release an image under creative commons all use (as opposed to non commercial)

2. I'm not convinced there would be an onus on the photographer to get a model release in ANTICIPATION of commercial use just because they are allowing any use of their photo. (there's some discussion of that angle at the linked flickr spot) That's one for the lawyers of course.

macka wrote:

ATJ wrote:The issue of the missing model release will be where the fight is.

I was thinking this as well.

So the onus is on the photographer to secure model release, even if they don't consent to their images being used for advertising (or, I suppose the Creative Commons licence is technically "consent")?

I don't believe it is at all - although the photographer would be in the best position to obtain one at the time of taking the photograph. I believe the onus is on the end user of the photograph (Virgin Mobile and the advertising agency) to ensure that a model release exists. What I'm suggesting is that their legal counsel will try to argue that it was the photographer that stuffed up rather than them.

What gets me is:

1. They altered the photo
2. Gave no credit
3. Added demeaning text to it.

Shame. And the creative agency who was in charge and put this stuff out there should gets it proverbial a**e kicked, along with a financial penalty.

Actually, they did provide credit and that was all they needed to do as part of the Creative Commons Licence.

Saw this while I was walking into the city earlier today - down in the bottom corner it says that the photo is from flickr.com/photos/chewywong.

I believe the "Creative Commons Licence" allows them to both alter the photograph and do anything else they like with it, including adding text.

ATJ - all valid points, after actually going to the CC website and having a quick read....


..still if flickr.com/photos/chewywong is giving someone credit I am the proverbial monkeys uncle...

And I am sure if that person had any idea how that image was going to be used then Virgin would not have been allowed to use it...

Kind of a shock I think.

I am buying a phone today and Virgin Mobile isn't on the list.

I could accept this by a one man band just starting out, but from a company which trades on its association with others in its group and has no hesitation in suing small aussie companies who have Virgin in their names, this really is the bottom of the barrel.

I understand the photographer was the girl's brother, so I doubt she will take legal action for not being offered a model release, and if she does, she is a twat.

Reschsmooth wrote:I understand the photographer was the girl's brother, so I doubt she will take legal action for not being offered a model release, and if she does, she is a twat.

Patrick,

Not according to the discussion that Peter linked.

chewywong is the photographer
aleeviation is the subject/model
teacherjamesdotcom is the brother

ATJ wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:I understand the photographer was the girl's brother, so I doubt she will take legal action for not being offered a model release, and if she does, she is a twat.

Patrick,

Not according to the discussion that Peter linked.

chewywong is the photographer
aleeviation is the subject/model
teacherjamesdotcom is the brother

Fair enough - I didn't read that far and was referencing my recollection of the discussion on Hack.

Why does it not surprise me that Virgin was the company involved?

This 'unwanted' attention was no doubt a part of their plan...

spewin, what there for us to compete against multi-dollars company, chances are..

ozczecho wrote:..still if flickr.com/photos/chewywong is giving someone credit I am the proverbial monkeys uncle...

Why is that not a decent credit? It's what I get on a number of my photos when they're published, and it's what I commonly ask for. Macmillan books, for example, put "www.moz.net.nz" as the credit next to each photo in the textbooks that use my images, and I've even managed to weasel it in a couple of bicycle shop catalogs. Seems reasonable to me, especially once I get metadata and search working properly on my site.

stubbsy wrote:Short version - Virgin mobile is using images from Flickr as part of a current Australian billboard advertising campaign. They haven't paid the person who took the photo,nor obtained model releases from subjects nor even notified the photographer they have used their photo. And Virgin Mobile said yesterday it had "acted legally and in accordance with the licensing agreements agreed to by Flickr users. " Reason being the photog used a Creative Commons Licence on the image - thus making the only requirement for use of the photo being attribution of the photographer.

But wait: there's more.

The family of the girl in the image is suing Virgin. This will be fun.

At least I didn't reference a Murdoch paper!!!

Reschsmooth wrote:if she does, she is a twat.

She has one, that's likely, but I suspect there's more to her than that.

If people are stupid enough to put their images onto a website that strips them of their ownership rights then they have nothing to complain about. It is up to individual photographers to protect their artistic property. Don't be flattered when commercial entities use your work 'pro bono'. It's vaguely for the public good but mainly for their good. Only post very low resolution images on the web and maintain a link so that those who want your images can find you and negotiate a fair price.

I have to agree that it was pretty silly for the fella to put his photo's up with a Creative Commons licence - however, I do feel bad for the poor girl who had no say in the situation.

jamesw wrote:This 'unwanted' attention was no doubt a part of their plan...

Well...attention is one thing; revenue is another. Haven't seen anyone too impressed with the implementation of their campaign, so it'd be interesting to see if it even pays off for them.