Use my photo? Not without permission

A lawsuit highlights some of the pitfalls of reusing photographs shared on photo-sharing Web sites like Flickr.
The New York Times

The story "Use my photo? Not without permission" published October 1, 2007 at 7:45 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[umbrae]

Irony...

Media companies sue children for copyright infringement, then go and use unlicensed work in their advertisements. Just perfect irony. Too bad the main difference is that Media companies have the government and FBI doing their dirty work...

[darliejan]

That is so true...

Your comment is so very true. The double standard that the big businesses apply just because they have the money to do so is appalling.

[Anonymous Freak]

I always check, even if licensed for commercial.

I run a small business, and I love finding material for use in my <br />ads on Flickr and similar sources. Mostly because the majority of <br />photos on these sites are licensed for all use, even commercial.<br /><br />But, I don't always trust the licensing. I ALWAYS check with the <br />original source before using their works. However, in this case, <br />it's not the photographer's rights that are in question, it's the <br />SUBJECT of the photo. I have never used a photo with a person <br />in it, so I have never had to deal with this. But now that I know, <br />I will make sure that if I DO use one with a person in it, I will ask <br />the photographer for the subject's contact information so I can <br />get permission from them, too.

[VisualLiving]

They should have used Visual Living

They should have bought their stock image at Visual Living. Every image Royalty Free, every image $10.<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://visualliving.com" target="_newWindow">http://visualliving.com</a>

[NoVista]

Virgin lives up to the name?

(snark) As tho they were born yesterday.<br /><br />It's been a long-standing practice in commercial photography that any model must sign a release before the image can be used.<br /><br />People not in the business whose photos have been used have sued successfully.<br /><br />Yet again, the cyclopean visit of a corporation is revealed -- they always know their 'rights' and no one else's! I hope this costs them a bundle.<br /><br />Yah boo sux to Virgin.

[ahickey]

May be a tricky situation

I'm not a legal expert, but Virgin may have a get out clause.<br /><br />If the photographer released the images as Creative Common then he shold have ensure he had the right to do it. <br /><br />Is it really up to Virgin Mobile to ensure everything is in place when they use an image that is stated to be licensed under Creative Common.

[ewelch]

Yes

Virgin is required to check. I spend nearly $300,000 some years on <br />photo licenses on my job. I have dealt with this for years. And a <br />model release is absolutely required, and a photographer has no <br />right to say it's okay for the person in the photo. Not for editorial <br />use. But for commercial use and advertising, it is absolutely <br />required.<br /><br />Virgin will lose.

[ejevo]

Just let me know

If anyone sees an ad campaign centered around crashed track cars or pictures of broken lugs or transmission parts, let me know. That's my Flickr stuff.

[Lady Jane Grey]

Complicated

Virgin Mobile used the photo in Australia. While the subject of the photo may have rights of privacy/publicity in the US, does she have similar rights in Australia? In some "common law" countries, photos taken in a public place may be published without infringing privacy rights. <br />It can also be very difficult to bring successful proceedings for using someone's image in "passing off" or for misleading or deceptive conduct in trade unless the subject is comparatively famous. The subject may have little or no cause of action in Australia<br /><br />Virgin Mobile in the US is a different legal entity to the Australian company so the subject and her family simply have sued the wrong entity.