« The Heartbreak Kid makes its mark on Facebook | Main | What is your privacy setting? »
October 05, 2007
Flickr Famous
You may have read the story in the New York Times this week about the high school student in Dallas who sued Virgin Mobile after it plastered her photo on a billboard in Australia.
The billboard did credit the Flickr photographer who took the photo, Justin Wong. He had originally posted the photo with a Creative Commons license allowing any use of the photo, as long as the work was attributed to him. (Since then, Wong has changed the Creative Commons license on his photos to “All Rights Reserved.”)
But neither Virgin Mobile nor Wong had obtained a model release from the student, Alison Chang, or -- since she’s only 15 –- from her parents. Nor did Virgin Mobile tell the photographer they were using his photo. He found out when a Flickr member in Adelaide, Brenton Cleeland, snapped a photo of the bus shelter billboard, which said “Dump Your Pen Friend!” and posted it on Flickr. Alison saw Cleeland's photo and wrote, “hey that’s me! no joke. i think i’m being insulted.”
The next message was from Wong, who wrote: “where was this? do you think virgin mobile will give me stuff?” The photo and the very interesting message thread are still on Cleeland’s Flickr site. In one of the 244 messages there, Alison’s brother writes that he has consulted lawyers about the matter.
The family is suing Virgin Mobile USA and Creative Commons in federal district court in Dallas.
What this should make Flickr users think of:
- Think hard about whether you want to allow commercial use of your photos. Creative Commons gives a list of “Things to Think About” before choosing your license.
- You may want to add language to your profile noting that you have not obtained model releases for your photos.
- If you’re an advertiser, just because a Flickr photographer has given permission for use of his/her photos doesn’t mean the subjects of the photo will allow you to use their likenesses in advertising.
- And if you think a teenager in Dallas will never see her face on an ad in Australia, think about the global social network, and think again.
P.S. Thanks to Paula Amunategui for the link to the Flickr discussion.
Posted by Laurie Mayers at October 5, 2007 01:16 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.mslpr.com/blogworks/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/604
Comments
This is irritating - why sue Virgin and/or Creative Commons? Because they're out for money and Justin has none.
Justin is the one who is at fault here, since he posted something he didn't have full rights to and then put an open license on it. Yes, Virgin should have mentioned it to the photographer, but they're not required to nor do I believe that Justin would have said "Oh, and by the way, I didn't get a model release for that photo". And suing CC?? That's just idiotic.
This just pisses me off.
Posted by: Jake McKee at October 7, 2007 09:09 PM
Great recap, Laurie.
Posted by: Alicia Dorset at October 9, 2007 12:21 PM
Jake,
I totally agree that Justin should have realized what "commercial use" meant. And it's interesting that the family is suing Virgin Mobile USA instead of Virgin Mobile Australia, no doubt so U.S. privacy laws will apply. But I also blame Virgin, as surely they had a responsibility to not misrepresent or insult the girl. After all, they were concerned enough about legalities to remove the Adidas logo from her hat.
Posted by: Laurie at October 9, 2007 01:11 PM
