Who owns your photo?

[ivar]

Who owns your photo:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/24/intv.virgin.flickr.lawsuit.cnn

[saurora]

Interesting story, Ivar, thanks for sharing it. The annoying thing (to me) is that Virgin could have well afforded to pay a photographer to shoot such a simple shot. Heck, anyone could have taken that shot. Of course, I imagine someone was paid, that person just chose to 'steal' someone else's work. :rolleyes

[Flyinggina]

I just watched the clip and I just can't believe that posting a photograph on flickr offers it up for free use world wide, including for commercial use. The photograph even had the copyright info on it. I haven't read the flickr contract, but my understanding is that that isn't the case for what we post on SmugMug. Is it?

Virginia

[aktse]

I just watched the clip and I just can't believe that posting a photograph on flickr offers it up for free use world wide, including for commercial use. The photograph even had the copyright info on it. I haven't read the flickr contract, but my understanding is that that isn't the case for what we post on SmugMug. Is it?

Virginia
Actually, the photographer didn't offer it free to the world. It was posted with a creative common license (http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/)

Here's a decent article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-over-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html#) and another one (http://techdirt.com/articles/20070921/003636.shtml) and flickr dicussion on it (http://www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157600541608353/)

And technically, there was a line in the ad and lists the flickr site (small fine print).

There are issues with both sides of the story. Virgin Australia's didn't have a model release (don't know if they need one over there) and I believe they're pushing the boundaries of a creative common license. However, the family seems to be sueing everyone... both Virgin in both countires even though they're separate companies, Creatve Commons (don't know why) and maybe the photographer as well.

[SloYerRoll]

Thanks for that link Ivar.

What an eye opener.

I'm glad I belong to SM. None of that rot happens here (in the ccl sence). They take our shots, we take their money!

All the best,
-Jon

[Belg]

What would be a really good, bulletproof copyright wording that would make it clear that images are not for free use, period, under any circumstances?

Talk about an eye-opening report....

[Belg]

What would be a really good, bulletproof copyright wording that would make it clear that images are not for free use, period, under any circumstances?

Talk about an eye-opening report....

That was a dumb question, even for 4:30am. Nevermind...

[ivar]

That was a dumb question, even for 4:30am. Nevermind...
:lol3

I posted this link, to see what the general reaction was. Personally, I don't think this situation has anything to do with copyright and 'owning'. The photo was posted under a Create Commons License (I'm not sure which one). As far as I know, all CCLs require that it is known publicly that the product falls under that license, as well as give credit to the original owner. Since it wasn't known from the poster that this fell under a CC license, the owner of the photo could possibly have a case.

When you post your photos on SmugMug, you keep the copyright. We never take that from you, nor does posting the image make the image available for public commercial use all of a sudden. See our Terms of Service (http://www.smugmug.com/aboutus/terms.mg) for details.
Flickr makes it easy to add a CCL to your photos, but we at SmugMug don't prevent you from posting under a Creative Commons License. Plenty of people do this already (http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Nil&q=creative+commons+site%3Asmugmug.com&btnG=Zoeken&meta=).

However, it is not the photographer, but the subject being photographed who is starting cases here, for privacy, so they say.



So if it is indeed privacy and not copyright that is the problem here, what is the difference between having your photo in public view on a poster at the busstop, or in public view on a website? opinions? :ear

[rdlugosz]

:lol3
So if it is indeed privacy and not copyright that is the problem here, what is the difference between having your photo in public view on a poster at the busstop, or in public view on a website? opinions? :ear
Right... and it'll likely come down to a question of the usage. If this were art or editorial then it probably wouldn't be an issue. However, since this is commercial use there's a whole new thing involved... in particular, the ad in some ways implies that she endorses the Virgin product. Similarly, I'd suspect that if the image were used in an inappropriate (inaccurate) editorial way (i.e., with a caption that says "she loves old westerns") there'd be some potential legal action.

If you're *really* bored, you may want to take a peek at some research I did on this topic, check out this blog post on photography and the right to privacy (http://blog.rrdphoto.com/2007/07/right-to-privacy-and-photography.html). The paper briefly looks into two cases that dealt with this issue - one from a commercial perspective and another from an art usage angle.

edit: changed "verizon" to "virgin"

[LiquidAir]

Right... and it'll likely come down to a question of the usage. If this were art or editorial then it probably wouldn't be an issue. However, since this is commercial use there's a whole new thing involved... in particular, the ad in some ways implies that she endorses the Verizon product. Similarly, I'd suspect that if the image were used in an inappropriate (inaccurate) editorial way (i.e., with a caption that says "she loves old westerns") there'd be some potential legal action.

If you're *really* bored, you may want to take a peek at some research I did on this topic, check out this blog post on photography and the right to privacy (http://blog.rrdphoto.com/2007/07/right-to-privacy-and-photography.html). The paper briefly looks into two cases that dealt with this issue - one from a commercial perspective and another from an art usage angle.

Exactly. This isn't about ownership of the photo at all. Rather it is essentially a libel case. Using her photo in an advertising campain, at least in the US, is considered an implied endorsement of the product and without a model release, that is considered slander.

[bham]

Right... and it'll likely come down to a question of the usage. If this were art or editorial then it probably wouldn't be an issue. However, since this is commercial use there's a whole new thing involved... in particular, the ad in some ways implies that she endorses the Verizon product. Similarly, I'd suspect that if the image were used in an inappropriate (inaccurate) editorial way (i.e., with a caption that says "she loves old westerns") there'd be some potential legal action.

If you're *really* bored, you may want to take a peek at some research I did on this topic, check out this blog post on photography and the right to privacy (http://blog.rrdphoto.com/2007/07/right-to-privacy-and-photography.html). The paper briefly looks into two cases that dealt with this issue - one from a commercial perspective and another from an art usage angle.

Good paper.