farm1.static.flickr.com/223/522877665_da0ef825ee_o.jpg
virgin mobile in australia started using flickr photos this week.
if you are putting your shots under the following conditions:
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by
the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they
endorse you or your use of the work).
For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the
license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to
this web page.
Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from
the copyright holder.
Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral
rights.
" that is what happens .
protect yourself by any means !!!
mseidman 73 months ago | reply
I like the copy, I'll say that much. But 'attribution?'
teacherjamesdotcom 72 months ago | reply
Hi guys,
My name is Damon and my little sister was featured in one of these "Virgin Mobile" ads. Her friend took her picture and posted it on his Flickr page, and I guess Virgin Mobile took the picture of her and put it up on a big bus stop billboard in Adelaide, Australia.
The thing is though, no one at Virgin Mobile cared to contact her or her friend (who took the picture) to get permission. And the billboard is kinda making fun of her. And she's a minor. And I just don't think that's cool.
There's a whole discussion about this (and the Creative Commons Law that "allows" Virgin to put up other people's pictures without notifying them) at this link (http://www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157600541608353/) But, after consulting some legal counsel, it does seem like Virgin should have gotten a model release form from my parents regarding my sister's image in their ad campaign. The Creative Commons law covers the producer of the image, not the models in the image.
Currently, I am working with a US attorney on researching some precedence here with big companies mis-using other people's images and privacy invasion. And, I just wanted to try and notify the people on Flickr whose pictures are being used in this ad campaign and let them know what we're doing. It seems as if Virgin Mobile didn't notify ANYONE of the use of their Flickr pictures.
Anyway, if you're interested in keeping up with the situation, please check the links below and/or send me an email at:
damon@teacherjames.com
flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/
www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157600541608353/
Thanks,
Damon
PS: Some of the ads are quite funny, but some of them cross the line. One of them says "If talk is cheap, then texts should be somewhat slutty....Free texts Virgin to Virgin". That ad shows a woman's mid-section where you can't see her face. But if that picture was a recognizable face....
Gaetan Lee 72 months ago | reply
Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Virgin Mobile - Are you with us or what?, and we'd love to have your photo added to the group.
DBarefoot 72 months ago | reply
Damon: Shouldn't you have gotten a model release form before publishing photos of your sister, too?
Simon Willison 71 months ago | reply
DBarefoot: my understanding is that model release forms are required for images that are used commercially. Posting a photo to Flickr is not commercial use. Using it in a national ad campaign is.
Kat White 71 months ago | reply
I will vouch that, model release is not needed for photos posted on flickr purely as a method of showing family and friends. If it is being used for corporate/commercial gain, or it is going to be exhibited in say an exhibition, then yes a model release is needed.
Was this shot in Wynard/Townhall Station?
crater 71 months ago | reply
it was at town hall .
beatplusmelody 69 months ago | reply
I don't mean to be insensitive but get over yourself Damon.
southstreetphoto 15 months ago | reply
What virgin did was wrong, to use photos commercially of individuals deliberately without a model release and to apparently defame them. But whoever posts photos like that in the public domain is a moron and a liar to then turn around and pretend like they didn't know what they were doing so they could sue creative commons for not warning them enough.