Fallen Soldier's picture used in ad......

Hmm whilst the situation is saddening for the family I'd be surprised if those sites had acted illegally for their advertising (deliberately). One site certainly sounds like they dealt with the issue by removing the ad (blocking it from the site) already. I think we'd honestly need more details about how the photos were acquired and under what contract(s) they were used. Could simply be a really bad case of random selection of a submitted photo to the site being used for advertising (all photos submitted can be used clause in the terms and conditions) and the backlash or could be that the marine put his photo up for sale/use. Furthermore I'd be very surprised if after they showed the ad if anyone on the staff were aware of the marines life outside of that photo - it was just an advertising image for them so a good chance that the news of his death was not something they were watching out for (and this didn't react to until it was flagged by the family).

Either way without those details the case could either be a case of the family (either deliberately or mistakenly) trying to claw money out of the companies - or could be the companies not using a sufficient vetting process for their advertising material.
 
I know the story is by the AP... but come on. There's really no need to link Faux News, Mish.
 
Hmm whilst the situation is saddening for the family I'd be surprised if those sites had acted illegally for their advertising (deliberately). One site certainly sounds like they dealt with the issue by removing the ad (blocking it from the site) already. I think we'd honestly need more details about how the photos were acquired and under what contract(s) they were used. Could simply be a really bad case of random selection of a submitted photo to the site being used for advertising (all photos submitted can be used clause in the terms and conditions) and the backlash or could be that the marine put his photo up for sale/use. Furthermore I'd be very surprised if after they showed the ad if anyone on the staff were aware of the marines life outside of that photo - it was just an advertising image for them so a good chance that the news of his death was not something they were watching out for (and this didn't react to until it was flagged by the family).

Either way without those details the case could either be a case of the family (either deliberately or mistakenly) trying to claw money out of the companies - or could be the companies not using a sufficient vetting process for their advertising material.

Read the story. The family is upset because the was engaged when he died. I'm betting he never used either of those sites.

I've heard of sites like that just pulling random photos off of Facebook and using if for their advertising.
 
hmm are we mixing up what kind of Ad this is.

At the moment I was under the impression it was a general advertisement for the company itself thus the status of the person (married, engaged, single) wouldn't matter one bit. It's just advertising material so the only point of contention would be if the photo was used with or without permission.

If it was an advert by a person on those services advertising themselves using the photo I'd be sure that both companies would have protected themselves in their terms and conditions from such - and then it wouldn't be the companies fault anyway as it would be a private ad on their service (which would also be voiding their own TCs and thus would be removed when flagged under their own system).


Furthermore its not unknown for services like this be used by people without them telling their families or loved ones - heck I'm sure there are married people that use these services to ----- make liaisons.


I'm trying not to take sides, just view things from all angles and can see how the companies are not at direct fault for the action - however its a more details kind of thing - can't formulate a proper opinion without them - though can make a few guesses.
 
I believe they were using his picture on a dating site after he was dead. I don't know if he actually signed up for the sites or not. I'm guessing no. If it was a profile picture that he uploaded they would prolly have the right to use it.
 
Thing is if they retain the rights he could have used that site years ago and they'd likely still retain the right to use them. It's also not out of the question that he did some modelling/posed shots for a photographer/shoot of some kind and that he signed a model release and thus the photos were sold under that.

Wouldn't surprise me that even close family might be unaware of the use of the site or of the photos - so it could easily be a case where the company has just made a really bad move without it being their fault (the first quotation about the ad being barred months ago from the first company suggests that kind of situation).
 
The family says the photo was taken a few days before his death......maybe he signed up w/ in those few days. I would like to hear how this case ends up.
 
Ahh missed that detail - that does marr things a little, but still could be he signed up or heck someone signed up and just used his pic for their reference (or some marine buddy signed him up for him as a joke).
 
It seems like someone randomly found a picture of a soldier and used it in the ad w/ out having any idea who the guy was. I feel bad for the family but what do you do? Is there anything that you can do?
 
Honestly I'm not sure - on the one hand it would be good to have courts crunch down on use of "orphan" works - however in the US at least (as far as I know) the move has been to allow more use of orphan works rather than restrict it so that might be a hard thing coming.
If the shot wasn't just randomly found and was off a profile on the companies website (or off another one under the same umbrella as the company) about the only thing that will likely come out is the family being told that their son should have read the small print more clearly and that the company is under no strict orders to remove the image outside of compassion for the situation. (image used on their site signified that the uploader to their servers had the right to distribute and also gave the company the right to use the image including for advertising purposes).
 
Honestly I'm not sure - on the one hand it would be good to have courts crunch down on use of "orphan" works - however in the US at least (as far as I know) the move has been to allow more use of orphan works rather than restrict it so that might be a hard thing coming.
If the shot wasn't just randomly found and was off a profile on the companies website (or off another one under the same umbrella as the company) about the only thing that will likely come out is the family being told that their son should have read the small print more clearly and that the company is under no strict orders to remove the image outside of compassion for the situation. (image used on their site signified that the uploader to their servers had the right to distribute and also gave the company the right to use the image including for advertising purposes).

Sites like these have lifted images off of facebook and other social media sites. He was engaged during this time period, so I doubt he signed up. If someone else signed him up or used his photo to sign up, then the company doesn't have a leg to stand on unless the dead guy signed a release, which I'm doubting as well.

This happens all the time. There's no reason to think that the art department didn't just lift some photo off of facebook and use it for the add.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top