I think this is stealing...what do you guys think?

[JohnMF]

I remember a few years ago, a girl had her image stolen from Flickr and used in an advertising campaign by Virgin. The first thing she knew about it was when she saw her photo (of her) plastered all over bus shelters.

If i remember rightly (it was a while ago and i could be wrong), she tried to sue them (Virgin and Flickr) but her case was thrown out of court because of certain terms and conditions in place when you sign up to these type of sites.

 

[Overread]

All I can think is that she had some creative commons licence active on her account - because as it stands flickr protects your rights and (as far as I know) has no 3rdparty sale features save for Ghetty images (where they have to ask you for permission first)

Sounds more like virgin had better lawyers than she.

 

[Cedar]

Every time you submit a photo don't you need to agree to a disclosure?

 

[FrankLamont]

Nope, the image was placed under a CC license (commercial, attributive), but they didn't have a model release.

But it was dropped because it's extremely difficult to carry it out internationally (murky areas when international copyright law is involved, even in developed countries).

 

[Cedar]

Nope, the image was placed under a CC license (commercial, attributive), but they didn't have a model release.

But it was dropped because it's extremely difficult to carry it out internationally (murky areas when international copyright law is involved, even in developed countries).

So technically this is completely legal? :thumbdown:

 

[Overread]

technically I suspect yes, but it sounds like Virgin were going to move toward a court lock (wereby they save money by locking the accuser in court until such a time as she is unable to pay to continue the process) a tactic that larger companies can use because of their larger base resources to draw from.
Being international also probably brought in complications and might affect how much money the accuser could get out of the court as well - such as in the US I am aware that if an image is not copywrite registered you can only get so much back from illegal use as compared to the UK. It gets complicated and expenisve - which means a lot of money and a lot of time that many individuals can't afford

 

[JohnMF]

Big corporations always get their way. Unfortunately, more money means you get more justice.

 

[Cinka]

I remember a few years ago, a girl had her image stolen from Flickr and used in an advertising campaign by Virgin. The first thing she knew about it was when she saw her photo (of her) plastered all over bus shelters.

If i remember rightly (it was a while ago and i could be wrong), she tried to sue them (Virgin and Flickr) but her case was thrown out of court because of certain terms and conditions in place when you sign up to these type of sites.

And that's the big reason I don't use Flickr. As a former web-designer, I know people scan the web for images to use without permission. It's easier and cheaper than iStock or Getty. I was even told to just grab images from the web and not worry about it. I don't like that anyone can just grab my images, use them for whatever, and not even bother to ask me. I prefer to host my own galleries - it means I don't get as much exposure on Flickr, but it gives me peace of mind. I like the community aspect of it, but I can do that without hosting images.

 

[LaFoto]

To my mind, if you upload images big enough to be used for advertising posters, it's your own fault if they get stolen and used for advertising in the end. 800 wide is the maximum, and with that potential picture robbers can print a postcard at the most... and if that should happen ... well. O-kay. But if you make your full-size images public ... :roll:

 

[Overread]

Laphoto - you have to remember though - some companies will use a smaller image size than ideal for a poster - esp if it stick on the side of a plane and viewed a few miles away

When it comes to quality only amateurs (on forums) demand the best

 

[Sbuxo]

Yeah, of course... He makes a T-shirt for review, and then sells it to other people for a profit so they can review it as well.

It's totally legit.

:lmao:

 

[Philip]

your right and they are wrong

 

[epp_b]

Technically speaking, it is copyright infringement, but, in practice, people who take crappy snaps like these probably don't care.

 

[saints]

The other day a friend posted a link to an interview with "artist" Mavi Staiano who takes photos from Facebook and uses them to make t-shirts and posters, collages. I argued that the artist doesn't have permission to use the photos and that while I have nothing against using someone else's images for art, it's just good practice to ask permission first. My friend (and the artist as well) both argue that the images aren't works of someone's art - they're just snapshots. Furthermore, if they didn't want people to take them, they'd update their privacy settings on FB.

STRANGER ON MY T-SHIRT - Viceland Today

I tend to think that if you use something without permission, it's stealing and that photographs are property - even the bad snapshots on Facebook. People like to call it "reappropriated" as if it was found in the dumpster and unwanted in someway.

What do you guys think?

I thinck that would be good to see your pics and let others see them .Would be nice to be asked.Allso i dont thinck its right to make money from the pics give all money to good causes.

 

[Mbnmac]

If you put photos on facebook with the 'everybody' tag on then you have no right to complain about them being used in anyway after the fact.

Most people don't really care about this kind of thing