957 users online (188 members and 769 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,003

    Family Sues Over Virgin Advertisement....

    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...61-662,00.html

    snippet..

    eptember 21, 2007 12:14pm VIRGIN Mobile Australia has been slapped with a lawsuit after it ran an ad featuring a picture of a US teenager with the slogan "Free virgin to virgin".
    American teenager Alison Chang, and her church-going family, had suffered “grief and humiliation” from the advertisements, according to the lawsuit filed yesterday in a Dallas court.

    Virgin Mobile also printed one of its campaign slogans, "Dump your pen friend,'' over the girl's picture.

    The family said in the lawsuit the company had invaded the girl's privacy by using the picture, which they claim was taken from the Yahoo-owned photo-sharing website Flickr.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Sami

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,003
    Maybe I should've put this in the Strange section??

    Sami

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,705
    I think the bigger issue is that her youth counselor posted her picture online.
    The terms of that site simply say that they must credit the photographer.

    So big companies don't even have to pay models.
    That is pretty lousy since they used her picture for a large ad campaign.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    16,234
    Found this-a picture of the ad and comments by the girl, and the person that posted the picture, as well as her brother supposedly.
    http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    16,234
    From her brother 3 days ago:
    teacherjamesdotcom says:

    Hi, we've obviously been keeping up with the news and with these boards. I'm not going to post often because I shouldn't. But I do want to put up some responses to a few of the previous posts.

    Some might think that we are suing for money. I just want to bring up these points.

    1. Virgin Mobile and the ad company did something wrong here. They took ordinary people's photographs, put them up in an ad campaign, and didn't notify anyone. I've posted before about what possible thinking went through the heads of the ad company and managers when someone MUST HAVE asked, "...shouldn't we notify these photographers that we're using their picture?" And someone at their companies said No, and had a justification for it.

    In our opinion, that is wrong. Before bringing on legal representation, I had sent them a complaint letter, asking them to explain the situation. Before filing suit, our attorneys sent them complaint letters to explain why they acted as they did. And everytime back, their "corporate" response was: We did nothing wrong. We acted in the faith of the CC License. We are on the side of creativity (even the ad company started a new thread on FLICKr saying they are just creative, etc.).

    In my opinion and our opinion, this is not adequate by any means. It's a big company, sidestepping normal procedure (like notifying people) to save money. Justin didn't actively seek out Virgin to sell his photos, just like 100 of the other user images they pulled, didn't actively seek out Virgin, or any commercial entity.

    2. If they are genuiely HONEST about trying to promote creativity among photographers, ad campaigns, etc. Why wouldn't they contact the photographers then? The CC License 2.0 stipulates that you need to attribute the photographer and location of the photograph. Just putting someone's Flickr page on the bottom left hand corner doesn't attribute the photographer's name OR the location of the photograph. If they really wanted to help photographers and spread the word, putting "image by CHEWYWONG on FLICKr" doesn't really give a lot of exposure to Justin or his photography "talents", does it?

    They made a clear decision to bypass notifying photographers (even though CC 2.0 talks about correct attribution) and of course they didn't contact anyone within the images.

    3. She's a minor. And she's a girl. And her image was FOUND in Australia. By a complete stranger, who just happened to see it at a bus stop. Wouldn't that make you feel uncomfortable?

    She didn't consent to this. Yeah, it's possible my sister might have been excited to be part of a Virgin Mobile campaign. And no doubt it can be seen as 15 minutes of fame by some. But, the point is, she wouldn't have said okay to this image of her, portrayed in this way. I guarantee you my mom would have never said okay to Alison's picture being put on a billboard in Australia. There's no point for us. Alison's not an aspiring actress, she's not an aspiring model. Why in the world would we want to expose a 15 year old high school student halfway across the world to sell phones for Virgin Mobile?

    And now, imagine that one day someone shows you an image of her halfway around the world, selling phones for Virgin Mobile, with that goofy picture. With all the stuff being written about predators online and stories, wouldn't that make you a little uncomfortable? It definitely made my mom uncomfortable. And as her brother, it makes me angry. What stops another company or Virgin to do this again? Pull pictures elsewhere. For another ad. It's just not right. And Virgin's response is...NOTHING. Nothing stops us from doing this again. Nothing stops another company from doing it. Because nothing is wrong with what we did. In fact, we are promoting creativity. We are helping Justin and my sister, and other photographers.



    I disagree. My mom disagrees.

    And so, we filed suit. And for me and mom, we are glad that this story is gaining exposure. People need to know about the Creative Commons attribute and EXACTLY how to use it. Hopefully, it gives people some pause when they think about all the pictures out there on the internet and all the people that just posted pictures to share with friends and family.
    Posted 3 days ago. ( permalink )

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    1,568
    I agree with the brother that this is bull. Taking people's photos and using them without a release to advertise and make money off of them. I know that I was furious when I found a photo of me, taken by an ex-boyfriend, on the internet. It was clothed, but an unflattering picture taken without my knowledge. This a$$-hole posted this pic on his webpage with a lengthy commentary about my personality and the reasons for our break-up. Uuuuuhhh....hello...I'm 40 years old, not in junior high. What's up with this immature cr*p?? I was really ticked off, mainly about the picture being out there where anyone could see it and send links to other people, etc. I really told him off and threatened to rat him out to the people he worked for because he was stupid enough to use their domain name for his little revenge page. I can't believe Virgin thinks this is a good idea to advertise using images without consent.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,210
    They are probably embarrassed because she looks so goofy in the picture!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Atlanta GA
    Posts
    7,376
    ITA with the brother. Virgin might have been within bounds technically, but they knew it was wrong. They were hoping not to get busted by using it on another continent.

    And just b/c a photographer claims to have the rights to a photo, how can he speak for the model? Don't they have an obligation to make sure that the person featured really did give permission for the photo to be used?

    I hope they get a judgement for enough money to make others think twice about splashing some minor's picture all over the place without permission.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    1,568
    The fact that the girl is a minor presents another angle. A minor cannot legally sign a release. Her parent would need to sign it. So the photographer used her photo without her parent's permission? And then Virgin used it again without verifying that a release was on file? I don't know that it requires damages, but there should be some punitive measures placed on Virgin if they lose this case, to make them not pull this stuff again.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    7,118
    Quote Originally Posted by deandaniellws View Post
    They are probably embarrassed because she looks so goofy in the picture!
    LOL...I kinda actually thought she was cute!


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    1,568
    I thought she was cute too, but that's really not the point. It's just very disconcerting to thiink that total strangers are looking at your picture without your consent, and then that some giant corporation is making money off your image without your consent. It's a feeling of violation. That's what I felt when I found my photo on that jerk ex's website. It's the same as the feeling you would get if some perv went thru your panty drawer.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,299
    That's an interesting story. I work in that industry, and I'm pretty sure you can't do that without a model release. (More than pretty sure, actually.)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,210
    Quote Originally Posted by englishleigh View Post
    LOL...I kinda actually thought she was cute!
    She is cute....the "pose" is goofy looking. Did you read what her brother wrote? He said the mother was concerned of her daughter getting stalked. I can see her point there.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,210
    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rex View Post
    That's an interesting story. I work in that industry, and I'm pretty sure you can't do that without a model release. (More than pretty sure, actually.)
    I thought that too.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,003
    I forgot I posted this one. Nah, it doesn't belong in the strange section now that I've read further on it since and know the background of it's use.

    I agree with her brother.

    Maybe she should go into modelling though. She is beautiful.

    As for Virgin Mobile.....shame on you!

    Sami



Similar Threads

  1. Teen sues family over alleged abortion threat
    By peeples in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-17-2012, 06:00 PM
  2. FL Police Officer Sues Victim's Family
    By Melly in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-05-2007, 07:41 PM
  3. Family Sues To Get Back Dog Lost In Katrina
    By 2sisters in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 11-11-2006, 04:24 PM
  4. Family Sues Japanese Restaurant Over Flying Shrimp
    By Casshew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-28-2004, 02:56 PM