Dallas family sues Virgin over illegal image use

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/21/2007 08:50:29 AM · #1

Story here

A company as big as Virgin should know better.

Message edited by author 2007-09-21 08:51:02.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

09/21/2007 09:00:17 AM · #2

Will be interesting to see how it is ruled on if it doesn't settle first. I can understand the the photog's claim, that he/she wasn't credited for the shot. I can't see how the girl has a claim at all. Virgin took a shot that was licensed under CC and used it - short of not credting the tog they did nothing wrong.

09/21/2007 09:07:35 AM · #3

Okay, I can see the first argument, about no credit being given. but the part where they say the girl's reputation was damaged?

"The ad also says "Free text virgin to virgin" at the bottom.

The experience damaged Alison's reputation and exposed her to ridicule from her peers and scrutiny from people who can now Google her, the family charged in the lawsuit.

"It's the tag line; it's derogatory," said Damon Chang, 27. "A lot of her church friends saw it.""

So now, it's derogatory to refer to a teenage girl as a virgin?

Message edited by author 2007-09-21 09:07:43.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

09/21/2007 09:07:37 AM · #4

Originally posted by routerguy666:

They used the image of the girl in a manner she and her family found objectionable. There was no model release. The rights to the image itself are held by the photographer, but the right to use a person's likeness for commercial purposes rests with that person unless properly released. So, unless the photographer has a valid model release for the image, both he and Virgin are in the wrong.

Message edited by author 2007-09-21 09:14:50.

nomad469

Nikon D700

09/24/2007 12:11:43 PM · #5

Fact is though as I see it the photographer never "released" the image to Virgin... he posted it to flickr that has that silly assed creative commons license attaced to it as part of the TOU.

I bet the photographer got nothing for it and likely didn't know it was being used.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/24/2007 12:18:04 PM · #6

Originally posted by larryslights:

Okay, I can see the first argument, about no credit being given. but the part where they say the girl's reputation was damaged?

"The ad also says "Free text virgin to virgin" at the bottom.

The experience damaged Alison's reputation and exposed her to ridicule from her peers and scrutiny from people who can now Google her, the family charged in the lawsuit.

"It's the tag line; it's derogatory," said Damon Chang, 27. "A lot of her church friends saw it."

So now, it's derogatory to refer to a teenage girl as a virgin?

It's not quite clear in the article, but the tagline they may have been referring to was in the paragraph before you started quoting... "Dump your pen friend!". Since the plaintiff is Asian, I think this makes more sense to be taken as a slight.

Message edited by author 2007-09-24 15:43:47.

09/24/2007 12:20:07 PM · #7

Originally posted by nomad469:

The agreement between Flickr and the photographer isn't relevant to the use of the girl's likeness in an objectionable manner.

Virgin has a responsibility to not only make sure they have licensed the copyrights, but also that the likenesses in the image are properly released. The photographer also may be liable since he offered the image for use without a proper model release.

Also, it's not about what you and I consider objectionable, it's about the person in the photo giving consent for their face to be used in promoting a specific product.

I, personally would not object to having my face in an ad for beef. However, a devout vegetarian probably would feel otherwise.

Message edited by author 2007-09-24 12:23:20.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/24/2007 12:21:14 PM · #8

Originally posted by nomad469:

Fact is though as I see it the photographer never "released" the image to Virgin... he posted it to flickr that has that silly assed creative commons license attaced to it as part of the TOU.

Images on flickr only have one of several creative commons license derivatives attached, if you go out of your way to attach them. The default license is a typical All Rights Reserved copyright statement.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

09/24/2007 01:09:02 PM · #9

Discussion at Flickr, the source of the image.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

09/24/2007 01:22:14 PM · #10

WAAAAAAA F'in WAAAAAAAAA. The only thing objectionable is that somebody isn't gettin some money they think they should be getting.

Carl Zeiss 35mm ZF f/2.0 Distagon T

09/24/2007 01:37:09 PM · #11

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

WAAAAAAA F'in WAAAAAAAAA. The only thing objectionable is that somebody isn't gettin some money they think they should be getting.

So if someone downloaded your image and used it in a way that you found objectionable, say in an ad for hardcore S&M videos, you'd be cool with that even if your family and friends saw it?

Imagine your friends asking you, "Dave, what's it really like have a whole fist in there?"

Message edited by author 2007-09-24 13:39:26.

virtuamike

Nikon D2X

09/24/2007 02:16:45 PM · #12

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
Will be interesting to see how it is ruled on if it doesn't settle first. I can understand the the photog's claim, that he/she wasn't credited for the shot. I can't see how the girl has a claim at all. Virgin took a shot that was licensed under CC and used it - short of not credting the tog they did nothing wrong.

They used the image of the girl in a manner she and her family found objectionable. There was no model release. The rights to the image itself are held by the photographer, but the right to use a person's likeness for commercial purposes rests with that person unless properly released. So, unless the photographer has a valid model release for the image, both he and Virgin are in the wrong.

Would have to see the exact wording of the lawsuit to be sure, but it doesn't sound like they're going after Virgin on copyright grounds, meaning the whole discussion about commercial usage becomes a moot point. Rather, they're trying to go after them for invasion of privacy and libel, and that's different.

Originally posted by FOXNews:

The family accused the companies of libel and invasion of Chang's privacy. The suit seeks unspecified damages for Chang and the photographer, Justin Ho-Wee Wong.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

09/24/2007 03:03:38 PM · #13

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
WAAAAAAA F'in WAAAAAAAAA. The only thing objectionable is that somebody isn't gettin some money they think they should be getting.

So if someone downloaded your image and used it in a way that you found objectionable, say in an ad for hardcore S&M videos, you'd be cool with that even if your family and friends saw it?

Imagine your friends asking you, "Dave, what's it really like have a whole fist in there?"

That would be an extreme case now wouldn't it. There's nothing S&M or hardcore about the shot that is in question here. I don't see anybody with a fist shoved in any orifice. And no it's not the same thing. I'm really sick of hearing about people pasting their shit all over the internet then bitching because somebody took it. This includes the people here to. If you don't want it stolen the keep it on your damn computer or watermark the hell out it.
I guess Chewy Wong should've read the fine print before he stuck it on Flickr in the first place. Also, if you read the comments on the photo, the first and only comment from the kid is him asking if Virgin is gonna give him stuff. Don't sit there and try to tell me about ethics when it's all about money in the first place.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

09/24/2007 03:14:53 PM · #14

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
WAAAAAAA F'in WAAAAAAAAA. The only thing objectionable is that somebody isn't gettin some money they think they should be getting.

So if someone downloaded your image and used it in a way that you found objectionable, say in an ad for hardcore S&M videos, you'd be cool with that even if your family and friends saw it?

Imagine your friends asking you, "Dave, what's it really like have a whole fist in there?"

That would be an extreme case now wouldn't it. There's nothing S&M or hardcore about the shot that is in question here. I don't see anybody with a fist shoved in any orifice. And no it's not the same thing. I'm really sick of hearing about people pasting their shit all over the internet then bitching because somebody took it. This includes the people here to. If you don't want it stolen the keep it on your damn computer or watermark the hell out it.
I guess Chewy Wong should've read the fine print before he stuck it on Flickr in the first place. Also, if you read the comments on the photo, the first and only comment from the kid is him asking if Virgin is gonna give him stuff. Don't sit there and try to tell me about ethics when it's all about money in the first place.

I suppose you might consider it extreme, but the person making the ad might not. Whose opinion should be the one that matters?

BTW, the comment about getting free stuff is not from the girl, but from the photographer.

I especially like how you try to blame the victim, especially in this case where the girl whose likeness was used without permission did nothing. Your argument is senseless, as if those doing the stealing are not responsible for their own actions, but those being stolen from are responsible. Would you tell a rape victim that getting raped was her fault because she was dressed in a skirt?

Message edited by author 2007-09-24 15:17:39.

wavelength

Nikon D300

09/24/2007 03:19:15 PM · #15

That's why you don't default all your photo's on flickr to creative commons if you don't know what the hell that means.

The only thing that might get virgin is not having a model release on file with anyone.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

09/24/2007 03:26:26 PM · #16

Originally posted by wavelength:

The only thing that might get virgin is not having a model release on file with anyone.

Exactly. It's their responsibilty to have one and they don't.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

09/24/2007 03:29:51 PM · #17

Originally posted by wavelength:

That's why you don't default all your photo's on flickr to creative commons if you don't know what the hell that means.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

the comment about getting free stuff is not from the girl, but from the photographer.

I especially like how you try to blame the victim, especially in this case where the girl whose likeness was used without permission did nothing.

Then she should be sueing the photog not Virgin. He's the one that posted it there with a creative commons agreement. If a person doesn't have time to read the details of a contract or an agreement, then they are responsible.

Message edited by author 2007-09-24 15:30:14.

09/24/2007 03:36:35 PM · #18

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

Originally posted by wavelength:
That's why you don't default all your photo's on flickr to creative commons if you don't know what the hell that means.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

the comment about getting free stuff is not from the girl, but from the photographer.

I especially like how you try to blame the victim, especially in this case where the girl whose likeness was used without permission did nothing.

Then she should be sueing the photog not Virgin. He's the one that posted it there with a creative commons agreement. If a person doesn't have time to read the details of a contract or an agreement, then they are responsible.

Wrong. While she might have a claim against the photgrapher and Virgin's ad agency as well, it's legally the responsibilty of the publisher (in this case, Virgin) to have proper model releases. It's also possible that Virgin will turn around and sue both the photographer and their ad agency to spread the pain around.

09/24/2007 04:07:35 PM · #19

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What does THAT mean? "Dump your Pen Friend". How is it derogetory? Asian or not. To me, it means 'Quit writing ltters and send text messages.' Maybe I'm wrong (or stupid).

09/24/2007 04:22:19 PM · #20

Originally posted by larryslights:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's not quite clear in the article, but the tagline they may have been referring to was in the paragraph before you started quoting... "Dump your pen friend!". Since the plaintiff is Asian, I think this makes more sense to be taken as a slight.

What does THAT mean? "Dump your Pen Friend". How is it derogetory? Asian or not. To me, it means 'Quit writing ltters and send text messages.' Maybe I'm wrong (or stupid).

It was the "Virgin to Virgin" part that caused the offense.

In any case, the girl's likeness was used without consent and that's not right, regardless of the offending remarks.

09/24/2007 04:28:53 PM · #21

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by larryslights:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's not quite clear in the article, but the tagline they may have been referring to was in the paragraph before you started quoting... "Dump your pen friend!". Since the plaintiff is Asian, I think this makes more sense to be taken as a slight.

What does THAT mean? "Dump your Pen Friend". How is it derogetory? Asian or not. To me, it means 'Quit writing ltters and send text messages.' Maybe I'm wrong (or stupid).

It was the "Virgin to Virgin" part that caused the offense.

In any case, the girl's likeness was used without consent and that's not right, regardless of the offending remarks.

Oh, I agree that it's wron that they used her image without her (and her parents) consent, but they specifically stated that they were offended by the tag line. I'm just confused by that.

09/24/2007 04:32:08 PM · #22

Originally posted by larryslights:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by larryslights:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's not quite clear in the article, but the tagline they may have been referring to was in the paragraph before you started quoting... "Dump your pen friend!". Since the plaintiff is Asian, I think this makes more sense to be taken as a slight.

What does THAT mean? "Dump your Pen Friend". How is it derogetory? Asian or not. To me, it means 'Quit writing ltters and send text messages.' Maybe I'm wrong (or stupid).

It was the "Virgin to Virgin" part that caused the offense.

In any case, the girl's likeness was used without consent and that's not right, regardless of the offending remarks.

Oh, I agree that it's wron that they used her image without her (and her parents) consent, but they specifically stated that they were offended by the tag line. I'm just confused by that.

"Virgin to Virgin" is part of the ad copy.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/24/2007 04:38:10 PM · #23

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by larryslights:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by larryslights:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's not quite clear in the article, but the tagline they may have been referring to was in the paragraph before you started quoting... "Dump your pen friend!". Since the plaintiff is Asian, I think this makes more sense to be taken as a slight.

What does THAT mean? "Dump your Pen Friend". How is it derogetory? Asian or not. To me, it means 'Quit writing ltters and send text messages.' Maybe I'm wrong (or stupid).

It was the "Virgin to Virgin" part that caused the offense.

In any case, the girl's likeness was used without consent and that's not right, regardless of the offending remarks.

Oh, I agree that it's wron that they used her image without her (and her parents) consent, but they specifically stated that they were offended by the tag line. I'm just confused by that.

"Virgin to Virgin" is part of the ad copy.

I know. I just don't know how calling someone a virgin is derogatory. I'd think it would be complementary to a teenage girl. At least I hope it would, having two teenage girls myself.

Message edited by author 2007-09-24 16:38:30.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/24/2007 04:44:18 PM · #24

Originally posted by larryslights:

I know. I just don't know how calling someone a virgin is derogatory. I'd think it would be complementary to a teenage girl. At least I hope it would, having two teenage girls myself.

How is any comment on a minor's degree of sexual experience appropriate for an advertisement?