?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

Wow. Just wow - Virgin to Virgin

I'm surprised that a corporation as massive as Virgin would use something as underhanded as this. ALWAYS cover your ass with marketing. Take more steps than you need to protect yourself. I thought this was common knowledge unless you were an unethical company.

Not so, evidentally. How many of you use Flickr? Have you seen this video on CNN where a girl had her picture taken at a church BBQ, and the person who took the photo posted it in his flickr account. Next thing you know, her photo is all over Australia in a major Virgin Australia ad with such tag lines as 'Free text Virgin to Virgin'. She had no knowledge of this use of her likeness. Flickr says, and is also noted in the small print of the Virgin ad, that images used were used under fair use policies.

I know that if we say or post anything on the net, we should expect it to be used, copied, quoted, anything since we no longer have control over it. In computer security it is always said that the only way to totally secure a computer is to never turn it on in the first place. That said, it just amazes me that a major corporation would use a photo someone found on the web without securing permission, especially since it is a MINOR in the image!

Comments

gurdonark
Sep. 29th, 2007 02:08 am (UTC)
I know a bit more about this matter now than I did before, as the suit was filed in Dallas, as it turns out.

The key issue in the suit is the violation of the girl's right of publicity, although Creative Commons somehow got named on a negligence theory as well. It's an interesting thing, and it's sad to see the Creative Commons people dragged into it. But Virgin's ad agency should never have used the photo without a release from the model, speaking without meaning to give legal advice but just common sense.
trshtwns01
Sep. 29th, 2007 04:23 am (UTC)
That's sort of the way I was looking at it. I may not be a lawyer, but I do work in a marketing department for a major corporation. I did have to take 'marketing law' for my role. You just don't take risks like that. We used to have to look at every advertisement and written communication for how it might be interpreted and look at every image or reference to another entity as something that must be called out specifically in the legal disclaimer or have a release on file.

It's bad marketing. That's why you use only purchased stock photos or make your OWN photos. You don't just grab at random.