--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Apologies if this has been discussed already while I was away - I > searched, but didn't find it.
This is a very interesting situation, Rupert. Thanks for bringing it up. :) > Virgin Mobile has used CC licensed photos from Flickr in a billboard > campaign in Australia. > > They used a photo of a girl under the slogan "Dump your Pen Pal" > > The girl, who lives in Texas, feels like she's being insulted Yeah, well, this is one of the problems with advertising. Ads are filled with MODELS... And not necessarily models that have anything to do with the product. When you see some guy that's 52 years old, and he keeps himself in shape with bowflex, you have to wonder how long he's been using bowflex and when it was even invented. You can't take the advertiser's word that the person they're showing used the product in the way they claim. Similarly, the people smiling and skipping down the street together holding hands in the Herpes Simplex-2 commercials don't necessarily HAVE herpes. They have been chosen for that ad campaign, and as actors, have agreed to be spokespeople for this Herpes medicine or whatever. There is NO WAY that the pharmaceutical industry restricts their casting calls specifically to people WITH herpes and that have ever used Valtrex, for example. This is why they thought it was cool to use a picture of some girl that was most likely NEVER anyone's "pen pal" and especially *NEVER* "dumped by a pen pal" in her entire life. Again, there is NO WAY advertising agencies are going to restrict their search for pictures specifically to people that have been dumped by pen pals for thier "dump your pen pal" campaign. >- it was a photo taken by a friend, and neither the friend nor she were > told by Virgin Media that they were using it. I bet Virgin thought > that because they were using it in Australia, she'd never find out. > But of course, a photo of the billboard was posted on Flickr. DUH! > > Her family are now suing Virgin and Creative Commons. Virgin say > they had a right to use it, and no obligation to tell anybody, > because it was licensed under just an Attribution license - so all > they had to do was put his flickr id in the bottom left of the > billboard. I agree with Andreas that it looks like Virgin's in the clear here as far as the CC license is concerned. http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/ states "Attribution. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work and derivative works based upon it but only if they give credit the way you request." So, if he poster didn't specify HOW he wants to be credited, that seems to be all they're required to do. > The general consensus in discussions seems to be that Virgin & CC > will lose, because under Australian and US law, the CC license is > outweighed by the fact that Virgin didn't obtain a model release. That makes a lot of sense. The FIRST reason that makes sense is that the girl in the picture (according to the discussion @ http://tinyurl.com/2adx67) didn't have any say in what license the poster used. That means that he wasn't authorized to hand over her likeness to Virgin to begin with. Not only did they plaster "DUMP YOUR PEN FRIEND" practically on top of her face, they flipped the picture horizontally. You can see the picture as it was taken in the discussion thread. The girl to her left is actually on her right, and she's wearing a shirt that says "Old Navy" on it, so you can tell which way is the right way. This means she wasn't doing the peace sign with her left hand, she was doing it with her right hand. How does Virgin know that that's ok with her? They don't, because they didn't ask her. In some circles, shaking hands with someone with your left hand is a sign of disrespect. I know that sounds retarded, but it's a fact. If someone were to have a picure flipped so it looked like they were shaking hands with someone lefty and that picture was plastered all over billboards, there could be a problem. > Interesting that they are also suing Creative Commons. > > And it has echoes of all our previous discussions on Creative Commons > here, and implications for all of us who include random people in our > CC licensed videos. > > If you wonder how this is relevant to you - imaging you shoot a video > of a stranger in passing - at a carnival, say, wearing a wacky > costume - and some huge multinational uses that image or footage to > use in an advertising campaign which pokes fun at the stranger. > Suddenly you're in the middle of a shitbag salad. Yeah, that's very interesting. However, that could happen in a non-commercial setting as well. Veeeeery interesting. > I would suggest always including non-commercial in your CC license, > unless you've got very good reason not to. > > Link to photo with discussion: > http://tinyurl.com/2adx67 > > Flickr Central discussion > http://tinyurl.com/2ue9fw > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.tv/ > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ I'll be interested to find out the ruling on this. -- Bill http://billcammack.com
