Corporate Photo-Napping (1 Viewer)

[Optimus Prime]

Very interesting article
================================================================

Hey, Isn't That . . .
People Are Doing Double-Takes, And Taking Action, As Web Snapshots Are Nabbed for Commercial Uses

Monica Hesse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 9, 2008; Page C01

The pug in the corner of the Saints-Eagles football telecast on Fox looked familiar to Tracey Gaughran-Perez.

Not in the slobber-smile way that all pugs look familiar, but in the who else but me would dress their pug up in a bleeping Santa suit kind of familiar.

Gaughran-Perez logged on to http://www.sweetney.com, the personal blog where she'd uploaded a snapshot of her dog, then waited for the Fox pug -- a sort of "Merry Christmas" icon -- to appear again on TV.

Argh.

The pug was definitely Truman; the photo was definitely one she'd marked as "all rights reserved." ...................

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010804626.html?sub=AR

 

[Optimus Prime]

another example from the article. i can't believe that this is legal
======================================================

The family of Dallas teenager Alison Chang is suing Australia's Virgin Mobile for using her photo in an advertising campaign without obtaining permission. The photo, which the plaintiffs say was grabbed from a Flickr page, was used in the ad shown above


The (literal) poster child for corporate photonapping: Dallas 15-year-old Alison Chang, who paused in the middle of a church-sponsored carwash last summer to flash a goofy grin and a peace sign to her friend Justin Ho-Wee Wong. Click! Wong posted his pictures from the event on the photo-sharing Web site Flickr. A couple months later, the one of Alison resurfaced -- as part of a national ad campaign for Virgin Mobile in Australia. "Dump Your Pen Friend," the billboards read. "Free text virgin to virgin." Alison was the chump to dump.

The Chang family lawyered up.

 

[zorro37]

This is pretty sick.
A self portrait a young aspiring photographer took of herself aged 14 turns up on the cover of a porn video
http://www.flickr.com/photos/larajade/513641346/

 

[Surviving Saint]

Don't post for your pic for all to see. Simple as that.

 

[Jonesy77]

Don't post for your pic for all to see. Simple as that.

Not as simple as that. Would your advice be not to write a song or a book if you don't want someone to steal it and make a profit without giving you royalties?

 

[Sandman]

Don't post for your pic for all to see. Simple as that.

Actually the simple thing would be for the companies to either (1) not steal the photos, or (2) ask for permission before using them.

 

[Thorin]

This reminds me of when the British rock band The Cult was sued for this unauthorized album cover photo of an American indian girl.

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/simtech0001/Junk/photo#5153984265695717058"><img src="http://lh6.google.com/simtech0001/R4ahYfa-5sI/AAAAAAAAAK8/5SwcqG4eIng/s800/628e1363ada0bd76715fd010.L.jpg" /></a>

 

[iron error]

this has honestly crossed my mind and why I hesitate and have not posted photos of family here, no matter how cute.

 

[Surviving Saint]

Not as simple as that. Would your advice be not to write a song or a book if you don't want someone to steal it and make a profit without giving you royalties?

If that would be the case then No I would not post a song on the internet for all to use. I would put a patent of some kind on it so it couldn't be stolen. A picture on the internet is for all to use. Maybe not in the sense but it can be. Songs and books are different. Those come from the mind and if they are intended for profit then they must be done so that it is published with an author so nobody can take credit for it.

 

[Bundok Saint]

this has honestly crossed my mind and why I hesitate and have not posted photos of family here, no matter how cute.

Are you paying Pixar for that avatar?















JUST KIDDING!

 

[Taurus]

If that would be the case then No I would not post a song on the internet for all to use. I would put a patent of some kind on it so it couldn't be stolen. A picture on the internet is for all to use. Maybe not in the sense but it can be. Songs and books are different. Those come from the mind and if they are intended for profit then they must be done so that it is published with an author so nobody can take credit for it.

"All rights reserved." A given work is considered copyrighted the moment you make it. Otherwise, plagiarism would reach epic proportions. What goes for printed art goes for visual art, as well. If you're using it for commercial purposes, you need to obtain permission.

If any picture, posted anywhere could be used for profit by anyone for free, professional photographers would go out of business.

 

[Surviving Saint]

Thanks for clarifying that Taurus. I was thinking about photographers but I wasn't so sure about the whole thing.

 

[FWtex]

another example from the article. i can't believe that this is legal
======================================================

The family of Dallas teenager Alison Chang is suing Australia's Virgin Mobile for using her photo in an advertising campaign without obtaining permission. The photo, which the plaintiffs say was grabbed from a Flickr page, was used in the ad shown above


The (literal) poster child for corporate photonapping: Dallas 15-year-old Alison Chang, who paused in the middle of a church-sponsored carwash last summer to flash a goofy grin and a peace sign to her friend Justin Ho-Wee Wong. Click! Wong posted his pictures from the event on the photo-sharing Web site Flickr. A couple months later, the one of Alison resurfaced -- as part of a national ad campaign for Virgin Mobile in Australia. "Dump Your Pen Friend," the billboards read. "Free text virgin to virgin." Alison was the chump to dump.

The Chang family lawyered up.

What is the link to this?? I was wanting to forward it to someone. Thanks.

 

[Bundok Saint]

The link is in the first post right above the picture of the dog.

 

[derick76]

"All rights reserved." A given work is considered copyrighted the moment you make it. Otherwise, plagiarism would reach epic proportions. What goes for printed art goes for visual art, as well. If you're using it for commercial purposes, you need to obtain permission.

If any picture, posted anywhere could be used for profit by anyone for free, professional photographers would go out of business.

I've had a number of issues with photos being right clicked or when further measures are taken to protect images people still find ways to copy images, it's not an easy job to make a living at that is for sure.