« Whatever happened to the old ad stars? | Main | The Chicago Tribune needs to grow a pair »
Virgin sued for using photo of Texas teen
—Posted by Tim Nudd |
|
September 21, 2007 | Permalink |
Comments
Good for her. I was appalled when I heard of this. They should have at least had enough respect to ask the subject/photographer beforehand. It still would've been free, and there would've been no issue. Comps are one thing, publishing is another. Creative commons license or not, ad people shouldn't sink so low as to just grab photos of unsuspecting flickr posters and slap a headline on it.
Posted by: Tag | Sep 21, 2007 1:07:34 PM
WAY too many agencies out there using Flickr as just another stock photo resource.
Posted by: bg | Sep 21, 2007 3:21:31 PM
At least they photoshop'd the Adidas logo off her hat.
Posted by: Craig | Sep 21, 2007 3:48:32 PM
Use for comp. Not for real ad.
Posted by: thatguy | Sep 21, 2007 4:14:22 PM
@thatguy in that Flickr thread someone saod he took a picture of that bus as part of a bus shelter on a street in Australia. Interesting point you bring up though, what if ws a comp but since it got blasted all over the internet, can she still sue?
Posted by: bg | Sep 21, 2007 7:54:25 PM
(part of bus shelter)
Posted by: bg | Sep 21, 2007 7:55:06 PM
Get over it. Welcome to the way the world is going to work from now on. Not saying it's right, but rather it's been invented.
Posted by: D | Sep 22, 2007 3:35:51 AM
The way the world is going to work is the way the CC licence was invented for. Use an image–don't profit from it if you don't own it.
Posted by: bg | Sep 22, 2007 10:16:18 AM
Creative ideas are found everywhere, and the internet is one of the richest places to find our what people want to see. Why not use Flickr as a resource. It might be one of the most honest resources out there for advertising. Flickr contains imagery of true daily life. What better way to find truth in one's work than to use a truthful resource for its inspiration?
Posted by: 21st Century Ad-Man | Sep 23, 2007 5:09:10 AM
Would it not be a form of plagiarism to use a person's photo without their knowlege? The least they could do is appologize and maybe pay her something.
Posted by: Wolf | Sep 23, 2007 2:43:33 PM
Bg, there's absolutely nothing wrong about using it as a stock photo resource, unlike in a published ad. Those are hugely different beasts. That's like saying too many agencies are using images scanned from magazine or found on the net as a'stock photo resource.'
Posted by: Tim | Sep 23, 2007 2:57:36 PM
@Tim or 21st Century Ad-Man, yes but that’s not what I'm saying.
You should look at anything for imagery and ideas of course. Of course Flickr is a valuable resource as well just by the shear number of photogs out there using it and contributing to it. Most everyone I know also comps stuff using Photodisc images blown up–with the understanding that if the idea is approved, you then have to buy the image.
You just shouldn't go ahead use an image without compensation or permission first to the owner, and secondly, getting clearance on using someone's likeness in any pic.
Posted by: bg | Sep 24, 2007 12:23:14 PM
(and my original comment about way too many agencies isn't a knock against finding inspiration, it's about those agencies and designers who use images in final art without paying.)
Posted by: bg | Sep 24, 2007 12:26:33 PM
they got what was coming to them good for her
Posted by: Tomeh | Oct 29, 2007 4:38:38 AM
