more copyright issues in the news:

[kenw]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...o/5151697.html

[zach-e2]

it happens, i guess.
my surprise was that virgin still put her flickr link on the bottom of the ad

[Mike G]

If you read all the way to the end, unfortunately he gave them permission to use it

People who post photos on Flickr are asked how they want to license their attribution. Wong chose a sharing license from Creative Commons that allows others to reuse work such as photos without violating copyright laws, if they credit the photographer and say where the photo was taken.

With his Flickr URL on the billboards and ads, they meet both criteria, who and where. Anyone with a Flickr account that has it set for that type of license chosen is insane IMHO.

[Dobick]

shouldn't the girl (or her parents) be able to get the ad removed, and seek compensation because of the lack of a model release?

I can't imagine that a creative commons liscense would superscede the right of the girl to seek compensation for the use of her image.

Can someone that knows speak more definitively to this please?

[Mike G]

The girls rights are not a copyright issue and by Australian law she does have a case, by the law there (very close to ours) they can not use your image in a ad without a model release and in this case it would be from her parents since she is 16.

[OTRphoto]

shouldn't the girl actually be sueing her pastor then?

Flikr acted within it's rights since HE was the one that allowed the picture to be shared by agreeing to their user agreement. and HE had her pic up with out a model release....

and I don't know what I'm talking about 2/3rds of the time.. so I might be wrong.. but thats how I see it...

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Dobick

shouldn't the girl (or her parents) be able to get the ad removed, and seek compensation because of the lack of a model release?

Absolutely, copyrights and model releases are two completely separate issues, and the girl's family should be able to collect damages from the company. That was an absolutely boneheaded stupid move on Virgin Mobile's part.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by mjae69

shouldn't the girl actually be sueing her pastor then?

Flikr acted within it's rights since HE was the one that allowed the picture to be shared by agreeing to their user agreement. and HE had her pic up with out a model release....

and I don't know what I'm talking about 2/3rds of the time.. so I might be wrong.. but thats how I see it...

No, it's not the photographer who used the image for commercial purposes it's Virgin Mobile.

[Steelsun]

The end user is always liable if they do not have a model release.