Here’s another example of how people need to be educated when they choose a license for their photo or video — and the answer is not to sue those who (properly) exploit your work. Just choose a Creative Commons noncommercial license, like I do for all my Flickr photos.
Register (UK): Creative Commons sued for deception.
A Texan family has been handed a harsh lesson in what the Creative
Commons "movement" really means for creatives who use its licences. [The reporter’s anti-Web 2.0 bias is well known and apparent here.]Filmmaker Damon Chang uploaded a family photograph of his young
niece Alison to Flickr, only to discover weeks later that it was being
used by Virgin Mobile in an expensive advertising campaign. Neither
Alison Chang nor her youth counsellor Justin Wong, who took the
photograph, have received compensation for the use of the image –
having handed over the rights without realising it. Damon Chang used a
licence which permits commercial reuse – and even derivative works to
be made – without payment or permission of the photographer: Merely a
credit will do to satisfy the terms of the licence.Both Changs believe the use of the photograph was insulting and
demeaning, as Alison – a minor – became known as the "dump your pen
friend girl". And after taking legal advice, the Chang family is now
suing Virgin Mobile USA and the Creative Common Corporation.Virgin hoovered up over 100 "user generated" images for its ad
campaign – saving itself a fortune. The lawsuit accuses Virgin of
invasion of privacy, libel and breach of contract, but it’s the section
of the lawsuit that names and shames Creative Commons that promises to
have lasting consequences for "Web 2.0" and "user generated content". …
Later: My view is that (a) Creative Commons did nothing wrong and the lawsuit should be dismissed as without merit, but (b) Virgin Mobile clearly should have made a payment — perhaps in the form of a surprise check for $25,000 to $50,000 — to the family whose girl’s image was used in the company’s campaign. To just appropriate a family photo for commercial use, even if it’s legally permitted, is not smart marketing.
JD Lasica, founder of Inside Social Media, is also a fiction author and the co-founder of the cruise discovery engine Cruiseable. See his About page, contact JD or follow him on Twitter.
Hello. I wanted to respond to your comment that Digital Radio is not radio.
(1) What is radio? Well it is sound that is sent over the electromagnetic spectrum, using modulation.
(2) Does AM qualify? Yes. Does FM qualify? Yes. Shortwave? Yes. Digital Radio? Yes.
(3) Digital radio sends the equivalent of a CD* (sound) over the electromagnetic spectrum using COFDM (modulation).
It’s radio.
I imagine when FM was first introduced there were some people who objected “that’s not real radio”, but that didn’t make them right.
* (If you prefer, MP3.)
It doesn’t sound like they did anything wrong with the CC license, but a license to use the image doesn’t necessarily mean you can do anything you like with it.
This actually does seem like defamation of character, not copyright violation.
Although i do agree with the previous comment in this case (the girl being called the “dump your pen friend girl” is arguably a prejudice), it also poses the question of using this picture for a work of fiction. Is it acceptable to use it as a basis for creating a fictional character, not for a commercial but for a text + photo book, for example ?