Jump to content

Flickr sells girl to Virgin


Recommended Posts

Guess it's time for everyone to read the small print. It was on CNN last night that a mother was suing Virgin (or Flickr) because the girl's friend posted a pic of her on Flickr which is now being used on a nationwide Virgin Mobile ad campaign in Australia.

 

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22457004-5006003,00.html

 

I know someone mentioned it in another thread and I'd always thought that as my pics aren't of a professional grade no-one would really be interested. I still can't see anyone wanting to post my pic on any advertising campaign but I suppose they might think MMT is worth it.

 

I don't really want to take my pics down cos I like all my friends and family being able to see them and it's one form of back-up outside Japan.

 

I figured it doesn't really matter how many photos you put up cos if your only putting up a few then you will pick the best ones making it easier for them to choose what to sell.

 

I guess watermarks and stuff can be removed by pros and would be time consuming to add anyway. What about just posting really low resolution, small photos... or could they be digitally enhanced ro a reasonable level again?

wakaranai.gif

 

What does everyone else do/think?

 

 

The small print from Facebook:

 Quote:
By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it this way,

 

How would you love to be the "Face" for Haemmoroid creams", or "Viagra", or worse, "MCDonalds"???.

 

 Quote:

We respect the intellectual property rights of others and we prohibit users from uploading, posting or otherwise transmitting on the Facebook website or service any materials that violate another party's intellectual property rights. When we receive proper Notification of Alleged Copyright Infringement as described below, we promptly remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing material and terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

 

There's your loophole right there. You can state that you did not upload the content.

 

Also:

 Quote:

You are solely responsible for the photos, profiles, messages, notes, text, information, music, video, advertisements, listings, and other content that you upload, publish or display (hereinafter, "post") on or through the Service or the Site, or transmit to or share with other users (collectively the "User Content").

 

If you are SOLELY responsible for it, then they have no rights to use it, if you didn't upload the content.

 

Man, thats why I don't have a FaceBook account. In reality, it's too late to delete stuff, as it is cached. You can defninitely watermark. I guess the second you upload an image onto the website, you are letting them use it.

 

Hmmm, so what about flickr?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crap, this sucks. Just read FLickr's as well:

 

Its the same. So, if U put up a T-Shirt Design, Web Design, photo, whatever, they Can use it.

 

it really isn't good. What a great way to make money, oh, and the fact that they are selling your data for marketing purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks bp, that one looks better.

This is what they say,

 Quote:
SmugMug does not claim ownership in the photographs, videos or other media created or uploaded by Subscribers ("Media"). SmugMug will not resell Media to third parties. Unless we indicate otherwise, if you upload Content, including any Media, to the SmugMug site, you grant SmugMug a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish, distribute and display the Content as we deem appropriate in providing the Services authorized or requested by you, including the right to use the name that is submitted in connection with such Content. You further understand and agree that, in order to help ensure smooth operation of our system, we may keep backup copies of Content indefinitely.

 

So does this bit just mean that they use your photos on your page and for promotion of their site?

 Quote:
right to publish, distribute and display the Content as we deem appropriate in providing the Services authorized or requested by you, including the right to use the name that is submitted in connection with such Content.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is right mejane. I have a pro account anyway so if stuff IS sold then I get the profits. Not that it has happened yet. To be honest there are too many much better pro photographers who use the site. And they are all very concerned with copyright issues. So I think if you go smugmug you are pretty safe. The drawback is that it isn't free. But it is a bloody good quality site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind paying. Every site had gotta make money somehow and I'd rather pay upfront than have them sell my info without me realising. It does look like a really good site. Setting up with them and then putting a link to my page on Facebook might be the way to go. Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...