Just in case you needed one more example of litigious stupidity, here it is. It seems that a Dallas family has filed suit against the Australian, Virgin Mobile communications company over the allegedly improper use of a photo gleaned from the Flikr photo sharing site, as reported by Associated Press. That's "photo sharing" as in, here's my picture to look at and use.Stupid part one is that the advertising company that created the visual advertising mechanisms which are allegedly making questionable use of a girl's photo should have a general idea about what materials they're using, where they came from and what conditions surround those materials, such as rights and restrictions. They still teach about copyright in advertising school right? Just in case they don't, Flickr has a really understandable explanation of creative commons license right there on its site. It's by the photos. Advertising guys from Australia should probably read that.
Stupid part two is that a company such as Virgin is probably paying some dude about $150,000 a year to look at advertising media produced for the company and then apply its official okie-dokie. Advertising guys who get paid $150,000 a year from big communications companies should probably have some background information about copyright law, wouldn't you think so? Something this simple should have been caught by a 6th grade newsletter editor. I sense a job opening coming on.
Stupid part three is that even if the poor whiny "injured" family in Dallas has a "case," that case would be pretty much dead-ended beyond the issue of not applying the photographer's name as credit for the photo. If the picture had been used in the exact same manner with proper accreditation, any judge worth their robes would kindly tell this Dallas family to go pound salt. I am amazed that any attorney with sense would pick up on this thing. These must be very lean times for Texas tort law. Please excuse me while I grab another Kleenex.
The final and funniest stupidity is that the family in question never actually held any rights to the photo to begin with and they didn't even post that picture to Flickr. If anyone has any rights or is at risk in regard to improper use of the dear girl's photo it's her youth counselor, who took the picture and posted it to Flickr. I'm guessing he may be looking for some counseling of his own right about now.
Stupid part three is that even if the poor whiny "injured" family in Dallas has a "case," that case would be pretty much dead-ended beyond the issue of not applying the photographer's name as credit for the photo. If the picture had been used in the exact same manner with proper accreditation, any judge worth their robes would kindly tell this Dallas family to go pound salt. I am amazed that any attorney with sense would pick up on this thing. These must be very lean times for Texas tort law. Please excuse me while I grab another Kleenex.
The final and funniest stupidity is that the family in question never actually held any rights to the photo to begin with and they didn't even post that picture to Flickr. If anyone has any rights or is at risk in regard to improper use of the dear girl's photo it's her youth counselor, who took the picture and posted it to Flickr. I'm guessing he may be looking for some counseling of his own right about now.
Nuclear power is on the comeback trail
Apple backs AT&T in continuing spat with Verizon
Closing Bell: The recession is still over, still... do you feel it?
Add your comments