6 Comments

  1. Not a surprising result, but the question is obvious, where does Chang go from here. She theoretically could retry her suit in a more fitting jurisdiction but that doesn't seem likely due to cost.

    I just hope that Virgin and other companies learn that copyrights and publicity rights are two very different beasts…

  2. I'll add to the prior commenter's post that there is a big difference between the rights one has and those one can enforce. Seems like a no-win for Chang & co.

  3. John

    A good decision by the courts. I feel the Changs shouldn't get any money out of this. Bravo to them for raising awareness to companies but it sounds like they're just trying to make some money.

    So they used her picture on an ad campaign in a foreign country, no big deal. The only reason the public came to know that it was her was due to her identifying herself and her family making a big deal out of it. Just because the USA is overly litigious, doesn't mean the rest of the world is. They were wrong to go after Virgin Mobile USA, their lawyer was just grasping at straws to find someone to pay up.

    There's buck stops at the person who uploaded the photo in the first place. He should know that anything posted on the Internet instantly becomes public. He basically gave away his rights to the photo when decided to upload it under a free use license. Virgin Mobile definitely should be more careful in the future, but they did no wrong doing in this case because it's all in the fine print that the photographer failed to read.

    If the Changs want any money they should sue the photographer for being an idiot for posting it on the Internet in the first place.

  4. no thanks.

    As the subject of the photo, Allison should have the right to have a say in where it can be used.

    "He should know that anything posted on the Internet instantly becomes public. "
    Wrong. See the Cook's Source debacle.

    "He basically gave away his rights to the photo when decided to upload it under a free use license."
    Close. He still has attribution rights.

    "If the Changs want any money they should sue the photographer for being an idiot for posting it on the Internet in the first place. "
    Correct.

    I want to see more photographers being sued over matters like this.
    There are a number of photos of me on the internet that the photographers refuse to remove and the hosting companies refuse to do anything about because the photographers own the photos.
    I am not a public figure, and the photographers were explicitly told beforehand that they were not allowed to take a photo of me in a public place and definitely not allowed to publish them in any form.

  5. JiPsy

    "He should know that anything posted on the Internet instantly becomes public. "
    Wrong. See the Cook's Source debacle.

    What is written and what is reality are entirely different. What SHOULD happen and what DOES happen don't always align. I agree that anything that is posted on the Internet has the real potential of becoming public. Privacy and the Internet do NOT go hand in hand. Do you think that all those youtube videos uploaded have been done so asking the subject's permission? There will always be enough "gray area" to allow something to be posted on the Internet for all to see. … and just try and see how far an individual can go against big business. Big business is there to make money. It's all about numbers and balance. Balance between loss of customers vs the publicity it got. If there is a profit to be made, don't think for one minute that your individual rights or your privacy will be considered. If the company loses customers to the point of losing money, then they will take the proper steps to do what is "right". PR and profit..

Comments are closed.

Did you enjoy this post? Then please share it with your friends and colleagues: