Comments on: No personal jurisdiction over Australian defendant in Flickr right of publicity case http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/01/22/no-personal-jurisdiction-over-australian-defendant-in-flickr-right-of-publicity-case/ Covering law and the internet since 2005. Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:05:33 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: John http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/01/22/no-personal-jurisdiction-over-australian-defendant-in-flickr-right-of-publicity-case/comment-page-1/#comment-34656 John Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:00:51 +0000 http://blog.internetcases.com/?p=652#comment-34656 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. 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.

]]> By: Kenneth Kunkle http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/01/22/no-personal-jurisdiction-over-australian-defendant-in-flickr-right-of-publicity-case/comment-page-1/#comment-34314 Kenneth Kunkle Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:01:40 +0000 http://blog.internetcases.com/?p=652#comment-34314 It raises an interesting question of whether the Creative Commons license should include a forum selection clause of some sort.. It raises an interesting question of whether the Creative Commons license should include a forum selection clause of some sort..

]]> By: Jay Parkhill http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/01/22/no-personal-jurisdiction-over-australian-defendant-in-flickr-right-of-publicity-case/comment-page-1/#comment-34310 Jay Parkhill Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:17:39 +0000 http://blog.internetcases.com/?p=652#comment-34310 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. 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.

]]> By: Jonathan Bailey http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/01/22/no-personal-jurisdiction-over-australian-defendant-in-flickr-right-of-publicity-case/comment-page-1/#comment-34307 Jonathan Bailey Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:41:23 +0000 http://blog.internetcases.com/?p=652#comment-34307 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... 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…

]]>