Virgin Photo Controversy

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:12 pm

I saw a story on CNN where a 16 year old girl had a photo she posted on Flicker used by Virgin Mobile in an advertisement. Apparently, posting a picture on Flicker puts it in the public domain, usable by anyone, even for profit. In this case, the ad includes the text "free virgin to virgin texting", an obvious double entendre which makes it more offensive than the basic ownership question.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/24/intv.virgin.flickr.lawsuit.cnn

I did a search but probably used the wrong search terms, as I came up with nothing, even though I'm sure this question has come up before. Is there a way to protect ownership, while allowing free distribution? Is a watermark enough or can someone legally modify a photo after pulling it off a web site and use it commercially. I really wouldn't care if an individual put a picture I took on their Myspace page or something like that but wouldn't want a large business to profit from it without compensating me.

I haven't taken any pictures that I consider worthy of commercial exploitation but this girls picture wasn't a professional photo either. If I get lucky with the shutter, I'd hate to see someone else get the profit.

Joined: 21 Aug 2006 Posts: 175 Location: Midwest

I highly doubt that just by putting a picture online it becomes public domain. Flickr does not (and should not) have the ability to take away copyright protection. US Laws state that any artistic/intellectual creation is copyrighted by the creator the moment it is created. However, it is recommended to file a formal copyright certificate of registration with the US Copyright Office (Library of Congress).

I just went to flickr.com and it is owned by Yahoo. On the bottom of flickr's homepage there is a Copyright/IP Policy. Nowhere does is state that one loses their ownership of one's photos once uploaded.

In my opinion, photos put on flickr are for the world to see and admire, not to be used as a free alternative for businesses, especially corporations that can easily pay for picture usage rights.

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:54 pm

That makes sense to me. I had thought that, in the United States, the creator of art, which includes photos, writing, music, etc., has legal ownership for life plus 75 years.

The news story doesn't mention the photographers feelings on this issue.