Options
Image rights question.. sticky(?) situation
Foques
Registered Users Posts: 1,951 Major grins
A good friend of mine is having her photo used in the advertisement for a luncheon. here is the situation as she typed:
In regards to the photo used on the marquee. Myself (event coordinator) and Fred (owner), under the business name of "A" in 2011, I don't know how he got the Cinderella photos other than the "A.com" website (which I owned and managed the website). I searched my emails and I had sent other Character photos to him, but not the one image which is being used. The image was used on the marquee and flyers to advertise the Event of 2011 summer. The flyer and contract is under the business name "A", which "legally" he was the owner because all payments were made out to him as sole proprietor. I know I didn't argue my image being used for this event because it was under the name "A" and I WAS the Character performing in the event, so I am sure in every legal circumstance I provided my consent for my image to be used.
I changed the business name to "B" when I took over as owner in the fall of 2011. My Character image was then used in January of 2012 and September of 2012 to advertise on the marquee only, for the Event which is hosted by the local Hotel in collaboration with Business C (his current business).
Do you think I ultimately provided consent for my image to be used to advertise the Event, because I allowed it in 2011? Now it would be that I would technically be retracting my consent for my image to be used? I never provided any consent for my likeness to be used for advertisement purposes on behalf of Business C.
thoughts? advises?
In regards to the photo used on the marquee. Myself (event coordinator) and Fred (owner), under the business name of "A" in 2011, I don't know how he got the Cinderella photos other than the "A.com" website (which I owned and managed the website). I searched my emails and I had sent other Character photos to him, but not the one image which is being used. The image was used on the marquee and flyers to advertise the Event of 2011 summer. The flyer and contract is under the business name "A", which "legally" he was the owner because all payments were made out to him as sole proprietor. I know I didn't argue my image being used for this event because it was under the name "A" and I WAS the Character performing in the event, so I am sure in every legal circumstance I provided my consent for my image to be used.
I changed the business name to "B" when I took over as owner in the fall of 2011. My Character image was then used in January of 2012 and September of 2012 to advertise on the marquee only, for the Event which is hosted by the local Hotel in collaboration with Business C (his current business).
Do you think I ultimately provided consent for my image to be used to advertise the Event, because I allowed it in 2011? Now it would be that I would technically be retracting my consent for my image to be used? I never provided any consent for my likeness to be used for advertisement purposes on behalf of Business C.
thoughts? advises?
0
Comments
Yeah, because that all makes no sense.
OK so they -May- have used her image illegally.
The question to me is, is it even worth her while worrying about it?
Lets say she finds she is in the right and compensation is due. From the little I know, she'd be lucky to get a few hundred bucks. If this is what I think and some posters were made that were used only around the event location itself, I think the amount awarded would be next to bugger all.
The cost of winning this seems to me to not be worth the time or worry let alone the expense. And she may well find that it is indeed an expense to win it because costs could easily outweigh anything she may be awarded.
I'm really starting to think people are getting all too petty about this. Not saying it was the case in this instance, but so many times it seems people want to splather their images all over the net for no viable reason then bleat when someone uses them and they aren't compensated.
Bit like people that leave valuables in their car in plain sight then whine like babys about how unfair it is they got ripped off. It's the way of the world, you know the risks, don't take them or don't bitch when you get stung later.
This sort of thing is going to only get more frequent. The law is slack in every country it seems and certain entitys are going to take advantage of the fact that proving you are right is going to put you behind the 8 ball rather than get you anywhere.
To me bitching about stuff like this is pointless even in the fact a person would be better off forgetting about it and getting on with more productive things in their lives.
a couple of additional facts:
the event is VERY popular in the area (IIRC, 25$/ticket @ 200+ guests per session, multiple sessions a day)
Her own business is affected by this now - people reach out to her saying things along the lines "oh, we'll see you at the Event! can't wait for this".. and she has to explain to them that she is in no way affiliated with that business.
My Site
My Facebook
I can't figure out how she was and or is associated with company A,B, C, D or the past owner or the present owner and or how this is associated with whatever the event is in 2011 or 2012.
I think to get a sound opinion this needs to be more thoroughly explained.
Sam
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
There's your answer. You allowed it to be used by a party that's still using it (if I understand correctly) just under a different name.
If for whatever reason you chose to fight it, the fact that you allowed this person to use the image for X amount of time without a complaint is not going to make a good argument on your part for not wanting them to use it now.
Website
Owners pulled the image, and replaced it with another copyrighted image... but it is not affecting my friend, so I am happy.
My Site
My Facebook