Family sues Creative Commons

[RAV TUX]

I read through the comments on the page, it appears the license used on the image was originally CC 2.0 Attribution only. This license has no restriction on distribution or remixing and can be used in commercial work. It's only clause is attribution. He did change it, but that was after it was used in the ad campaign, that hardly seems relevant to Virgin's use. If he licensed it improperly up until it was used it's his fault.



From the article:

Thanks for the 411 starcraft.man I still feel the Youth Counselor Justin Wong was in the Wrong and should ultimately be held responsible. He was trusted by the parents to not only watch over their children while in his company but to also be responsible enough not to plaster the internet with their images. The question comes did the parents sign a consent form to allow Mr. Wong to post these images?

It sounds like Mr. Wong just made a stupid mistake, but he should still be the one held financially responsible for any damages to this poor little girls life, if Mr. Wong had posted these images on a porn site their would be no question of his accountability.

Virgin while legally, most likely acted within the realms of the law should have been smart enough to:

1. used only a model with prior expressed consent, under contract
2. If using an image of a minor licensed under the CC license, then they should have as a respectable courtesy and to cover their a$$, obtained prior consent from the parents.

Virgin should owe nothing to Mr. Wong since he was in the Wrong and had licensed his image(of minor children in his care) under the CC license.

It sound like the only thing Mr. Wong could inevitably say is: I am a complete idiot, I screwed up so lets sue Virgin and CC. NO! Mr. Wong you were in the Wrong and you should be held completely accountable.

The courts will decide if Virgin is financially responsible(unless they have an out-of-court settlement), it sounds like the CC license will inevitably not protect Virgin in this case. I am still surprised that Virgin did not cover their a$$ with prior consent or why they did not pay a model in the first place. It would have been cheaper to use a model then to pay the legal fees that will ensue, even if they have a herd of lawyers on their payroll. It sounds like someone at Virgin may lose their job over this one.

[Nano Geek]

Well, here's what I think of this.

• This sounds like a frivolous lawsuit to me. The fact that the photographer is suing as well sounds strange.
• While I think that, although technically Virgin wasn't breaking the law, they should have asked and payed for the use of that picture.
• Since the photographer is in the same lawsuit, I'm guessing that he is a friend of the family and they they wouldn't sue him.
• The photographer should have taken care not to put pictures of others under such a free license
• They have absolutely no reason to sue the CC because he chose to use that license, if he didn't like it, then use something else.

[Anthem]

Virgin doesn't need to ask to use a CC license. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF CC!

The photographer is at fault here, nobody else.

[Nano Geek]

Virgin doesn't need to ask to use a CC license. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF CC!

The photographer is at fault here, nobody else.

However it is considered the right thing to do to ask and pay before you use someone else's picture in you advertisement.