Though the family example might not be the most compelling, let's try to imagine what if it had actually happend, like when it actually happened for example:
That is Danielle Smith's family, and that's an ad in Czech grocery store. Danielle din't got paid anything. Now we might have similar consolation arguments for Danielle: you know, it's not so bad, nobody knows you on the Czech Republic and like, no one is going to remember it anyways, and it's such a small part of the ad campaign, so stop whinning. It's tottally legal, or it should be, because of the internets, I can haz family picture!.
Danielle has a more insightful opinnion abou it though:
"Pepsi has a Web site. ... Hertz cars has a Web site. And they have an expectation that someone doesn't right-click on one of their pictures and take it and use it somewhere else," Smith says. "So I would imagine that as a business owner, as a mom, as an individual, I should expect that same right."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105318456
Notice none of the pictures here are from any source that could possibly sue them at any point. That is, these do not belong to any major video game company and no major corporation that might wisen up to them. Some do belong to stock image houses, to web organizations and federal organizations (Such as the Franklin Tercentenary) and of course to little people like Jeffrey Stephenson.
But maybe we are thinking that it doesn't matter because of course they changed many of the faces from the original pictures. That it's true for pictures like the one of actor Josh Hartnett. Yet if it was completely legal to go right ahead with this practice on every picture they could get their grubby hands on, then how come they altered Josh's face yet they didn't alter other pictures on the same manner?
(this picture, like many others, is not public domain)
Was Josh and his lawyers more of a liability than good ol' Jeff? who knows?. They most definitely could not change the face of Jeff's computer (it's actually a computer, not a microphone), but they did flipped it and added some glowing crap on the background, so there Jeff, now can't sue!.
When Jeff Stephenson was here no one told him to stop whinning, that Firaxis tottally had the right to do this or that no one would remember this. We were all polite, we all understood his position. We couldn't possibly imagine anyone being such an ass about it to his face.
maybe if they had added some glowing crap on the background...
Except, again, when it did happen to Deviantart photographer Lara Jade. Who had her image apropiated and used for a porn movie cover. Her image was on the internet, yet it didn't gave anyone the right to use it (as some have stated before, but there is no such thing as a
"yoink law"). Hell you can barely see her face in that porno though!, yet it was still wrong both on philosophical principles (she didn't grant permision) and judicial principles (she was also 14 at the time). The company that took her image kept it mighty classy though, by writting back her this gem:
"I’M SURE BY THE END OF THE MONTH YOUR FACE WILL BE HISTORY. WE HAVE STOPPED SELLING THE DVD UNTIL COVER IS REPLACED. WE HAVE FURTHER CHECKED OUT YOUR NAME AND ITS NOT LIKE IT’S A HOUSE WHOLE NAME. ACTUALLY, REMOVING YOUR IMAGE WILL HELP IMPROVE THE SELL OF THE DVD….. SO FAR IT BOMBED"
But she won the case!, you can read it all here (first the post she made about the case when it came up), she was awarded 130.000 in damages:
http://larafairie.deviantart.com/journal/35098843/#comments
http://larafairie.deviantart.com/journal/35098843/#comments
All I need is Google and the ability to crop, cut, mirror and paste lol!
