Model sues for illegal use of photos

10 years ago

She is suing for 1.5 BILLION? I actually hope she wins the suit but the amount is ridiculous. I don't know how a site like match.com could check all the submitted photos for legality. Wouldn't the person that submitted a fake photo be the most responsible?

Thanks for posting the link since I totally agree with you that "how picking up photos from google or other unauthorized sources can cause a lot of trouble."

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728227].message }}

Internet Undertaking

10 years ago

I don't think this was your usual picking up a photo from Google. I think what makes this a big issue is the way the photos were used and where it was used. The model's photo was used to pose as the model under different profiles; using her identity and image. Identity theft in business practice is a big no no.

The lawsuit amount is because of the company they are suing; Match.com. They are probably going to settle. Match.com will claim that the profiles were created by their affiliates who they terminated once they became aware of the issue. Just like YouTube, who removes copywritten content from their website basically only when they are notified of it.

[ 3 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728235].message }}

BradVert2013

10 years ago

I'm always amazed how people still think its okay to grab an image online and just start using it without any regard to copyrights - especially if it's being used for commercial purposes.

The amount the model is seeking is a little on the high side, but I hope she wins something. Will send a strong message to others that using pictures without the proper permission is a very bad idea and has real financial consequences.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728284].message }}

GuruGazette

10 years ago

The amount is huge yes and I also suspect it's because of the company involved. Registered copyrights are eligible for up to $250,000 per violation, so 200 would be $50 million. The primary message is the same though. Not many around here could absorb the cost of one violation, yet many still think it's fine to just trust Google or misc website sources for images.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728332].message }}

Shane12

10 years ago

If Match.com were creating these profiles themselves, there might be some merit to this. But if it's their users, it's completely baseless. Though they can take down photos if they believe they need to, they can't vet every single profile to make sure people aren't lying, and not just because most of the people probably are lying.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728349].message }}

SallyJo

10 years ago

In another offline business that I own, *I* had taken pictures that were used on my site about 8 years ago. Recently, I used one of these images and a person in the picture came unglued on me. Remember - I took the pic. She even posed for the pic... so it wasn't something she didn't have knowledge of. And no... she wasn't naked or anything like that.

This self-righteous little twit pissed me off.. lol... but I really don't want to cause trouble or create ill will... so I told her I wouldn't use the picture again and I took it down from being included in the online brochure for my biz.

When I tried to do a (brief) amount of homework on the legalities of this, it seems that if I used the pic for "editorial" use, I'd be OK. But once the image is used to create business, then it seems it's over the line.

Lesson learned: Whenever I take pics in the future, I'm going to get signed releases... even if it seems trivial at the time.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728390].message }}

BradVert2013

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SallyJo

In another offline business that I own, *I* had taken pictures that were used on my site about 8 years ago. Recently, I used one of these images and a person in the picture came unglued on me. Remember - I took the pic. She even posed for the pic... so it wasn't something she didn't have knowledge of. And no... she wasn't naked or anything like that.

This self-righteous little twit pissed me off.. lol... but I really don't want to cause trouble or create ill will... so I told her I wouldn't use the picture again and I took it down from being included in the online brochure for my biz.

When I tried to do a (brief) amount of homework on the legalities of this, it seems that if I used the pic for "editorial" use, I'd be OK. But once the image is used to create business, then it seems it's over the line.

Lesson learned: Whenever I take pics in the future, I'm going to get signed releases... even if it seems trivial at the time.

Yep, using models adds another layer of complexity to the issue. I learned a long time ago to always get things in writing. It protects you. It protects them.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728432].message }}

GuruGazette

10 years ago

Exactly. Even magazines and newspapers prefer or require both model and property releases these days. Cover your butt.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728474].message }}

Danny Cutts

10 years ago

I have had an issue where I was sold a logo design and the images were stolen...

You can read about it here..

LogoNerds Review - Do Not Use LogoNerds

I have now gone out and bought an SLR camera and take a lot of photos of my own.

Thanks

Signature

Come and See me on Facebook... Come and See me at my blog...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8728708].message }}

samkadya

10 years ago

Originally Posted by GuruGazette

Here's an example of how picking up photos from google or other unauthorized sources can cause a lot of trouble. With people pics particularly, lawsuits can come from the photo copyright owner and the models themselves.
Yuliana Avalos Lawsuit Against Match - Business Insider

We can learn a thing or two from all this. If you use google need to filter the results to avoid using copyright images.