Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Flickr photographer says Virgin Mobile Canada used his photo in a brochure without permission

"With artists and journalists increasingly turning to the Internet to self-publish their work, marketers are finding a wealth of material online. The result, in some cases, has stretched standards of fair play"

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/687054

I saw this article as well, and my first thought was the fact that he actually took a photo of another Artists work (being the Graffiti artist)

So who is really owed some money here?

The photographer whose image was stolen is owed. The original artist could pursue the photographer for payment, but it could be said that he had originally intended his work to be viewed by as many people as possible. Does the owner of the wall that he used without permission in order to create this work also deserve recompense from the artist?

Virgin Mobile should compensate everyone ... what a bunch of dumb asses!

Despite the photographer being from Ireland....here's an incident closer to home:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/toronto_lex/878840675/

If you're not inclined to click......Virgin rips off a Toronto photographer also.

Damn Virgin, Bell......free phones for all.

Hummm, don't be so quick to blame Virgin. I work in the media/advertising industry and have seen this crap happen before. Most times it is the advertising company that has the account that's usually to blame. They're the ones responsible for putting together their advertising campaign. The client usually leaves it up to the advertising agency to get the legal mumbo jumbo in order. They just give the approval or disapproval to which look or campaign they think will best fit their product. I'm sure the agency that's responsible is getting a tongue lashing!

Still, the responsibility falls in Virgin's lap as they should know better than to use images without licensing the rights to do so. To claim otherwise is sheer nonsense or extreme naivite. Any major company has a legal department that usually takes care of these things, to protect against infringement lawsuits and the like. In this case, as in others of recent not, they did not do due diligence legally speaking.

i agree but that shot looks simply a straight on shot of that grafitti. You would think Virgin could have gotten one of their own photos to go out and shoot it pretty much the same.

[oops double post]

Yes Virgin and any other company that does promotional advertising have their own legal dept but they aren't the ones doing the legwork for their ads. Again, this falls on the lap of the hired advertising agency. Virgin, Cara, Bell, Rogers, Coke, PepsiCo, Fritolays etc etc hire advertising companies to help showcase their products. They rely on their advertising agency to get all it right. Yes, they consult with their own internal legal and media department to see if xyz can be said or legit or demonstrate what their product can offer or support. As for the photographers, the advertising agency is responsible for setting up the shoots or using whatever images they deem best works for whichever campaign. They are the ones who are supposed to ensure that the images used are legit etc. Do you think Virgin and all these other companies have their own contracted photographers to do their advertising work? Think again.

The graffiti that was shot was removed not long after the photographer had taken it. Again, the advertising agency who handles that account is responsible for the screwup but because nobody knows the background workings, Virgin is held accountable.

I've been working in one of the worlds largest advertising companies for close to 10yrs. I've pretty much seen my share of wrist slapping over that time.