Originally Posted by analog

Both of those articles contain people who specified their pictures could be used under the Creative Commons license, which includes for commercial use.

I don't hear anyone claiming there's no image credit, they're just upset their image is actually being used. If you grant permission for commercial use of a picture that has your image in it, it is part of that picture and not subject to separate likeness rights. Use of your image would come into play if they made a cartoon out of your image, or otherwise reproduced your likeness into another medium outside of the original picture. This does not include cropping out a portion of the photo and sticking you on a bus ad.

I'm all about people maintaining their copyright, but these people gave away their copyright, and are complaining about "image rights" now, which is nonsense. It's not your "image", it's a cropped portion of a photo YOU said was available for use.

from another part of the article:

------------------
He said that the term “commercial use” was too vague to inform users of the license and that it was incumbent on Creative Commons to raise the issue of the rights of the people who appear in the picture.
------------------

If you don't agree to the terms, or don't understand what the terms are well enough to agree as an informed individual, you can't claim stupidity later on down the road. You click "I agree to these terms"... just because you didn't read them, or couldn't understand them, doesn't mean the company can't do exactly what the terms of use say.

And, come on-- who doesn't understand what "commercial use" means?