Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JumpinJesus
Cynthetiq,
That part is true, but when you sign up for these services, part of the agreement states that you claim ownership and permission rights to all your images. If you sign up, you're in essence telling them that you have all model releases. However, once a person uses an image, they have to be able to provide that release if its requested. If you can't provide it or don't have it, you don't have permission.
But you're right, it's up to the person uploading the images to make sure the permission exists, but if you're suing someone, who has more money, the photographer or Virgin?
Where it can turn into a grey area is if the model is in a public place in full view of the public. This is why paparazzi photographers can make money selling their images. So, I guess I'm actually contradicting my own post above. What are the odds?
|
That's why I'm stating that it's too complex and convuluted to the layperson. They just don't bother to read it because they want the service that is provided and not be bogged down with understanding the real terms of agreement.
I'm positive the most of us don't bother to read the EULA when you load software, and again, when you disagree with the points you just continue and use it anyways. Even when the terms change, and they send you a little email telling you that it has changed. For the most part you read it quickly since it has some highlighted items that are being changed, but again, you want to use the service so you don't bother.
The same thing in my opinion that happens with credit cards, and how they changed the TOS making it one day so that if you default on payment they can alter your APR to the highest or if some other credit agency has done so they could do the same.
I can't imagine how little we'd get done if people actually read and understood the the TOS and did the right thing like not utilize the product/service.
It doesn't work that way when you buy a car, toaster, or shoes. Can you imagine if buying a pair of Nike shoes stated in the TOS that you were to not wear these shoes to do criminal acts? Or a car that states you won't use it for war purposes or transport illegal items? People would just laugh.
It is cautionary to sue large corporations because they can just deep pocket the little person into oblivion racking up tons of legal fees before even making it to court. Sucks but it happens all the time.
So in essence if Snapfish was the advertiser, they'd be in the right since they own the image and can make derivative works from it.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Last edited by Cynthetiq; 10-06-2007 at 07:07 AM..
|