Dreampepper

I hate that I found this out at work, when there's nothing I can do about being this pissed off.

From:

joyousandjuicy.livejournal.com

I have a lawyer-friend who does criminal defense stuff, but let me see what she knows about copyright or anything else that can be done here..

Can you send me a link of the poster/publication/advert in question?

From:

I've asked for one, but haven't heard back yet. I only within the last five minutes got the news.

From:

joyousandjuicy.livejournal.com

Whoa, so you haven't even seen it. Ack.

Anyway. Will pass this along to aforementioned lawyer-type.

From:

Sure, if you can prove it's you.

Get a lawyer, send a cease and desist and demand the information of the photographer they received the image from. Sue him into the ground.

Do you have a link to this poster?

From:

*agreed*

From:

IANAL, but:

You yourself don't have a copyright claim to the image of yourself.

The image was made by your mother? If she licensed it to a stock agency at some point, you'll have little recourse. Typically, parents of minors can sign releases on the behalf of the minor.

How did the image come to be in the hands of the logging coalition? If they looted it from somewhere online without obtaining rights, you guys can probably sue them for willful violation of copyright. I don't know if canada has an abandoned works law or not. There's a scary one that has been making its way around the US congress in the last few years that would spell doom for most photographers.

What's the story with the history of the image?

From:

My mother has nothing to do with it, except that she would be the only person to be able to sign a release for me at the age of twelve. As far as I know, it's a picture that was taken of me and my brother at a park when we were younger, probably by a friend of my mother's ex-boyfriend.

From:

Ah, I wasn't sure.

So the first things I'd do would be to get ahold of the logging coalition's PR people/agency/department and say "Hi, I'm the subject of this photograph. Who is the photographer that you got this from?"

That will probably result in an answer, and will lead you down the road towards who took your picture, and who sold it without authority. If they give you a hard time about it, mention that the image is not licensed, and they could get sued.

Once you know who took it, you can go after them, and the logging coalition for using your image without license. I'm unfamiliar with the exact process in Canada, but you'll probably have to get a hold of an intellectual property lawyer at some point throughout all this. You've got a lot of friends, I bet you probably know one.

But basically, follow the money.

From:

michel-lacombe.livejournal.com

That is messed up.

And that photo looks like you're turning into me.

From:

My hair without conditioner is even bigger than yours, if you can believe it.

From:

pendamuse.livejournal.com

What everyone else said.

Find out where they got the image from. Give them the choice - they can either remove or image or pay you.

Or remove the images and still pay you.

There was a recent string of images taken from people's Flickr pages under the guise of "fair use". Lawsuits flew and people were paid.

From:

All the advice given to you is good and solid, but I should say, it may not do you a lick of good. As you were in a public place, explicit permission isn't usually considered to be required. Sure, lots of photographers get people to sign releases, but that's more of a CYA principle than a strict legal requirement. Now, there are limited protections in regards to personality, but that basically would require that you a) have a marketable value involved in your likeness and that b) the ad was implying that you were endorsing something. While an argument could certainly be made for b), I suspect that it'd be hard to make a connection to a), especially when you were 12.

Now, of course our legal system is always open to interpretation, and a skillfully presented argument to a sympathetically minded judge can get you basically any decision in civil court. Firstly, you need to figure out who is at fault in a legal liability sense; the logging company, the photographer, the ad company. The you can approach a lawyer about a civil suit. In the long run it'll come down to whether or not you can afford the legal expenses; the fact that you were a child may give you some advantage, but they photog could claim implied consent due to being a friend of yr mom's at-the-time boyfriend, if he was considered to be acting in the position of an approved guardian.

From:

It's legal to take a photo of a stranger in a public place, it is not legal to use that photo for commercial or advertising purposes, without a model release form, if they are recognizable.

From:

inri33 is completely correct.

From:

If you could please point me to that law, I'd be very interested. I personally could find no statute nor governmental regulation prohibiting such.

From:

Follow ze links. Civil, not criminal;

http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php#Privacy_Law

From:

"However, whether this is a law or not depends on the province or territory where the photo was taken."

I understand the principle of model releases, I really, really do. I'm just wondering if there's an actual, specific law, stature or legal prohibition in BC relating to them. I haven't found one, and this page you've pointed me to (which does have some interesting info, so thank you) tells me nothing. So, I ask again, do you know of such statute?

Of course she can make a case in civil court. That's the point of civil court, it's for when there's no clear-cut law, but you still feel that you have been infringed upon. Heck, look at the OJ Simpson case; even though he got off criminally, he still got sued in civil court, and lost. I just question whether a civil case would be worth the time/money investment, that's all. I think that

peristalsis's suggestion below would be much more effective than trusting the court system.

From:

Other that what I found on that page, I can't name you a statute, I'm afraid. This is what I've been told by Canadian professional photographers, though. Presumably they know what they're talking about since their business depends on it. You could ask one, if you'd rather hear it from them instead of me?

Perhaps there's no statute and this is simply for protection from civil suits, I never really asked for the details.

Good luck on your search, though. It sounds desperately important to you.

From:

"Perhaps there's no statute and this is simply for protection from civil suits."

This is what I suspect, frankly.

"Good luck on your search, though. It sounds desperately important to you."

Your sardonic tone is noted. It's not really important to me, but I've had several people jump on my comments here saying "it's the law!", when the fact of the matter is they actually don't know whether or not it's the law.

Honestly, I find such behaviour rather frustrating, as well as rude, as I was merely trying to advise Jhayne to the best of my ability, not start a debate on civil rights in Canada, with total strangers, in her journal comments.

From:

Perhaps try to be less of a rude, condescending, defensive cunt then? I hear it works wonders.

From:

Wow, that is totally uncalled for. I've gone out of my way to be polite, even though strangers were jumping on top of me, saying please and thank you the whole time, asking for clarification o nthings I may have been incorrect about. Now you're calling me names, and telling me that *I'm* the rude one? I'm flabbergasted. Honestly sir, I think you need to re-think your perspective here, for I am certainly baffled by it.

(deleted comment)

From:

Point a) is based on the legal principle of Personality Rights. If you're interested, check out this article (http://www.libelandprivacy.com/areasofpractice_privacy.html) on Privacy laws in Canada. Scroll down to "Misappropriation of Personality".

She does have a good leg to stand on, I never said otherwise. The problem is who to sue, and how much of a threat she can be to them. If I'm understanding correctly, Jhayne wishes to have these ads taken down. Presumably this campaign has had a large amount of money put into making it happen, and it may only be intended to run for a finite period of time. The courts are slow, and expensive. It may be in the companies best interests to just tie the case up in court for a year, and then throw their hands up, say "oops, our bad, we'll take them down", and just end the campaign at it's intended time. Then Jhayne's out a bunch of legal fees, and nothing was accomplished.

"Canadian companies have been successfully sued for less and for instances considerably more murky than this."

Sure they have. There's also lots of companies out there who have clearly done very bad things, and won in court. When it comes down to a judge, the law is anything but clear-cut.

Heh. Clear cut.

(deleted comment)

From:

Yeah, I know a) is irrelevant. I said as much initially. I was bringing it up as a point of "here's something similar". Honestly, what did you think I meant when I said, "I suspect that it'd be hard to make a connection to a)", hmm?

From:

actingbunny.livejournal.com

If all else fails in the legal department letting the press know is a quick way to get them to take it down. Especially if you tell the press "i'm not for logging the old-growth forests, i dont want my image used for it" ect.

good luck let us know how it goes. I do hope you get this solved to your liking.

From:

Yeah, honestly the legal pursuit is likely a total wash- corporations are freely mining flickr and all kinds of things nowadays that have fine print that keeps you from stopping them.
You, however, possibly in coalition with someone like Adbusters or wmmna, could put up your own version, with your own message (Look! They're not just raping forests, they're stealing baby pictures to make it look ok! Hooray!), and send it to our local papers as well, who looove that sort of thing. If it's grabby enough it might hit FARK and from there it's more fun than any lawsuit money might get you.

From:

(Especially if you have any other pics from when you were twelve that would make a good accompaniment- mooning the camera? Angry face? Crying over a stump? Ask your mom if she's got anything appropriate)

From:

This is an excellent idea.

From:

natowelch.livejournal.com

The street finds its own lawsuits for things.

From:

saeble.livejournal.com

as a last resort counter publicity may completely undo and perhaps make worse the logging companies position, I'm sure you swing in enough PR circles to make sure the story gets out that they have at least in spirit, stolen the pic in question.

also, finding the appropriate green group and make them aware of it and then do a cunning counter campaign would make for a very nasty riposte or cunterthrust.

nothing would ruin their day than to have this sort of feel-good BS backfire on them in a big way

From:

saeble.livejournal.com

oops...

'counterthrust'... oddly appropriate but my apologies anyway

From:

hundun.livejournal.com

Indeed. I was thinking that if the lawyer says it's okay, or not worth your time to fight, contacting someone who doesn't like said coalition - Greenpeace?

From:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT3gDut3_tc

Yeah- what are they going to do, sue you for using a picture of yourself? You can't BUY publicity like that.

From:

wileypeter

Possibly the best typo I've seen this year.

I salute you.

From:

saeble.livejournal.com

+bows+

wish I could actually claim conscious credit

From:

wileypeter

Nah. Were it conscious it would be too much. We can only get away with some things by accident!

From:

osmie

From:

Yeah- what are they going to do, sue you for using a picture of yourself? You can't BUY publicity like that.

From:

tlf1138.livejournal.com

The twisted irony is that the DMCA would probably help you were this Obamaland.

From: