ForumGarden

Something about that (besides the obvious issue here) doesn't seem right to me. It sounds like Virgin was too cheap to hire models or even pay the people whose photo they used and just swiped off of Flickr. Even if those photos are up there for anyone's use, since Virgin stands to make mega on this, I think they should compensate everyone whose likeness they used for their ad. I just don't like that.

Virgin should not have used her image in the ad, BUT...it was posted on a publicly-accessed Flickr page. The girl's family should take the youth counsellor to task as well, particularly if the photo was posted without her knowledge and consent (or that of her parents if she is underage).

As to the lawsuit: Pay the girl and her parents the going rate for print models, air a public apology, and remove the ad. Inflated lawsuits are one of the banes of modern American existence. If one's reputation can be tarnished in the eyes of one's friends and church peers on the strength of a print ad, one needs to seek new friends and a new church.

Good point on the reputation issue, Rob. I thought that was a little much, too.

Good topic Magenta.

Surely the counsellor is the one most culpable. What was he doing posting pictures without permission on a public website?

Virgin sued



A girl tries to keep her virtue intact and this is what she gets.

Whats the world coming to ?

magenta flame;699034 wrote: Ok guys what if a corporation doesn't want to pay a model for their campaign. Lets say it's about Child abuse. And they go to a site such as flikr to 'Borrow" a photo. Unfortunetly their slogan for the campaign is .............."Yeah they look happy now, but child abuse is a hidden problem" so some poor woman or man has their happy snap with their children turned into something sinister.

How much do you think a jury would give them for embarrassment pain and suffering.


That would be most uncool for them to do that, I think. I have no idea what a jury would pay or how much they would side with the victim. But I think for something as you mentioned, child abuse or a VD advertisement, something like that, that they should use their own staff or fork out $$ for a model. I don't think using Flickr for a controversial ad is in very good taste.

But I will try to answer your question...I would say a jury would not pay very much. No one was physically hurt and I realize it's hard to judge emotion but if I were on that jury I wouldn't award said person too much money. If we were talking deep emotional trauma, sure, but I think to say this was such would be a little unrealistic.

What do you think??