Re: [messengers] Use of likeness without permission (epilogue)

Date: 3 Dec 2010 15:20:28 +0100
From: "Joel Metz" <magpie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

of course shutterstock was fine with buying a picture of an unidentified
(and, except by his close friends, unidentifiable) man on the street,
without a signed release form - because its highly doubtful that given the
nature of the photograph, one was even required!

have you seen stock photo catalogs? theyre FULL of such images, all likely
without a release. heck, shutterstocks own online catalog has over 21
thousand photographs of people on bicycles, many, if not most, of which
are of unidentifiable riders. shutterstock is a royalty-free stock photo
company, which means that likely the vast majority of those were sold to
them without releases - all totally legitimate transactions.

i find it highly unlikely that, even if you were marco, there would be ANY
action you could legally take against the photographer, shutterstock, or

you got lucky, kenda was feeling nice, and theyve thrown you a trinket.
angle sufficiently worked.


> I also emailed to Kenda and Marco the response from "S.v. Luma", the
> photographer. S.v Luma stated that they took pictures and sold them to
> Shutterstock without a release form. Shutterstock, who has yet to respond
> to
> any email, was fine with buying the rights to Marco's picture and then
> making a profit knowing that there was no release form. I am limited in
> what
> action I can take against Shutterstock as I am neither Marco nor Kenda
> Tires.
> I think I've done enough damage with my computer, time to ride my bike...
> Corey the Courier
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Julio Saravia
> <saravia.julio@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>> yeah...get yours if you can.  the only thing is that as a community we
>> were
>> all ready to boycott kenda.  why?  because they bought a picture from
>> another company...shutterstock...who bought it from a photographer.
>> shouldn't you have gone after the photographer?  or maybe even
>> shutterstock?  i know, i know...shutterstock was contacted but its kenda
>> stepping up and the company that was being threatened with possible
>> boycott.  did you tell shutterstock you were going to boycott them?
>> haha!
>> it's not kendas fault they were sold something that was "ethically"
>> wrong.
>> it's super awesome of them to come through the way they say they will.
>> they
>> are not legally or ETHICALLY tied to this whole mess.  that being
>> said...does this mean that as a community we do out best to support
>> kenda?
>> that we go out of our way to make sure we buy kenda tires?  it would be
>> the
>> "ethically" right thing to do...right?
>> *no longer a courier cause i like to have enough energy to catch
>> episodes
>> of fringe...peace.*
>> Original post:
> I thank those of you that responded for your letters to Kenda and emails
> to
> me about your opinions in addressing this matter.
> Viewpoints fell into a few categories on the Marco versus
> KendaTires/"S.V. Luma" affair:
> Kenda tires, a big corporation, is exploiting the little guy. Let's
> boycott
> their product, hitting them in the pocket.
> The face in the photo was blurred and unrecognizable. and
> the photographer had every legal right to sell the photo, Kenda Tires the
> right to use it for advertising.
> Corey, you have a big mouth and may have smeared the reputation of the
> wrong
> person by crying wolf.
> Now that Kenda has agreed to take care of Marco when he contacts them, I
> feel justified for making lots of noise. I am not excited about being
> responsible for temporarily tarnishing the image of Kenda Tires. On
> reflection, they responded honestly and quickly when confronted about the
> Marco C. "Commuter" ad.
> Several photographers and people with a firmer grasp on law have said sale
> and usage of the picture of Marco on his bike were legal because all logos
> and his face were edited by Photoshop. Legally, that is true. But during
> the
> back and forth of several agitated emails, I discovered that the
> photographer took random photographs of individuals, selling their image
> without their knowledge or signature on a release form. While technically
> what they did was in a legal gray area of acceptability, ethically they
> have
> no solid ground on which to stand. But, I ask: if the face was blurred,
> how
> was I and several others able to immediately able to recognize our friend
> Marco? Peer recognition. And being a cyclist who rides for money, use of
> his
> photo while he works is equivalent to theft.
> Yes, I have been boastful, extravagant and silly to the point of
> embarrassment in the past, but the potential for my friend to be exploited
> monetarily was too much for me to idly watch and tolerate. I initially
> became agitated when I saw an ad in a US magazine. After I sent emails
> asking for opinions on the matter (I know that I am not always right), I
> was
> forwarded another ad from someone outside of the US with the same photo of
> Marco but digitally manipulated so that he faced the opposite direction.
> It
> was then I felt stronger the need to stop the ad campaign.
> Many of the riders in the USA ride in terrible conditions with low pay, no
> vacation, no real health benefits, no retirement plans, no college
> reimbursementt and must pay for bicycle expenses out of pocket with the
> threat of death from every passing car, cab, truck and bus. It is a shit
> situation, but one in which the rider is aware of the pros and cons.
> Someone
> attempting to make money off of messengers while riding in the rain made
> my
> blood boil. (I thought about this while riding in monsoon-like conditions
> yesterday) After much investigations, I was right in being angry. The
> anger
> should have been directed toward the photography company that sold the
> photo
> and the photographer that tried to exploit people on the street and
> digitally manipulating their image.
> When I see Kenda Tire ads in the coming months with a clear photos of
> Marco
> Creacy, I will feel vindicated. When you see those ads you should buy
> their
> stuff
> Corey the Courier
> "There is something wrong in a government where they who do the most have
> the least. There is something wrong when honesty wears a rag, and
> rascality
> a robe; when the loving, the tender, eat a crust, while the infamous sit
> at
> the banquets" -Robert G. Ingersoll.
> _______________________________________________
> Messengers mailing list
> Messengers@xxxxxxxxx

joel metz : magpie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :
magpie messenger collective   :
          i know what innocence looks like - and it wasn't there,
                                after she got that bicycle...