The lawsuit notwithstanding, does anyone know if Virgin really did anything wrong here? What torts, as I'm told they say in law school.
I ask because from what I can tell, they didn't quite do anything that should get them into legal hot water. They followed the terms of the CC license. The only trouble spot is that they didn't get the girl's permission, but it would be easy to argue that she gave the photographer implicit rights to the image and thus would have little say in how it's used.
Obviously, though, her complaint is understandable. If only as a courtesy, Virgin certainly should have contacted the photographer to say that they were using the image in a large campaign. But unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a legal recourse. What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
I ask because from what I can tell, they didn't quite do anything that should get them into legal hot water. They followed the terms of the CC license. The only trouble spot is that they didn't get the girl's permission, but it would be easy to argue that she gave the photographer implicit rights to the image and thus would have little say in how it's used.
Obviously, though, her complaint is understandable. If only as a courtesy, Virgin certainly should have contacted the photographer to say that they were using the image in a large campaign. But unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a legal recourse. What we've got here is a failure to communicate.