3 ms·
I guess it's a copyright detection thing then.
by ig1 16y ago
I guess it's a copyright detection thing then.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- izak30 16y agoThis image and content strikes me. I'm guessing that this woman, if she ever found out, could probably sue several of these advertisers for using her image without permission to sell a product. I think that many people forget that just because you found it, doesn't mean you can use it. Your argument is that if dozens of people are doing it, it's probably ok, that's totally wrong.
- ig1 16y agoI wonder where the image originated from, I would have guessed from a stock image library somewhere, but those kind of places tend to be very aggressive in tracking down unauthorized uses.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- tghw 16y agoAbsolutely wrong. If you do not have a license to use the image or know for a fact that it is in the public domain, then it is a safe bet that you are in violation of the copyright. And just because you think you could reproduce the image does not give you the right to use it.
- tghw 16y agoJust because it is widely used does not mean it's not a copyright violation. Someone took the photo, and they own the copyright to it. Unless you have an explicit license from that copyright holder, then most likely you are violating the copyright. Additionally, you don't have a model release from the woman, and since you are using her image for commercial purposes, you could be liable and she would have a pretty good case, especially considering that it is a published fact that her image is more effective.