Slashdot Mirror
Family's Christmas Photos Hawk Groceries In Prague
Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that Jeff and Danielle Smith sent a photo of themselves with their two young children to family and friends as a Christmas card, and posted the image on her blog and a few social networking websites. Then, last month, a friend of the family was vacationing in the Czech Republic when he spotted a full size poster of the Missouri family's smiling faces in the window of a local supermarket in Prague, advertising a grocery delivery service. The friend snapped a few pictures and sent them to the Smiths, who were flabbergasted. Mario Bertuccio, who owns the Grazie store in Prague, admitted that he had found the photo online but thought it was computer-generated and promised to remove it, and 'We'll be happy to write an e-mail with our apology,' he says. Meanwhile Mrs. Smith has received 180,000 visitors and over 500 comments on her blog since she posted the story. She says she is glad the photo wasn't used in an unseemly manner. 'Interesting. Bizarre. Flattering, I suppose,' writes Mrs. Smith. 'But quite creepy.'"
Anything (well unless it's something I'm trying to find) you post on the internet can be found. It's common sense.
It would be amazingly hard to sue them, so finding pics of someone in another country that will more than likely never see it, is a fairly safe way to go, and zero costs, with little risks.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Eh, I don't see the problem really. If our culture had instead developed along the lines of liberal copyrights, such as the creative commons licenses, rather than the restrictive copyrights that are common, I don't think anyone would care about this. It's a nice photo and wasn't being used in any malicious way. I don't see what is creepy about this.
The moral is: "DO NOT POST YOUR PERSONAL LIFE ON THE INTERNET!"
Really, besides your loved ones, nobody gives a fsck about your personal life unless they can make a bob or two out of it.
Also, be unmistakeably clear to provide licensing conditions to your content.
Last, don't whine if you're an idiot. Then again, you're probably still in the long lasting denial phase anyway.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
I though that too. Which (along thousand other times) makes me think how much stuff in newspapers is wrong or missing information, either by their unknowledge or someone not knowing all the details
In this day and age of feel-good, everyone's a winner anti-competitiveness, it should be no surprise that someone would come along and claim that giving up is the same as winning.
Incorrect. It's not giving up at all. In fact it's rather the opposite - it's obtaining the best possible result from the situation.
Sue the owner? We all know they would get nothing. A store owner would be out of business, and the family would be out legal expenses. A great ending if you're a law firm.
Tell him to take it down? Again, how have you really "won" anything. You have caused more waste through reprinting. You have done some harm to a small business, and done nothing at all to help your family. Your family looks like cads.
So you explain to me how saying "you know what, just keep using the photo and retire it when you are ready" is not the most sensible and best result possible. The family gets a kick out of knowing they will be seen in another country, again in a positive fashion. The grocer gets to keep using a nice photo, and again everyone wins - not because of anti weird anti-competitvness (which I abhor) but because in the best human fashion you have solved for the most optimal result.
There are plenty of other conditions in which I would say fighting would be the best option. You make the mistake of not realizing conditions can determine the best solution, and this is not one of the conditions in which a solution you seem to be advocating (fighting) is best.
Of course we all know at this point the true story is that it was obtained as a stock photo, which means he's not using the photo improperly at all and if anything the family needs to have a word with the friend who sold them to microstock without asking. Is she making money off them? Well then, that's a whole different story...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah, right. My Mum is an amateur photographer. That is, she doesn't do it professionally, but she owns gear worth many thousands, and has done lots of photography courses. She'll still try emailing me twenty multi-megabyte photos, and ring me to ask why the mail isn't going through. Clueless people uploading hi-res photos isn't anything to form conspiracy theories over.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
If you need scripts to "show things properly" then the implementation is broken in the first place. The site's functionality should degrade nicely when javascript ain't available.
Your head a splode
I am not familiar with Facebook's TOS (don't use it) so I don't know if you grant them the use of the stuff you upload
Irrevocably, forever, in whatever way Facebook wants.
Anyone who posts photos to Facebook is a retard.
Model releases are very much a USA thing. In the UK, we don't technically need them. They're still nice to have to make things perfectly clear to the model, but unless some other contract was entered into when you took the pictures, you own the copyright and can do with as you will.
How else do you think the paparazzi survive ?
All I would ask is to have the grocer send me one of the posters. I would think it would make a great wall hanging for a rec room. A picture of your family advertising the weekly sale in a foreign language.... great conversational piece!
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."