A client of mine who provided business software used a head shot of a young blond woman wearing glasses to grace its website. It was an example of using sex in a subdued and tasteful manner to sell a product. Well, when that same shot appeared on a travel web site, I did what any aggressive counsel would do and contacted my client anxious to spring a cease and desist letter on the owner of that travel site only to find out that my client had acquired a non-exclusive license to use that photo.
Subsequently, another client asked me to clear a unique artistic design for its use as a trademark. A web search disclosed that it had acquired that design from a web provider whose terms of use stated that it granted a nonexclusive limited license to use that design and that my client may not claim intellectual or exclusive ownership in it. Therefore, it sought to claim exclusive rights in something as its trademark that it was not entitled to.
Recently a 15 year old Dallas girl posed with a friend for a photo at a church-sponsored car wash only to later find her image on a billboard in Adelaide, Australia as part of a Virgin Mobile advertising campaign. Her image had been uploaded to the Flickr web site, by the photographer, her church youth counselor. Although the Flickr license in this case allowed the photographs posted on it to be used by anyone in any way, as long as the photographer was credited, it did not grant Virgin Mobile the girl’s privacy rights, that is her right not to have her likeness used for commercial benefit without permission.
A lawsuit ensued.
The moral of these stories. Watch what you take from the Internet and how you use it. Read the small print but realize the small print may not tell the whole story
