1. In this case study, a possible copyright issue could be perceived because the image of a young girl was publicly displayed in a way that her mother did not expect. The girl's image was used on a three-story tall billboard promoting one side of a very controversial issue: abortion. Additionally, the ad (posted by the organization Life Always) was negatively targeting African Americans. Similarly to case study #1, the portion of the copyright law that could be violated is section 106(5), which states that the copyright owner has exclusive rights to publicly display an image.
2. As far as the pros and cons of this case study, there are really three parties involved: the mother, the modeling adjacency, and Life Always. The pro for the mother was that she most likely was paid for the rights for organizations to use her child's photo. However, the con was that she had no control of how those pictures of her daughter would be used. The pro for the modeling agency was profiting from the sale of the stock image. The con was the risk of the image being exploited in some way. The pro for Life Always was that they got to use the image of a beautiful young African American girl to send a strong anti-abortion message. However, the con was the risk of offending the African American community and enraging Planned Parenthood.
3. From a business perspective, there is no copyright violation here. The mother signed a release form, signing away her exclusive rights to her daughter's image. Therefore, she had not legal ownership of the image. The modeling agency legally sold the stock image to the Life Always organization, which then used the photograph as they saw fit.
4. If this situation had occurred in an educational setting, it most likely would have looked like this: at the beginning of the year, parents signed a release form allowing their children's photographs to be used to promote the school. Then, after a child's photo has been used for that purpose, a parent sees the picture publicly displayed and becomes enraged. In that situation, no copyright law has been violated. This is because the parent was aware of the risk involved with signing the release form, and chose to sign the form anyway. Therefore, she has no legal case.
5. From my personal perspective, I do not think that the mother had a case. It is definitely unfortunate that her daughter's photograph was used in the way that is was, however the mother was fully aware of such risks involved with using that modeling agency. I think that what the organization did was completely fair. They received permission, and proceeded to use the photo to promote their organization.
Correct
ReplyDelete