On 7/23/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/23/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
AFAIR, this wasn't Virgin Airlines but their Australian cellphone company - correct me if I am wrong. Definitely Australia though.
Oh, do they have a completely different license that isn't an option on Wikipedia?
From what I've read, the question of legal jurisdiction makes it a lot
harder to sue, since all the cases I've known have involved photos taken outside Australia of non-Australians, and it's hard under Australian law, apparently, to sue there when neither photographer nor subject has a connection to Australia. Some people have suggested that Virgin or their ad agency deliberately chose non-Australian photos to reduce the chance of legal action; I'm not sure there's any credence to that, since US users are a large proportion of Flickr users in any case.
If it were a copyright matter, bringing suit would be easier thanks to widely-adopted copyright treaties, I believe, but rights of publicity and image are not standardized in this way and vary wildly from nation to nation. There is no right to privacy in Australian law, so that is not grounds for a suit there.
-Matt