Gap uses Flickr photo without permission

Naughty Naughty.

Lots of money coming his way I imagine, Unless the Gap have really good lawyers.
 
I think it's disgusting what The Gap have done. I can see how they thought they would get away with it though because as that type of graphic you wouldn't look twice but if it was my image being replicated I would want half of the overall revenue from that item of clothing plus a compensation fee for not asking permission.
 
I wonder what he will get? They have clearly altered the image, so that must be a lump of cash, then they have used it without permission, another lump, then they have distributed it.. another lump.
Plus damages or some from of comp.

A few million? More/less?

I wish a multimillion company would use my image without permission!
 
Hope he gets lots money for this, I have all of my flickr as copyright all rights reserved just to avoid any issues so that if someone were to use an image it cannot be questioned like i can imagine a creative commons license could be

Now just waiting for a multi billion turnover company to illegally use my picture ;)

Matt
MWHCvT
 
It's quite disgusting how they've done this. Hope he gets alot of money just to teach them a lesson.

And I echo everyones elses sentiments RE them using a picture of mine! :naughty: Would come in very handy!
 
The only problem with a multi-billion pound company using your images illegally is that they also have multi-billions of pounds to fight a court case.
 
Scarecrow said:
The only problem with a multi-billion pound company using your images illegally is that they also have multi-billions of pounds to fight a court case.
Click to expand...

This is true, but in this case it appears quite clear cut so defend the case your self and let them fight it all they want, will only make there bill even bigger when they loose the case.

But then life is never that clear cut is it

Matt
MWHCVT
 
its not as much as you'd think

TCR4x4 said:
I wonder what he will get? They have clearly altered the image, so that must be a lump of cash, then they have used it without permission, another lump, then they have distributed it.. another lump.
Plus damages or some from of comp.

A few million? More/less?

I wish a multimillion company would use my image without permission!
Click to expand...
 
MWHCVT said:
This is true, but in this case it appears quite clear cut so defend the case your self and let them fight it all they want, will only make there bill even bigger when they loose the case.

But then life is never that clear cut is it

Matt
MWHCVT
Click to expand...

Not even slightly.

I suspect that

1. This wasn't done by Gap - it was done by an intern at a tiny design agency who has now left to pursue other activities (i.e. they will claim they have clean hands - aka go sue somebody who hasn't got any money)

2. If anybody ever tracks down the person who did it then they will claim that they didn't copy. Even if they did it must be a recollection of seeing the image at some time somewhere - like when you sketch a design for an original logo and then find out you actually saw it on Spanish TV in 1987.

3. There's no way Gap would let this be considered criminal copyright infringement (which actually it probably isn't) but that the worst it is will be civil infringement. The difference being.....the infringed party will need to bring a case against Gap and fund that themselves. Forget "defending yourself" against a charge - you would need clout and money to bring the case.

4. "No we didn't infringe your copyright but that's a nice pic - how 'bout we pay you $1,000 for it?" is a much more likely outcome that "millions of dollars" (srsly - in what way has he personally been damaged to the tune of millions? They would have paid a designer double digit dollars for this)

Summary: yeah I think they did it and it stinks. But I bet they get away with it.
 
To be fair, probably most street photographed E-Types will have overhead lines reflected in the windscreen, so it could just be that the idea for the shot was copied. It could also be argued that the original shot is a breach of the car designer's copyright since it (the car) is the only point of interest in the shot.

Good luck to him in getting anything out of it other than publicity though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top