Burger King Digitally-Raped My Face

[Dakini]

I'm really tempted to disregard her, as the ad was around for more then a year.

It came out in 2009 and was only released in Singapore. It was pulled after a lot of negative feedback. Since then, the ad has been circulating on the internet as sort of "how the fuck did this thing get made?" and she only learned about it last year (at which point, she started looking into her legal options).

It's possible that she's going public with it now because she wants to get the attention of BK's legal department (or maybe she hopes to find a lawyer who will take the case for the publicity), but she also claims that people think she agreed to participate in the ad when she did not and wished to set the record straight.

[Pandeeria]

And pretty hurtful, too. Rape is a serious issue.

Indeed. I wonder if she could still claim such looking an actual rape victim in the eye.

She could easily.

They're just eyes.

Now if she actually saw soemone get raped and then told them, it would be different.

[Earth in Roughly 1000 Years]

Indeed. I wonder if she could still claim such looking an actual rape victim in the eye.

She could easily.

They're just eyes.

lol

[James Deans]

Indeed. I wonder if she could still claim such looking an actual rape victim in the eye.

She could easily.

They're just eyes.

Panic and a half, pooper.

[The Serbian Empire]

From what I can find, she never had a contract with Burger King at all. They used a shot from a set of artsy photographs where she distorted her face in various ways. It looks like Burger King found her face online and just used the image without consulting anyone.

So essentially it's a copyright infringement. Still not entirely sure how copyright infringement is rape.

And it may not even be that if a single image of her face in that image shown up on a social media site as once it finds it's way there... Social Media company owns the rights or at least loyalty free access to it.

[James Deans]

She could easily.

They're just eyes.

lol

Rape ain't just some big tickle, don't smirk at it.

[Earth in Roughly 1000 Years]

lol

Rape ain't just some big tickle, don't smirk at it.

That's not what I'm laughing at, and don't tell me what to do.

[Pandeeria]

She could easily.

They're just eyes.

Panic and a half, pooper.

What?

[Marcurix]

Indeed. I wonder if she could still claim such looking an actual rape victim in the eye.

She could easily.

They're just eyes.

Now if she actually saw soemone get raped and then told them, it would be different.

*sigh*

[Dakini]

From what I can find, she never had a contract with Burger King at all. They used a shot from a set of artsy photographs where she distorted her face in various ways. It looks like Burger King found her face online and just used the image without consulting anyone.

She had a contract with the agency. If they had rights to the photos, she can't really object to their use.

Do you have a source on first of all, the part of her having a contract with an agency in this case, or that the contract did not have stipulations about the model having to approve the image or the agency being contacted by BK and giving them permission to use the image?

If she had a contract with an agency and if this contract gave them free use of all the images in any way, that would be one thing. It does not appear to be the case though. It also does not even appear to be the case that BK went through any agency to get the photographs, it looks like they straight out ripped it off Google image search.

[James Deans]

Panic and a half, pooper.

What?

Rape ain't funny.

[Pandeeria]

She could easily.

They're just eyes.

Now if she actually saw soemone get raped and then told them, it would be different.

*sigh*

Elaborate upon your non-descriptive sigh please.

[Condunum]

She had a contract with the agency. If they had rights to the photos, she can't really object to their use.

Do you have a source on first of all, the part of her having a contract with an agency in this case, or that the contract did not have stipulations about the model having to approve the image or the agency being contacted by BK and giving them permission to use the image?

If she had a contract with an agency and if this contract gave them free use of all the images in any way, that would be one thing. It does not appear to be the case though. It also does not even appear to be the case that BK went through any agency to get the photographs, it looks like they straight out ripped it off Google image search.

I've literally been asking from the start if she had a contract with the modeling agency, because BK got the photos from a modeling agency, and if she had a contract with the modeling agency then she has no legal footing. Generally, models have next to no rights over their photos. The agencies usually hold full rights of all products.

[Dakini]

So essentially it's a copyright infringement. Still not entirely sure how copyright infringement is rape.

And it may not even be that if a single image of her face in that image shown up on a social media site as once it finds it's way there... Social Media company owns the rights or at least loyalty free access to it.

That depends on the social media outlet (e.g. some for photosharing give photographers the ability to choose which copyright they want applied to their photos) and whether the person uploading the image actually had permission to upload the image. In either case, other companies are not actually allowed to just steal images from social media.

[Marcurix]

*sigh*

Elaborate upon your non-descriptive sigh please.

As much as i believe in humour, it might be a little early in the thread for poking fun at her lying to a rape victim.

[Dakini]

Do you have a source on first of all, the part of her having a contract with an agency in this case, or that the contract did not have stipulations about the model having to approve the image or the agency being contacted by BK and giving them permission to use the image?

If she had a contract with an agency and if this contract gave them free use of all the images in any way, that would be one thing. It does not appear to be the case though. It also does not even appear to be the case that BK went through any agency to get the photographs, it looks like they straight out ripped it off Google image search.

I've literally been asking from the start if she had a contract with the modeling agency, because BK got the photos from a modeling agency, and if she had a contract with the modeling agency then she has no legal footing. Generally, models have next to no rights over their photos. The agencies usually hold full rights of all products.

I haven't actually even seen sources that confirm that BK got the images from a modeling agency or that the images were taken by/for a modeling agency. She claims that they were part of a series where she made funny faces, they could very well have been done for fun and use on her own personal website or in her portfolio.

In addition, contracts from modeling agencies do not always give the modeling agency permission to use the images without approval of the models, sometimes models do get a say in how their image is used.

[Pandeeria]

Elaborate upon your non-descriptive sigh please.

As much as i believe in humour, it might be a little early in the thread for poking fun at her lying to a rape victim.

The humorous part is that I wasn't being funny at all. I was dead serious.

[Basseemia]

Elaborate upon your non-descriptive sigh please.

As much as i believe in humour, it might be a little early in the thread for poking fun at her lying to a rape victim.

Rape victim? How on Earth is that rape?

[Costa Fierro]

And it may not even be that if a single image of her face in that image shown up on a social media site as once it finds it's way there... Social Media company owns the rights or at least loyalty free access to it.

That depends on the social media outlet (e.g. some for photosharing give photographers the ability to choose which copyright they want applied to their photos) and whether the person uploading the image actually had permission to upload the image. In either case, other companies are not actually allowed to just steal images from social media.

The copy right issues are about the real only objectionable things about this. But I think she is overreacting. Comparing the use of her photos with her lack of consent (assuming of course she holds the copyright, if she doesn't, tough luck) to rape is really fucking stupid and offensive to people who have been raped.

[Condunum]

I've literally been asking from the start if she had a contract with the modeling agency, because BK got the photos from a modeling agency, and if she had a contract with the modeling agency then she has no legal footing. Generally, models have next to no rights over their photos. The agencies usually hold full rights of all products.

I haven't actually even seen sources that confirm that BK got the images from a modeling agency or that the images were taken by/for a modeling agency. She claims that they were part of a series where she made funny faces, they could very well have been done for fun and use on her own personal website or in her portfolio.

In addition, contracts from modeling agencies do not always give the modeling agency permission to use the images without approval of the models, sometimes models do get a say in how their image is used.

Which is why I'm asking if she shot the photos with an agency in the first place.

If she did, it's reasonable to assume she has absolutely no rights to her photos. The only people who have rights to their photos have the legal weight and namebrand (cough Tyra cough) to levy that sort of position.

Course, if she didn't then the singapore agency dun fukd up and BK is right to distance themselves from them

[Pandeeria]

As much as i believe in humour, it might be a little early in the thread for poking fun at her lying to a rape victim.

Rape victim? How on Earth is that rape?

Please delve further into the context of our conversation please.

[Marcurix]

As much as i believe in humour, it might be a little early in the thread for poking fun at her lying to a rape victim.

Rape victim? How on Earth is that rape?

You missed the context of the conversation. I was in no way calling the woman complaining about her face being digitally altered a rape victim.

As much as i believe in humour, it might be a little early in the thread for poking fun at her lying to a rape victim.

The humorous part is that I wasn't being funny at all. I was dead serious.

Well I hope that she, and yourself, would have enough of a conscience to not do as you suggested.

[Pandeeria]

Rape victim? How on Earth is that rape?

You missed the context of the conversation. I was in no way calling the woman complaining about her face being digitally altered a rape victim.

The humorous part is that I wasn't being funny at all. I was dead serious.

Well I hope that she, and yourself, would have enough of a conscience to not do as you suggested.

I've suggested another. I've only said that it's easy to lie to somebody, though if you literally saw them get raped and then told them that this ad was rape, you would probably feel bad about yourself.

[Dakini]

That depends on the social media outlet (e.g. some for photosharing give photographers the ability to choose which copyright they want applied to their photos) and whether the person uploading the image actually had permission to upload the image. In either case, other companies are not actually allowed to just steal images from social media.

The copy right issues are about the real only objectionable things about this. But I think she is overreacting. Comparing the use of her photos with her lack of consent (assuming of course she holds the copyright, if she doesn't, tough luck) to rape is really fucking stupid and offensive to people who have been raped.

Comparing it to rape is definitely over the top, I'm not disagreeing with that. Granted, the website that comes up in the #2 hit on a search for more information on this definitely does not give a fuck about trivializing rape since it's a website that actually advocates date rape, so I'm tempted to find a lot of the "it's insulting to real rape victims" screaming as insincere.

I would disagree that copyright is the only issue though. If one's job is really image based, then it could hurt one's career prospects to be in that sort of ad, nevermind the social implications. It's definitely something where a model should be able to deny permission if she is not comfortable with her image being used in this manner.

[The Serbian Empire]

And it may not even be that if a single image of her face in that image shown up on a social media site as once it finds it's way there... Social Media company owns the rights or at least loyalty free access to it.

That depends on the social media outlet (e.g. some for photosharing give photographers the ability to choose which copyright they want applied to their photos) and whether the person uploading the image actually had permission to upload the image. In either case, other companies are not actually allowed to just steal images from social media.

Indeed, once it hits a place like Facebook or Instagram it's now into the big company's domain to be able to sell the image.