It would be amazingly hard to sue them, so finding pics of someone in another country that will more than likely never see it, is a fairly safe way to go, and zero costs, with little risks.

That's true, but a supermarket owner should know that they're not supposed to use a random image from the internet for commercial use; the defense "it looked like computer generated" does not work: there wouldn't be model rights, but the image would still be under copyright, unless the image was posted under some permissive license like CC-BY.

Do you want a bet?

I though that too. Which (along thousand other times) makes me think how much stuff in newspapers is wrong or missing information, either by their unknowledge or someone not knowing all the details

In this day and age of feel-good, everyone's a winner anti-competitiveness, it should be no surprise that someone would come along and claim that giving up is the same as winning.

Incorrect. It's not giving up at all. In fact it's rather the opposite - it's obtaining the best possible result from the situation.

Sue the owner? We all know they would get nothing. A store owner would be out of business, and the family would be out legal expenses. A great ending if you're a law firm.

Tell him to take it down? Again, how have you really "won" anything. You have caused more waste through reprinting. You have done some harm to a small business, and done nothing at all to help your family. Your family looks like cads.

So you explain to me how saying "you know what, just keep using the photo and retire it when you are ready" is not the most sensible and best result possible. The family gets a kick out of knowing they will be seen in another country, again in a positive fashion. The grocer gets to keep using a nice photo, and again everyone wins - not because of anti weird anti-competitvness (which I abhor) but because in the best human fashion you have solved for the most optimal result.

There are plenty of other conditions in which I would say fighting would be the best option. You make the mistake of not realizing conditions can determine the best solution, and this is not one of the conditions in which a solution you seem to be advocating (fighting) is best.

Of course we all know at this point the true story is that it was obtained as a stock photo, which means he's not using the photo improperly at all and if anything the family needs to have a word with the friend who sold them to microstock without asking. Is she making money off them? Well then, that's a whole different story...

I don't know. He can probably get by fine. It's not like he's known for his face.

I think the obvious assumption is that he chose the photo specifically because they were from the US and unlikely to ever see the advertisement in his window. He just had the bad luck of the 1 in a million coincidence that someone else who knew the family also happened to be in Prague and notice the picture.

Wait, what?

You took pictures of an adult (over 18) and her mother complained about this so you deleted the pictures?

I'm sorry but this doesn't quite make sense to me.

You let down your model.

She was 18, she signed the release, and if any of your photos had ended up used in a big advertising campaign it could have kick-started a semi-pro modelling career. But no, you had to cave into her mother, waste everyone's time. and help tighten the apron strings.

Jerk

If you need scripts to "show things properly" then the implementation is broken in the first place. The site's functionality should degrade nicely when javascript ain't available.

I am not familiar with Facebook's TOS (don't use it) so I don't know if you grant them the use of the stuff you upload

Irrevocably, forever, in whatever way Facebook wants.

Anyone who posts photos to Facebook is a retard.

It is hard to avoid a sense of the "creeps" when you see pictures of your child(ren) used without your knowledge or permission, especially in another country.

Here we go, another parent who thinks parenting is everyone else's responsibility. You don't like pictures of your kids being used by others? Then do not publish them freely on the internet. In fact keep your damn kids off the internet and preferably out of all public sight whatsoever. Mollycoddle them at home, and have them grow up to be spoiled selfish incomplete adults.

Why is it more of an abuse to use pics of the kids than the parents? It isn't. It's only in your head. You are being hysterical.

Stop falling for Fox News and tabloid newspaper spin and pedophiles everywhere. It is simply scaremongering. This kind of nonsense didn't even exist 20 years ago, never mind 40 or 50. Your views are dangerous to society and your children, although you don't even realize it. You are the kind of person who will end up having us all live in a censored, monitored Dystopia because you are gullible enough to fall for the propaganda. That's why the propaganda exists, not to protect kids (which is your job, alone).

In this case, it's all a storm in a teacup. This family have not been harmed in any way. Why they are protesting so much is probably entirely related to greed. They'll get plenty of money from the news coverage. The photographer who took the pics also wants to promote their work. This is all about money and nothing to do with "rights" or "abuse".

Model releases are very much a USA thing. In the UK, we don't technically need them. They're still nice to have to make things perfectly clear to the model, but unless some other contract was entered into when you took the pictures, you own the copyright and can do with as you will.

How else do you think the paparazzi survive ?

That might not be an unfair expectation. Depending on where you get your figures, only 10-30% of Americans leave the country. It doesn't help that it's a little expensive to go overseas, and the US is a large country, driving or riding coast to coast still means you're in the same country, covering the same distance many other places means you've crossed dozens of borders.

you're the only guy I've seen use loose correctly

If he can demonstrate proficiency with "no one," "to, too and two," and "couldn't care less," I'm "friending" him.