Virgin Mobile sued for using Flickr photo
by Racialicious guest contributor Jennifer Fang, originally published at Reappropriate
Photos on photo sharing sites like Flickr.com or Photobucket.com just might appear on billboards somewhere halfway across the globe.
That’s what happened to an Asian American girl named Alison Chang. Her friend (screenname chewywong) took this picture of her while she was at a church barbeque:
The photo was then posted on chewywong’s Flickr account. Incidentally, chewywong has over 680 pages of photos, suggesting to me that this man is the visual archivist of this little group of church-going Asian American youths.
Then Virgin Mobile Australia entered the picture. After finding Alison’s photo on Flickr, they created a billboard ad campaign, including her photo (without her permission) in this ad:
Alison never gave her permission to be in this ad campaign. And certainly not in an ad campaign that depends so heavily on the Perpetual Foreigner stereotype, implying that she is some sort of foreign, geeky Asian penpal who couldn’t possibly be a citizen of a Westernized country. Wrote one person on chewywong’s Flickr account:
What people don’t seem to get here is, they are obviously using stereotype by randomly choosing any Asian girl, and think she is some Japanese schoolgirl that would have a pen pal in Australia. When in in fact she is a normal American citizen that has her photo up on the web. We all know that we ourselves have written a letter to our Japanese counterparts, but not all penpals are Asian! Especially with her little peace sign thrown up, they take one look and say, “Oh, a typical Japanese schoolgirl!” I would not like it if I was walking down the street and people would look at me as their penpal. In fact I hate writing letters.
Advertising is all about what the viewer thinks when they see the advertisement, and in this case, the advertisement depicts Alison as some sort of reviled Asian nerd and social outcast, who a cool Westernized Australian wouldn’t possibly want to keep as a penpal because now they have text messaging and can text their Australian (i.e. not Asian) friends!
Interestingly, this ad is part of a series of ads that have pulled images from private Flickr accounts. However, as shown in this blog post, most of the other ads feature images where the faces of the people in question are non-distinct. Only the ad featuring Alison shows her unobscured face, which begs the question as to why they felt comfortable using Alison’s photo for a rather denigrating ad text, while protecting the identities of their other “models”.
Alison’s family has filed a lawsuit against Virgin Mobile for the ads, after failing to hear from the company responsible for the ads. For more information, you can follow this discussion or check out the CNN report here.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
dnA wrote:
There are times when even I, in my infinite verbosity, can only say:
Wow, that is SO racist.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 7:42 am ¶
Chris Norris wrote:
I’m a photographer and I’ve seen this discussed on a number of photography related web sites so far. The only thing I’d like to add is that the photo was posted on Flickr with a Creative Commons license that allows for commercial use as long as the photographer is credited. He was.
They still screwed up, though. They should’ve known that in a photo like that you’d need a release from the model as well.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 8:55 am ¶
Mireille wrote:
Isn’t Virgin a big big company with lots of money that can be spent on advertising? WHO in their advertising department thought “hm. screw the models–lets use this random picture here on the internets. This couldn’t possibly be a real person who would mind if we use their image without permission!”
That being said, I totally missed the racial subtext before it was pointed out to me.
I throw the peace sign up all the time in photos. It seems like a good idea at the time…
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 9:28 am ¶
Colin wrote:
DnA, I wouldn’t call your verbosity “infinite”.
That is pretty damned racist, fer schure.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 12:31 pm ¶
Bronze Trinity wrote:
Thats ridiculous? Wouldn’t an advertising company know that they could run into problems using someone’s photo without their permission? Plus, the ad is stupid and annoying and racist. I would be pissed if they did something like that to me. Wouldn’t they have to pay the girl in the photo and the photographer if they are using their image to sell a product and make money?
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 1:29 pm ¶
Free wrote:
It is unsurprising that the Australian branch of Virgin Mobile would select this photo. Under the cloudy eye of western symbolism that little girl couldn’t possibly represent the West and most definitely not America.
The universal perception of who is American (and therefore a member of Club West) begins with white skin, and (preferably ) blond hair and blue eyes. I’ve traveled and lived in several countries and met people from all over the world and I’ve had to prove to most of them I am an “American” (never mind that American’s are from the northern, central and southern regions of the western hemisphere ). Australians, Brits, white South Africans and Italians need the most convincing.
“You’re American?”
“Yes, (sigh), I’m an American.”
Incredulous, the questioner has to ask, “How long has your family been in America?”
“Well, some for about 300 years, and others were there before there was an United States, before Christopher Columbus and the 13 Colonies.”
South African’s are uncomfortable with that response, which brings up America’s colonial past. Others are satisfied, although one Italian gentleman went on to assume that I am from one of the southern states. His mouth fell open when I said, “the north.”
To the rest of the world, “America” is white and everyone else is either invisible or foreign. This perception is promoted by television. On the Dubai One channel which broadcasts U.S. programming, the majority of the actors are white, with the exception of Tyra Banks plus audience, models or guests on her show, Taye Diggs (Kevin Hill), and the occasional Black, Hispanic, or Pan-Asian co-host or guest on The View. Of course this means absolutely ZERO Native Americans.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 2:11 pm ¶
Jack D. wrote:
Regarding this text, “the advertisement depicts Alison as some sort of reviled Asian nerd and social outcast”: I’m sorry, but I just don’t get that interpretation. Yes, she’s obviously being portrayed as a “penpal” character. And, yes, the implication is that she lives in another country. But this is a photo of a cute young lady, physically healthy, with a nice smile and very average clothes. There’s nothing to suggest “reviled nerd” or “social outcast” in this photo or its use. The author of the column (Jennifer?) went a little too deep in her interpretation of the offense.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 2:12 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:
“Regarding this text, “the advertisement depicts Alison as some sort of reviled Asian nerd and social outcast”: I’m sorry, but I just don’t get that interpretation. Yes, she’s obviously being portrayed as a “penpal” character. And, yes, the implication is that she lives in another country. But this is a photo of a cute young lady, physically healthy, with a nice smile and very average clothes. There’s nothing to suggest “reviled nerd” or “social outcast” in this photo or its use. The author of the column (Jennifer?) went a little too deep in her interpretation of the offense.”
Sorry Jack-D, but did you not look at the words accompanying the image of the “cute young lady” with a “nice smile”?
It’s the decidedly derisive and negative “Dump your pen friend.” Now, why would anyone want to dump a “physically healthy” girl as a pen friend? Because being pen friends with some little foreign Oriental girl is not as cool as speaking English with your non-foreign Aussie friends with Virgin Mobile(!).
I guess there’s going too deep in interpretation, and then there’s blatantly not getting the point and only seeing a nice “physically healthy” young lady.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 2:34 pm ¶
Rob wrote:
Not commenting on if its racist or not, but the thing with using the picture from flickr is that the picture was under the creative commons license that stated that all that was needed was a link back to the original source, which Virgin did. Thats whats going to make the lawsuit a little bit harder. Is Virgin wrong for using the picture without notice, even if it complied with its license, or should she actually go after her friend who posted the image under CC instead of all rights reserved in the first place…
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 2:38 pm ¶
NayLah wrote:
“Yep” to Rob
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 3:15 pm ¶
jd wrote:
Free – a Taiwanese-American friend took a trip to Australia and the tour guides constantly lumped her into the Japanese tours – in spite of her equally consistent requests (in perfect, American-accented English) to be put in an Engligh-language group.
Unless someone wants to discuss racial issues inherent in flickr’s use options or copyright law generally (not making any claims either way as to what those would be), could we avoid discussion of the technical merits of the lawsuit? That’s being debated on lots of other sites and just really isn’t relevant to the racial implications of what happened.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 3:16 pm ¶
Sarah wrote:
Yes, Virgin could use the images under the particular arrangements they had with Flickr. However, all of the other advertisements using images featuring people used images in which the personal identity of that individual could not be seen. By using the image of this particular person in which she can be clearly seen, and associating it with a negative and prejudiced comment, and doing both without her permission, means that Virgin is in double deep water.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 3:21 pm ¶
Bronze Trinity wrote:
I don’t think many people know about that creative commons thing. I didn’t. I would assume that no company can make money off using my photo just because its on the internet. I mean, what if someone took an embarrassing photo of me and put it on the net? Then could a company use it and I wouldn’t have a say? There must be a rule somewhere that you can’t use someone’s image for a profit if the person in the photo doesn’t consent.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 3:45 pm ¶
Jack D. wrote:
Anonymous comment, “It’s the decidedly derisive and negative ‘Dump your pen friend.’ Now, why would anyone want to dump a physically healthy girl as a pen friend? Because being pen friends with some little foreign Oriental girl is not as cool as speaking English with your non-foreign Aussie friends with Virgin Mobile(!).”:
I disagree. You dump your PEN friend because you don’t need to use a PEN for communication anymore; you can contact people — anyone — with your phone.
That’s all the ad implies. You, like the original author, inferred the girl is uncool or awkward or doesn’t speak English. It’s a loaded interpretation.
(Regardless … Yes, it’s still racist for other reasons.)
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 4:06 pm ¶
al wrote:
chris: i was wondering what made them think they could use the pic. but still, i am -certain- that they -did- know they’d need a model release. they didn’t bother because they thought she wouldn’t find out because it’s in a different country. i mean, notice that ad is not in the states, where she lives.
as for the racist part, i bet virgin argues that since she’s american, she -is- foreign and therefore it is a totally valid ad and not racist. and i really really hope people don’t believe them.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 5:33 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
re: the argument of whether or not this ad is racist, i think it’s important to think about expressed xenophobia towards people of asian descent in australia (and discrimination toward aborigines and other people of color living there). it’s all about context, people.
but in australia and the us, it’s hard to deny what message was being implied. sure, i understand the use your cell phone instead of your pen and paper message they are going for, but considering history, from which none of us are completely removed, whether we want to pretend we are or not, it’s pretty clear what they meant.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 6:29 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:
I think the real question to be asked is: Why’d they flip the image? Is there something inherently different about a Peace sign with the left hand as opposed to the right?
On the photo, I think the issue lies as much in the stereotype of what a pen-pal is as the stereotype of random Asian foreigner. I mean, just looking at the quoted comments, she specifically cites Japanese, and Jennifer makes the in general geeky Asian comments as well. Now, obviously, there’s a large difference between using a normal girl as the poster-child for penpals and stereotyping what a pen-pal is, and no matter how legal it is it was still wrong by Virgin (although one has to ask if she gave permission to take place in the campaign, does it make it anymore right?).
Plus, throwing this out there, there might be a different perception of pen-pals in Australia than here in the states. Wouldn’t know off hand, but there might not be as loaded of sentiments in Australia compared to here.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 8:58 pm ¶
NoName wrote:
Jack D.- If it was about pen vs phone, they would have suggested losing the pen and calling /texting her on your cool new Virgin Mobile phone. Not dumping HER.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 9:18 pm ¶
Church of ShiskaBob wrote:
Ignoring the issue of stereotypes for the moment, I fail to see how a corporation can make a legitimate claim (at least from an ethical and more importantly to them, a PR standpoint) that it is acceptable to grab a picture of a minor without her parents’ consent and use it in their advertising campaign. I’m curious how the Virgin Mobile marketing executives would feel if McDonald’s Corp. snagged a picture of one of their chubby children from a photo site with similar small print disclosures and started a campaign for their salads reading “Lose a pound, make a friend”, emblazoned over the rotund face of their pudgy son.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 10:50 pm ¶
Yuki wrote:
I think “reviled” is a too-strong word in the analysis of the photo, because “dump your pen friend” to me signals more disdain than revulsion. But yes, the ad clearly plays into the Other stereotype, and shame on them for doing it (and yet, I bet they don’t care).
But then, this is also part of Virgin’s “too cool for school” business attitude that they slosh over every product, no matter how painfully crappy. I’m a VM customer, and I chose it because I only need a cell phone for about 10 minutes of talk time a week, and the price generally is right. However, I have to go through their faux-hipster garbage every time I want to check my phone balance. My phone is malfunctioning (the SECOND one in a row) and I called their customer service and was “helped” by people who sounded like actors who had been attending summer workshops on how to project suburban cool. I really think it’s time for a new prepaid plan.
Posted 03 Oct 2007 at 8:56 am ¶
justin wrote:
On the level that the ads are meant to function the issues and implications are exactly the same as in the U S. Delving into regional differences gives people too much credit and it’s coercive.
Posted 03 Oct 2007 at 9:35 am ¶
Jay wrote:
That’s all the ad implies. You, like the original author, inferred the girl is uncool or awkward or doesn’t speak English. It’s a loaded interpretation.
But what you’re saying is that most people in the West won’t infer that even though they’re bombarded with the image that Asians are always foreign, with very few exceptions. They may just be perpetuating that image but it doesn’t make it any less problematic.
Posted 03 Oct 2007 at 10:47 am ¶
Church of ShiskaBob wrote:
JackD,
Your main premise against the ad having any negative racial connotations is that it just wouldn’t be logical–e.g. why would anyone “dump” a young, cute girl?
That’s fine, except for one simple issue. When were racial stereotypes in advertising ever rational?
The unhip image is NOT a loaded interpretation. If anything, I would argue the opposite. From the unlimited possibilities the ad execs had to chose, why select a picture of an innocent looking asian (american) girl flashing a peace sign from a public photo site ??
As marketing people, they more than most others would be extremely conscious of the message they would be evoking w/ the combination of “Dump the penpal.” and an artless looking (asian!) girl. Gimme a break.
Posted 03 Oct 2007 at 1:14 pm ¶
AssamTea wrote:
“I disagree. You dump your PEN friend because you don’t need to use a PEN for communication anymore; you can contact people — anyone — with your phone.”
It says you should dump your “pen friend.” Not pen.
Pen friend = Penpal.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) –
ˈpen-friend, *ˈpen-pal nouns
a usually young person (usually living abroad) with whom another (usually young) person regularly exchanges letters
Example: My daughter has pen-friends in India and Spain.
You wouldn’t communicate with your pen friend/penpal by phone.. That would defeat the whole purpose of having a penpal in the first place.
Posted 03 Oct 2007 at 2:10 pm ¶
Jack D. wrote:
Church and Jay: I agree that the ad is racist, based on its reliance of nonwhite otherness to make its point. And that’s offensive enough.
I was only arguing against the elaboration of the girl’s character as portrayed in the photo. I didn’t appreciate the attribution of additional negative traits, which seemed excessive and unnecessary to me. … The young lady doesn’t look nerdy (or any of the other negatie traits expressed here).
If there’s an implication of nerdy-ness, it’s inherent in the concept of the penpal — ANYONE who maintains letter relationships, regardless of origin or color — which is itself outdated and really a stupid basis for an advertisement now. (Penpals?! Yeesh.) They compounded the ad’s stupidity by tying that concept to a particular racial face. … Did the ad designers have the “nerdy asian penpal” stereotype specifically in mind? Maybe. But we have to be careful that our anti-racism concerns don’t lead us to ascribe intent beyond what is fairly warranted.
Thanks. I’ll hush up now.
Posted 03 Oct 2007 at 2:41 pm ¶
Angel H. wrote:
Re: “nerdy Asian penpal stereotype”
In the CNN video, they show a close- up of the red banner in the ad and it says “FREE TEXT VIRGIN TO VIRGIN”.
Posted 03 Oct 2007 at 7:42 pm ¶
bg wrote:
I accept that everything here on the site will have an agenda regarding race. But please, include the full story: she’s also offended at the implication of the copy “Virgin to Virgin.”
I won’t speak on how Asian-Americans feel with things like this, but I will say Virgin to virgin jumped out at me as well. Yes, it’s a clever way to nickname their brand with cute lingo in a headline–brands do this ALL the time with words doubling for their logo and such–but the obvious double entendre is there as well. That seems as offensive as anything.
Especially considering she was part of a church group. Reading into that further, I could also say they seemingly made fun of her as they perceived her to be just another not-hip teen choosing abstinence, but I won’t. (Which, really, even if it was their rational, it’s none of anyone’s business anyway. And beyond the already beaten horse of race, if that doesn’t go to the issue of personal privacy, nothing does then.)
Free- you’re giving WAY too much credit to agency creatives in this case. I can almost guarantee they saw this shot with a teen holding up the peace sign which fits their ‘V’ logo, and said “Perfect shot, let’s use it.”
Church of ShiskaBob got it right. They will be suing on the basis that a minor’s photo was used without permission from her parents.
Here is a CNN clip of her lawyer laying out Alison’s case:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/24/intv.virgin.flickr.lawsuit.cnn
Posted 04 Oct 2007 at 12:20 am ¶
D>E>L>T wrote:
I think the family are sueing the wrong company this has nothing really to do with Virgin Mobile Aus, its the Advertising agency that created the ad that has to answer for the ad the done, when an ad is created the advertising standards authority has to approve it, also yes Virgin Mobile would have to approve too but they wont ask where they got the pictures from, they will assume that the ad agency they used the correct channels.
So i think people need to look into this alot more than just whats on surface as its not just as simple of saying thats a virgin advert virgin must be responsible(think of agency who created the ad too) look at the inner workings of ad and you will find that most of the time a brief was handed to the agency and as long as both parties where happy the brief was met the ad will go to print but no one questions where the so called models are from as the ad agency will usually have a n agency they use, in this case they thought they could get away with using someone elses photo, now its come back and bit Virgin Mobile on the arse. (how lucky are ad agency ehh…)
Posted 08 Oct 2007 at 2:59 am ¶