As you (or someone else) posted that photo on Facebook, there’s a good chance they licensed it to Honda. The Facebook bylaws clearly state that everything you post on Facebook belongs to Facebook. And every Facebook user has agreed to that.
So maybe you should discuss your IP with the person who posted the picture on Facebook.
very true darn facebook 
Though even if that was the case, you can’t give away something you don’t own. In reality FB couldn’t licence the picture to Honda - their terms give them pretty wide ranging rights to use any content you submit to FB within FB, but you still own any content you submit and just grant them a license, so they can’t legally give it away to a 3rd party. In addition there is this term “You may remove your Member Content from the site at any time. If you choose to remove your Member Content, the license granted above will automatically expire.” - which makes it impossible for them to sell or give away such content to a 3rd party, as it would be impossible for them to revoke such an agreement (or at least any agreement they did make certainly couldn’t cover the use in a printed ad).
I drive a Honda Fit too. Solid vehicle; only second to my uni.
@dyoung238 Where do you ride? Been looking for someone in the Richmond area to ride with every once in a while…
Facebook has a couple of loopholes that give them access to your content for whatever they would like to do. I’ve read in a few places that FB only considers media removed if it doesn’t exist anywhere else on FB. From what I understand you photo will remain if anyone ever copied a photo that you posted, or even linked to it on their page.
If you look at the terms of service you’ll see that they have complete and total permission to use, sell, and distribute your media as they wish:
When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
If the photographer has a model release signed by kris and the release was fulfilled, then it is perfectly legal.
I ride mostly in the fan, but also at the canal walk. Both are fairly solid areas. Where do you ride?
This is true only if the photographer is somehow connected to that use of the image. I’m sure Kris doesn’t have any issues with Sean White and use of those old images, but if a third party used it without Sean’s permission, there’s the problem.
A model release is between the photographer and the model, and of course it is often witnessed.
Why would a photographer have another photographers model release? I don’t see why this was brought up, I have never heard of an instance this happening.
EDIT: it seems as though I am being snappy. I assure you that is not my intention for my words to be interpreted that way.
I don’t think you really read what John wrote. The way it reads to me is that if someone [not Sean] uploaded the photo to FB without permission [from Sean] to do so then there is a problem.
Sorry for the derailed thread.
Yes, but people often forget that they have signed releases to the photographers. With Kris’s amount of exposure I would assume he is used to it, but I have seen many stories about people years later freaking out that a picture of them was sold. When in fact there was a model release signed and the contract was fulfilled.
Most large stock agencies won’t accept the images without model releases, some of the smaller ones may be a little bit sloppier, I am not sure. If an image is on a large stock site, it can be generally assumed that it is there legally in regards to model releases. The issues with stock really come down to people copying someone else’s photograph, and trying to sell it for stock. Or that someone takes the image from the stock site and uses it without purchasing use rights from the stock agency.
This may be all well and good for a stock agency, but we’re talking about facebook. Facebook has poor track record regarding this sort of thing. The web is loaded with examples. If the person clicks past the radio button that asks them if the content they are uploading is theirs to distribute, then FB assumes all rights and priveledges associated with the content.
The image kris attached is watermarked “fotosearch” which is a stock agency…
The original photo was taken in Bhutan. There weren’t any random photographers standing around in that location in Bhutan so I’m sure there’s no mystery with Kris on that particular image.
That means it’s much more likely that the image could have been purchased legitimately. We don’t know for sure though. So it could have been purchased from Fotosearch, which makes it legal, and Sean and Kris wouldn’t need to know about it. Hopefully the folks at Honda would be above-board on their use of images of a unique nature such as that one, and not risk Sean or someone else taking them to court.
In a more sloppy, “below-board” situation, that image could have been “harvested” from Facebook or anywhere, then doctored, then used without any permission. Even if found on Facebook, if it was not posted legally, Facebook doesn’t own the rights to it. Not sure if this has been contested legally but I’m pretty sure that’s how that would come out.
BTW, no, I wouldn’t expect one photographer to have the model releases of another. If that image is available on Fotosearch, I’d be pretty sure the seller was Sean White.
Here you go: Unicyclist riding down hill with old building in background Stock Photograph | 1772066 | Fotosearch
BTW, Fotosearch offers the picture at several quality levels. The highest resolution is 42" x 27.8" @ 300dpi, which makes 100 megapixels. I wonder if Sean at that time actually had a 100 megapixel camera.
Up-res for use on things like billboards.
But what’s the benefit for the customer? He could purchase the cheaper low res pic and then upres himself.
He didn’t have any kind of digital camera. Those were slides =)
Kris