The campaign asked people to vote no to Māori wards.

How on earth is this legal? First, taking a photo of someone in public and monetising it without their knowledge, and second using that photo in a political message the subject doesn’t agree with at all.

Absolutely bizarre.

  • Dave@lemmy.nzM
    4·
    2 months ago

    How on earth is this legal?

    Well, it says in the article they weren’t allowed to use this photo for this purpose.

    I’m going to give it a 70% chance they knew there would be drama and were banking on this free exposure for their cause.

    • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nzOP
      2·
      2 months ago

      I dunno, I don’t really believe in the “any publicity is good publicity” thing, and I think someone like Don Brash is smart enough to know that.

      I think this is more likely just someone being bad at their job.

      • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nzEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        Disagree.

        The “fair to use” comment shows they know there are rules around this stuff. Anyone in advertising knows about image rights.

        I’m assuming that they were hoping the person in the image wouldn’t notice/care.

        She should take HP to court for defamation; it is clearly implying that she endorses their position.

        It is less clear about the role of the photographer here; you or your image are not protected when you are in a public place. But that doesn’t give blanket rights to photographers when you are out and about; taking the image is fine, selling it is not. But iStock and Shutterstock not being under NZ jurisdiction complicate this significantly.