A weird thing happened when I was reading the online version of one of the (more popular) Belgian newspapers in Dutch "Het Laatste Nieuws". In the "bizarre news" section, there was a headline about a man watching child porn on a laptop in an airplane. It was accompanied by a photo right under the headline. You didn't even have to open the article : the photo was already at the summary news. The photo is of an elderly gentleman, clearly not of stock quality, like taken candidly from another seat. The full article is
here. I saved a screen shot in case the image should disappear.
Translation: Man watching child porn on laptop in airplane.
There is no copyright mentioned near the image so one could think this was
the man. If stock, in my book this would be clearly slanderous and degrading use. Imagine the model (or even the person taken candidly and sold as editorial) saw this title and his image, wouldn't he have grounds to sue for damages after being recognized by his employer, employees, business associates or family?
Being curious where this image was sold, I opened ImageExchange and it was for sale on Getty and Media Bakery. Thought it was quite surprising since the white balance is far off and the framing is very-snapshot like.
On Getty, the image wasn't available any more. On Media Bakery too but I found an image that definitely looks like the same man and plane
here, for sale on Media Bakery.
The image was, according to Google images, also in use (cropped) on a site about deep vein thrombosis on longer flights,
here, and credited to David De Lossy/Valueline/Getty Images.
My question is whether this kind of embarrassing use is permitted on Getty (Media Bakery?) and the question is for those on this forum that are contributors on Getty.
