Has anyone else seen this?

The caption/title is so dramatic, but when you read the article the couple says they have 'no regrets'. When I read the title I thought the couple had been lied to by the photographer (which doesn't seem to be the case).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32873562

When I shoot models that's the kind of thing that I come very clear about before the release is signed - it's one of my greatest fears that someone will come back to me saying that they weren't aware of the potential use of their images. I once photographed an Iranian body builder - he needed the images for a competition, and agreed to sign a MR in exchange. I explained very clearly about stock etc, but after the shoot he tells me that he's ok with everything, as long as his images didn't get published in gay material. I said that that was a possibility, but not in a defamatory way, and that I had no control over it. He then told me that he could lose his head in case this happened and someone in his home country found out. I then just told him to keep the images - I never used them for anything.

Has anyone else had any similar stories? How did you deal with it?

It's fortunate that the family are being very reasonable about it. I don't think the usage is allowed because it's clearly "sensitive", so it's the end-user's fault for violating the license.

It would depend from where they'd bought the image.
For example, all Alamy released images must be released for 'sensitive use', including children.
And don't SS have an all-in/all-out for sensitive use, which bars you from some higher price images if you don't opt all in?
Premier License customers may use Content for so-called "Sensitive Uses." A Sensitive Use is defined as a use of Content that contains one or more recognizable people in a context that might cause a reasonable person to believe that the subject(s):... b) uses, endorses, advocates, or believes in a particular, product, service, cause, and/or opinion; ...Sensitive Uses of Content shall require an accompanying disclaimer to the effect that the person(s) depicted are models and are used for illustrative purposes only.
iStock would allow that use "Prohibited ... ... Use that depicts model in a sensitive way i.e. mental or physical health issues, substance abuse, criminal behavior, sexual activity or preference without a disclaimer."

I can't understand why 'causes' use random stock images when the models can clearly go public and say they don't support the cause.

And it certainly isn't the first time. Wasn't there a Northern Ireland party political poster, and then the rival party bought the same picture and claimed the family as theirs?

It's fortunate that the family are being very reasonable about it. I don't think the usage is allowed because it's clearly "sensitive", so it's the end-user's fault for violating the license.

I don't agree it's sensitive use.  First off, the ad displays the disclaimer the people are models.  Secondly, it is a political ad.  All political ads may be "sensitive" in that someone doesn't agree with them.

The IS sensitive use clause says:
"use the Content in a fashion that is considered by iStock (acting reasonably) as or under applicable law is considered pornographic, obscene, immoral, infringing, defamatory or libelous in nature, or that would be reasonably likely to bring any person or property reflected in the Content into disrepute;"

Well, it may fall under defamation, although it isn't really claiming those people expressed that opinion. And even if it did, would that really be defamatory? Does it damage their reputation somehow? But a political ad doesn't really fall under any of the normal "sensitive use" type areas, imo...

More relevant might be:
"If any Content featuring a model or property is used in connection with a subject that would be unflattering or unduly controversial to a reasonable person, you must accompany each such use with a statement adjacent to the Content that indicates that: (i) the Content is being used for illustrative purposes only; and (ii) any person depicted in the Content, if any, is a model,"

Since it is "controversial", and the statement is displayed, they're within the license, imo.

I had something similar happen. A group that supports families of gay people wanted to use one of my stock photos for an event. But they were nice enough to ask for permission first. I had to say no because the model wasn't gay, and I didn't want that coming back on me.