
Yes, Those Are My Tonsils - prismatic
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/opinion/sunday/yes-those-are-my-tonsils.html
======
dempseye
I feel compelled to point out that his tonsils are not actually visible in the
photo.

~~~
ufo
Glad to know I am not the only one. I spent ages trying to find those damn
tonsils.

------
Aelinsaar
It's disturbing how quickly you can be drawn into a national narrative that
you really have nothing at all to do with.

~~~
kpil
In some way, it's a bit strange that someone can take a picture of you and
then -sell- it.

Given that you can not take a picture of a statue and sell the picture, or
even publish it, it's even more strange.

Maybe some parents could try to claim copyright on the derivative work? (Ö_Ö)

~~~
jlarocco
I've heard of one case where a photographer took a photo of a married couple
in a restaurant, got a release from them, and used it in some advertisement.
Later the photo was sold, and sold again, and eventually ended up in an anti-
prostitution advertisement. IIRC the couple sued and the ad was removed, and
they may have got damages.

There's also a case where a woman sued Getty images (and won) after her photo
showed up in an HIV advertisement. [http://nypost.com/2013/09/19/woman-sues-
getty-after-photo-ap...](http://nypost.com/2013/09/19/woman-sues-getty-after-
photo-appears-in-hiv-positive-ad/)

In those cases, the photos were a major component of the advertisement, and it
was strongly implied the people in the photos were associated with
prostitution and HIV. The picture in this article is such a generic looking
stock graduation photo it might be hard to prove it's implying anything in
particular about the subjects.

And it was taken in a public place, so there's no expectation to privacy.

He could try suing, but it probably wouldn't be worth it. Probably best to
laugh it off and be happy he got an article out of it.

~~~
toomanythings3
I don't see in the article that she won but this is different. She was posing
for a photographer with the understanding it was to be used for an ad but they
never got a release. It doesn't matter she was in a public place. The problem
lies in that she was hired for one thing and it was used for another.

------
Maarten88
I can see why that picture is popular: it is gender-neutral: it has a black
female, an Asian female and a white male in the foreground. And it is 'real'.

If you want to make a story about anything university / student debt related,
and want to suggest that this is not only a white-rich people problem, this
photo fits the bill.

------
alistairSH
Interesting... I would have assumed a model release would be required to
protect the publisher from civil liability. There's no mention of this, so I
assume the photographer didn't obtain one.

Maybe that's not required because none of the uses imply the subject is
endorsing whatever product/view-point the various articles are promoting?

~~~
sigmar
Journalism pieces do not require model release. The "questionable student loan
repayment services" that used the image probably didn't pay Reuters and
probably aren't using the photo legally.

~~~
nateguchi
To my knowledge, Reuters keeps track of which of it's library pictures have a
release. They will allow ones without release for editorial/journalist content
only.

------
Theizestooke
err I don't see, what's wrong with his mouth?

