# Virgin sued for user teen's photo **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 23, 2007, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222 "2007-09-23T20:26:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/61 "2007-09-26T14:16:52Z")
[QUOTE=storyteller0910] Whose point was that challenge meant to prove again? [/QUOTE] I’ve got no dog in this fight, but that was _awesome_. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/62 "2007-09-26T14:19:11Z")
Okay. I am entirely wrong. Tris ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/63 "2007-09-26T14:27:19Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] The point, **Tris** is that just because something CAN be considered sexual doesn’t mean it **must** be considered sexual, or even that it is _intended_ to be considered sexual. [/QUOTE] Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now, if I PM you my local elementary school’s phone number, would you _please_ explain that to them, so that I can continue with my **Dildo the Clown** show? the balloon animals are amazing! ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/64 "2007-09-26T14:57:00Z")
[QUOTE=Martini Enfield] Let’s go over this one more time. There’s this rich British chap by the name of Richard Branson. He has a number of business ventures, which are operated under the umbrella of the Virgin Group. Many of these companies have names involving “Virgin” and whatever it is they do- “Virgin Music”, “Virgin Money”, “Virgin Atlantic Airways”, and, in this case, “Virgin Mobile”. The fact the name happens to be “Virgin” has _nothing_- I repeat _nothing_ to do with linking sexuality with the business in question. [/quote] Yep. True. Agreed. But so what? > [@](#): > > “Virgin to Virgin” has been a phrase used by Virgin Mobile for donkey’s years to advertise the special deals they offer to their cellphone network subscribers who are calling other subscribers on the Virgin Mobile network. It’s got nothing to do with Virgins (of the “never had sex” type) talking to other Virgins. Yep. True. Agreed. But again, so what? > [@](#): > > Vodafone also advertise deals as “Vodafone to Vodafone”. Would the girl be as upset if it was Vodafone or Optus using her image? Probably not, because “Vodafone,” unlike “Virgin,” is not a word that **can** (not must, can) be used with regards to sex. You think high-school kids are going to limit their thinking to “it’s a company name?” No way. They see a picture of a classmate with the word “virgin” on it and they’re going to tease her about being the poster child for virginity, or somesuch. The other meanings of the term, no matter how legitimate, are irrelevant in that context. Perhaps in Australia, where kids are familiar with it as a brand name, this would be less likely. Perhaps that’s why Australian marketers didn’t consider the effect this could have on an American kid. But the fact remains that if someone’s picture is associated with the word “virgin,” NO MATTER WHAT THE ORIGIN OR PARTICULAR MEANING INTENDED, American high-schoolers are going to make the association with the sexual meaning, and be all too happy to tease or ridicule on that basis. It’s not about what’s implied, it’s about what’s inferred. It’s not about whether it must be taken as a sexual reference, it’s about whether it will (by some) be taken as a sexual reference. Fume all you want about what it meant and about how it should be interpreted, but you cannot control the minds of adolescents who are prone to a bit of devilishness. If a naughty aspect can be found, they will find it, “proper meaning” be hanged. ---
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/65 "2007-09-26T15:52:18Z")
Is there any evidence at all that the girl in question is upset or has been teased over ‘Virgin’? In the reading I’ve done, including posts by someone claiming to be her brother over on the Flickr discussion for the advert, I’m yet to see any claim for that. I’ve seen them say that the advert makes her look dumb, and a loser and basically takes the piss but no mention that the word virgin offends them. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/66 "2007-09-26T16:49:04Z")
[QUOTE=Kal] Is there any evidence at all that the girl in question is upset or has been teased over ‘Virgin’? In the reading I’ve done, including posts by someone claiming to be her brother over on the Flickr discussion for the advert, I’m yet to see any claim for that. I’ve seen them say that the advert makes her look dumb, and a loser and basically takes the piss but no mention that the word virgin offends them. [/QUOTE] Oh for goodness sake, don’t be dragging actual facts into this discussion! The horrors!!! :eek: And **vetbridge** , you are being intentionally “obtuse” because we both know that there is no non-sexual connotation for “dildo.” 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/67 "2007-09-27T05:44:43Z")
[QUOTE=Gary T] You think high-school kids are going to limit their thinking to “it’s a company name?” No way. They see a picture of a classmate with the word “virgin” on it and they’re going to tease her about being the poster child for virginity, or somesuch. The other meanings of the term, no matter how legitimate, are irrelevant in that context. Perhaps in Australia, where kids are familiar with it as a brand name, this would be less likely. Perhaps that’s why Australian marketers didn’t consider the effect this could have on an American kid. But the fact remains that if someone’s picture is associated with the word “virgin,” NO MATTER WHAT THE ORIGIN OR PARTICULAR MEANING INTENDED, American high-schoolers are going to make the association with the sexual meaning, and be all too happy to tease or ridicule on that basis. [/quote] So what? Why should Virgin Australia be concerned about the fact that immature kids in the US need to grow the fuck up? The ad wasn’t intended to be distributed in the US anyway. Aussie kids (the ad’s target) know that Virgin is a mobile phone company and there’s nothing sexual about the name in that context. If kids in the US think there’s some link between the models in their ads and not getting laid, then that’s their problem, not that of an Australian company that’s not even advertising in the US. > [@](#): > > It’s not about what’s implied, it’s about what’s inferred. It’s not about whether it must be taken as a sexual reference, it’s about whether it will (by some) be taken as a sexual reference. Fume all you want about what it meant and about how it should be interpreted, but you cannot control the minds of adolescents who are prone to a bit of devilishness. If a naughty aspect can be found, they will find it, “proper meaning” be hanged. Again, so what? The problem is on the US end, IMHO. Lots of things can be inferred to be “sexual references”, does that mean we should all communicate in Kalahari Tongue-Click lest someone, somewhere see a double entendre? No, we don’t. FWIW, there’s a brand of Cheese here called “Coon Cheese”. Perhaps that should be withdrawn from sale in case someone in the US gets offended? The world doesn’t revolve around the US, amazingly, and companies operating in other countries tend to be, y’know, more focused on their own markets than worrying about the infinitesimal chance that someone in the US might misinterpret their company name or slogan… ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/68 "2007-09-27T11:08:30Z")
Thank-you, **Martini Enfield**. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/69 "2007-09-28T23:22:20Z")
[QUOTE=GuanoLad] The tag line is “Dump Your Pen Friend”, and I assume the implication is that the girl in the image is a person you should stop communicating with. [/QUOTE] That’s not implied by the ad. In the picture, the girl is showing a peace-sign with her fingers. Virgin ads routinely show their subjects putting up that sign, or “V”, to signify that they’ve accepted the specifically branded awesomeness that is their telecommuncations. She’s not the pen-friend, not to be dumped. She’s the cool, with-it, attractive 16-year-old girl who is Virgin’s target market. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2007, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/70 "2007-09-29T04:51:14Z")
[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=] That’s not implied by the ad. In the picture, the girl is showing a peace-sign with her fingers. Virgin ads routinely show their subjects putting up that sign, or “V”, to signify that they’ve accepted the specifically branded awesomeness that is their telecommuncations. She’s not the pen-friend, not to be dumped. She’s the cool, with-it, attractive 16-year-old girl who is Virgin’s target market. [/QUOTE] That was my take. It never occurred to me that she was the dumpee. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2007, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/71 "2007-09-29T15:06:59Z")
There is legal precedent for this sort of thing. The unauthorized use of a person’s image in advertising CAN be considered libelous. The untrue implication being that the person has been paid to endorse the product. This may be libelous in certain circumstances. See Tolley Vs Fry 1931. > **[Web Page Under Construction](http://www.kevinboone.com/lawglos_TolleyVFry1931.html)** > > Network Solutions - Original domain name registration and reservation services with variety of internet-related business offerings. Quick, dependable and reliable. NOTE: IANAL, ask a lawyer for clarification of the legal issue. As for the suggestion that it’s a “cash grab,” so what? Virgin have used her photo to make a profit for themselves. Why shouldn’t they pay her for it? ---
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2007, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/72 "2007-09-29T20:55:42Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] Oh for goodness sake, don’t be dragging actual facts into this discussion! The horrors!!! :eek: [/QUOTE] Sorry, dude. I’m gonna do it again and chuck in a bit of debate fodder. This [CNN video](http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/24/intv.virgin.flickr.lawsuit.cnn) is about the case and has an interview with the family’s lawyer. Mention is made of the ‘free text Virgin to Virgin’ thing and its double meaning. The link comes from Creative Commons [FAQ page](http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680) on the case (they being defendants) and that page, in turn, is via the [MetaFilter discussion](http://www.metafilter.com/65107/More-abuse-of-open-source-for-profit) on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2007, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/73 "2007-09-29T23:37:30Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] There is legal precedent for this sort of thing. The unauthorized use of a person’s image in advertising CAN be considered libelous. The untrue implication being that the person has been paid to endorse the product. This may be libelous in certain circumstances. See Tolley Vs Fry 1931. > **[How to Create an Efficient Smart Home Setup in Australia with the Right...](https://www.kevinboone.com)** > > Discover essential smart devices for an integrated home, enhance connectivity, and future-proof your setup with tips on compatibility, security, and staying current with tech trends. NOTE: IANAL, ask a lawyer for clarification of the legal issue. As for the suggestion that it’s a “cash grab,” so what? Virgin have used her photo to make a profit for themselves. Why shouldn’t they pay her for it? [/QUOTE] Most of you keep forgetting something: _Virgin Mobile Australia are not based in the US and are therefore not subject to US Law_. There is absolutely _nothing_ this girl can do about it. Even if she took Virgin to court and a judge ruled in her favour, Virgin Australia don’t have to pay out. An Australian court _will not_ enforce a Foreign Judgement, especially in a civil case. She- and her family- and just wasting their time and money trying to sue Virgin. The best thing she could have done, IMHO, is shut the fuck up and waited for the ad campaign to finish on its own. Let me reiterate something: No-one in Australia knows who she is (or at least that was the case prior to her getting lawyers involved). The way I see the ad, she’s portrayed in the as as the hip, cool, with it teen that’s absolutely Virgin’s target market. Given that other people have expressed the same sentiment, and that’s how I’d think most people here would read the ad as well. In short, it sounds like someone’s trying to cash in on the tenuous link between the company’s name, well known advertising slogan, and lack of sexual activity, and they’re going to discover that it doesn’t work that way in Australia. Also, wouldn’t most parents _want_ their Teenage Daughter to be a virgin? Especially in the US, which seems to get considerably more worked up over that sort of thing than most other civilised countries… As for the whole “but Virgin has two meanings! They’re implying the people in the photos aren’t getting laid!” thing: See my earlier post about how that’s not Virgin Australia’s problem that people in US are misinterpreting a well-known Australian ad campaign. And I don’t think Virgin Australia are making any money out of the campaign somehow- I’ve covered this in earlier posts. They’re not doing very well at all here, snappy ad campaigns to the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2007, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/74 "2007-09-30T03:56:46Z")
[QUOTE=Kal] Sorry, dude. I’m gonna do it again and chuck in a bit of debate fodder. This [CNN video](http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/24/intv.virgin.flickr.lawsuit.cnn) is about the case and has an interview with the family’s lawyer. Mention is made of the ‘free text Virgin to Virgin’ thing and its double meaning. [/QUOTE] Double meaning? What possible double meaning could there be? The word means “A major international Corporate entity.” How could that be construed as a double meaning? Tris ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2007, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/75 "2007-09-30T04:46:35Z")
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus] Double meaning? What possible double meaning could there be? The word means “A major international Corporate entity.” How could that be construed as a double meaning? [/QUOTE] YOU were the one denying the double meaning. You were refusing to admit that its intentions were innocent, claiming it could _only ever_ mean something sexual. We aren’t denying it may be construed that way. We are arguing that it isn’t being used in that way. You were arguing it was _deliberately and intentionally_ used in a sexually suggestive way, but in this case it was not - it is being _used_ only as a descriptive term for its phone service. How people in other countries choose to misinterpret it is not the company’s fault. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2007, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/76 "2007-09-30T15:48:25Z")
You are sure it isn’t. You say, in fact that it is not. I say it is. I think the level of stupidity necessary for the entire matter to have been innocent of any intent at sexual inuenedo to be unlikely in the extreme. Your continuing fervor in maintining that thes advertising agencies have that blind a view of language does give evidence that monumental levels of stupidity are in fact possible. I did not say an innocent interpretation was not possible. Lawyerspeak might consider deliberate stupidity to be exactly like innocence. I don’t. They were aware of the sexual inunendo. The name of the company was chosen for it. I am not stupid enough to fail to notice it. Only lawyers could possibly entertain the notion that they were. It might have all been fairies waving wands that caused the picture to exactly resemble the young woman. I don’t believe that either. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2007, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/77 "2007-09-30T23:24:55Z")
Taking your argument to its logical (!) conclusion, every ad that any of the Virgin companies do is using the ‘sexual being’ of the person depicted in the advert. Fuck knows what happens if an ad consists of a photo of a tree - “Cor! Look at that sweet virgin knothole.” ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2007, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/78 "2007-10-01T02:01:14Z")
No, even though the innuendo is there in every mention of the company name, it isn’t necessarily about anyone. This ad was. This time, they did use a sexual reference to a child, for their own purposes. I am assured by our legal talent that it is entirely legal to do so. I accept that. It is still reprehensible, and legal opinions have no bearing on that. Pretending that is isn’t a sexual innuendo is just stupid. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Intelligently\_Designed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/intelligently_designed/32/20957_2.png) [@Intelligently\_Designed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intelligently_Designed)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2007, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/79 "2007-10-01T03:17:46Z")
As an aside, speaking of Flickr, and flicking, and innuendo, how about [this](http://www.virginmobile.ca/site/en/aboutUs/html/whatsnew.html) Virgin campaign? ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2007, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222/80 "2007-10-01T04:25:36Z")
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus] No, even though the innuendo is there in every mention of the company name, it isn’t necessarily about anyone. This ad was. This time, they did use a sexual reference to a child, for their own purposes. I am assured by our legal talent that it is entirely legal to do so. I accept that. It is still reprehensible, and legal opinions have no bearing on that. Pretending that is isn’t a sexual innuendo is just stupid. Tris [/QUOTE] Anytime Virgin uses someone younger than 18 in an ad is a sexual reference? What if the “child” is at the age of consent in the country the ad is running? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virgin-sued-for-user-teens-photo/420222.md?page=5)