Greenberg's crying toddlers used in ads for Admeta (Sweden)

 
 

Greenberg's crying toddlers used in ads for Admeta (Sweden)

Seems that I can't escape Jill Greenberg a.k.a the manipulator lately. I remember when people were yelling "child abuse" about her crying children portraits - see this post by Thomas Hawk Jill Greenberg is a Sick Woman Who Should Be Arrested and Charged With Child Abuse. (Thomas also posted the response he says he received from Greenberg here)


Most recently the outrage has been about her poorly set up shot of McCain with adgrunt BAP defending her right to creative freedom - which is fine even though, in my humble opinion she didn't even come close to creating another Alfried Krupp shot like Arnold Newman did which seems to be what she was going for. But I digress.


So I am somewhat surprised to find the artists child photo used in a humble banner ad for a small company in Sweden on Dagens Media today. Doesn't seem to be her style, to sell those images for banner ads. Do the toddlers parent's know? Little miss muppet is shilling Admeta. Is mum proud?

 

Update: Just to be clear: Jill Greenberg has not released this image for commercial use, and the little girls parents have not agreed to it either. Source: Ms Greenberg herself.
Adland: 

Comments

This is an illegal use by Admeta of Jill Greenberg's End Times. She does not sell her fine art images for commercial use.

I didn't think she did. (Also, I'm a total tattletale and have mailed her rep in Los Angeles about this banner since I suspected infringement.)

We apologize for the use of the artwork and have removed the ad immediately. We're having discussion on how this situation occured and it will not be repeated. We're contacting Jill Greenberg's offices as well.

Strong work of you Admeta.

Good thing you pulled the banner at once, but it's likely still going to cost you. If some shady stock agency sold you that image, please let us know who the heck it was so that we may avoid doing business with them.

...In other words I'd be very interested to know how on earth a mistake like that could happen.

Seconded.

Thirded.
I bet they'll blame it on some intern though. Even interns in advertising should know about copyright but these days, with digital mockups and other sins, nobody seems to have the faintest.

That lollipop debacle made it to the Sunday Times, and they headlined it "The great lollipop debate" btw. Not exactly an unknown artist, put it that way.

Hypothetically, if Admeta who yanked that banner fast, come to some sort of agreement with Jill Greenberg that makes those two parties happy - what about the child? Little miss muppet (or her guardians) did not sign a model release for her likeness to be used in advertising did she? Two posts touch on the model release issue and in this case I'd like to know what Swedish law says about that.

Just got off the phone with Åsk(Dabitch) to explain the unfortunate event which has occured and the picture I said ok to, was apparently from The Sunday Morning Herald(july. issue 2006). We've been in touch with Greenberg associates to help resolve this issue.

Regards,
Magnus Nielsen
Marketing, Admeta

Dabitch uses the phone? What's the world coming to?

Sometimes I even sleep.
Model release for peoples faces used in advertising is required by law in Sweden (just like practically everywhere else). The usual applies, full face = full pay. "Non-recognizable" partly featured (cropped face, body parts etc) = half pay. Either way they still need the models signature. Or lollipop-stained thumbprint. ;)

Well, Admeta. You should write a book in DIY-advertising? Not.

Is that what they "sell"? What does Admeta do? Looks like some banner-ad-space company.

Admeta are BUSTED by Dabitch.

Wasn't that difficult to bust - I mean they did come out and say "ooops, our bad" basically as soon as I posted this.

How stupid is the AD company who didn't secure rights for the images used in their own banner ads?

Add new comment

Top