Riporto la traduzione del mio articolo “La foto usata da Corvelva è di un bambino sano e vaccinato, ha 5 anni e non è morto per SIDS post-vaccino esavalente” che mi ha gentilmente fornito Silva Karpowicz Rukavina (che ringrazio) con ulteriori integrazioni per chi all’estero non conosce alcuni punti della storia. Essendo un pezzo datato 22 novembre 2017, ho deciso di impostare la stessa data nonostante questa traduzione sia stata riportata sul mio blog il 5 dicembre 2017.

Have you seen a photo of the baby boy used by Corvelva? The one in which it states to have died due to SIDS after vaccination? As it happens the same design was used as a part of an international campaign, shared by a number of national and international organizations that question vaccination. It was translated and shared in a great number of languages, used to fear monger and promote their cause, both over social media as well in printed versions.

Well, to make things right a Facebook user named Silva used her profile to raise awareness about the improper use of the photo:

Silva shared a poster with the image in English version containing the logo of the “Vaxxed” pseudo-science peddling movie by Wakefield the quack:

It is clear and evident that the same photograph has been used internationally as a part of an international campaign promoted by antivaxx organizations.

The fact is that the photo was purchased on Shutterstock with the following description:

Newborn 4 day old baby boy lying on his back relaxing under a blue wrap cloth

In Silva’s Facebook post, several persons have commented, including a person who claimed to have reported the photo’s misuse to the author of the photograph “Brayden Howie – NoBorders Photography” via Facebook, who also happens to be the baby’s father:

BH: And I can assure you the child in the image is very much alive and Well
Z: That is most important!
BH: And fully vaccinated!

For added security I also contacted the father who kindly replied and confirmed what he said to others was true. In short, the author of the photograph and infant’s father assured me that his son is alive and well, healthy and vaccinated! Contrary to what others would have you believe!

In the post thread comments and claims were made by a person called Anna, who claimed to be the designer of the poster. As those posts have been erased, I received them directly from Silva:

Anna: “Child in immage don’t have 5 years old, she/he don’t really exist. I’m a grafical design and I create by myself this pics. But the really important thing YOU have covered!!!“

Anna challenged the debunk photo claiming she had bought the rights to the photo and the debunk photo should be removed as the rights belong to her:

Anna: “You don’t buy this immage, so you are not ALLOWED to post it in Facebook. Scanta baucchi e sveia macachi!“

Chat between user Zeljko and the designer revealed the possible breach of the terms for the licence under which the photo was purchased and the way in which it was used:

I’m asking them to remove it, and I’ll notify the stock agent so they can check. If it has benn licensed I’m certain this is outside the tems even if licensed for sensitive uses.

Shutterstock licensing agreement with clear terms what you may not use the purchased photos for:

RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF VISUAL CONTENT

YOU MAY NOT:

1. Use Visual Content other than as expressly provided by the license you purchased with respect to such Visual Content.
2. Portray any person depicted in Visual Content (a “Model”) in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive, including but not limited to depicting a Model: a) in connection with pornography, “adult videos”, adult entertainment venues, escort services, dating services, or the like; b) in connection with the advertisement or promotion of tobacco products; c) in a political context, such as the promotion, advertisement or endorsement of any party, candidate, or elected official, or in connection with any political policy or viewpoint; d) as suffering from, or medicating for, a physical or mental ailment; or e) engaging in immoral or criminal activities.
3. Use any Visual Content in a pornographic, defamatory, or deceptive context, or in a manner that could be considered libelous, obscene, or illegal.
4. Use Visual Content designated “Editorial Use Only” for commercial purposes.
5. Resell, redistribute, provide access to, share or transfer any Visual Content except as specifically provided herein. For example and not by way of limitation, the foregoing prohibits displaying Content as, or as part of, a “gallery” of content through which third parties may search and select from such content.
6. Use Visual Content in a manner that infringes upon any third party’s trademark or other intellectual property, or would give rise to a claim of deceptive advertising or unfair competition.
7. Use any Visual Content (in whole or in part) as a trademark, service mark, logo, or other indication of origin, or as part thereof.
8. Use “stills” derived from Footage except solely in connection with the in-context marketing, promotion, and advertising of your derivative works incorporating Footage.
9. Falsely represent, expressly or by way of reasonable implication, that any Visual Content was created by you or a person other than the copyright holder(s) of that Visual Content.

We will see how the author of the photograph will react post fact of misuse, as the child is not dead and the photo was misused against the licencing agreement.

Message by Brayden, the child’s father:

To stop using the image and stop making false claims.

Conversation with Brayden:

BH: Hi David. What would you like to know? Happy to provide you some additional information

DP: Thank you! Are you the child’s father?

BH: Yes

** mostro la foto del manifesto **

DP: Is your son good? Is he vaccinated? What do you think about Corvelva poster?

BH: He is very well and fully vaccinated. I’m a supporter of vaccination

DP: How old is the child?

BH: Now 5 years old

DP: Do you think the use of the photo violates the shutterstock license?

BH: Yes – it is deceptive and portrays the model as having an ailment. It is possible they have negotiated other license terms such as for sensitive use so I’ve referred it to the agent. At the end of the day it’s a legal question which I’m not in a position to judge 100% but in my opinion it violates the agreement I believe they signed up for

DP: Ok. What message do you want to give to the Corvelva association?

BH: To stop using the image and stop making false claims.