A cautionary tale on the use of a photo

Thanks for posting this; I was just about to.
Not only does it raise the issue of fair use, photo credit and misinformation, but like Erika said, it undermines everyone else's credibility. I don't consider myself a journalist anymore, but a street photographer, and this just feeds the general wariness about having one's photo taken.

And above all, I'm a little (but not a whole lot) that Fox used a photo from the Seattle Times, of all papers. One comment particularly bothered me: "Good picture. As a stock photo it illustrated Fox news story quite well don't you think?

Maybe this didn't jibe with the photographers political leanings or desires... but that isn't the point."

Politics aside, half the point is that it isn't a stock photo; it's an illustration to a news story.
 
I don't really know how to take this blog's criticism that the photo was used out of context by FN. Yes, the location is incorrect, but to suggest it isn't about religion is unfair. In the comments below, someone linked the original article and one woman stated it was religion and a "commandment from God".

The original article is far more interesting.
 
I'm not sure how you police against things like this. I sometimes shoot for a local LGBT weekly here in Chicago and my contract with the editor is that they have bought the rights solely to publish the images in their paper. Well the Huffington Post has been grabbing the images and stories and I get no compensation at all. I have talked to the local editor and asked her to make sure this stops happening, and she is trying to honor that, but it still crops up.
 
That's the Internet, right? And it's difficult to say what exactly happened. Once a photo hits the AP wire, it's fair game. Sure, there are the usual restrictions: No TV, no Web use, no use in that city, etc., etc.

Likely, an editor was looking for a photo, searched AP Exchange and found an image that works. And very likely, the person who found it was some underling on a desk who was told, "Get a photo for this story."

And I agree that Huffington Post has made millions (literally) off the work of others. They typify the Internet attitude, which is you do what you want and worry about the consequences later.

Look no further than eBay, which has no interest in enforcing copyrights. Sellers don't know anything about a camera, browse to a site and steal everything - text and photos. And complaints to eBay almost always elicit the response: "We can find no violation."

So, once you turn a photo over to an AP member or a news operation with an Internet site, you don't have much control after that.

Of course, if this person had taken an award-winning photo, I doubt you'd see them complaining that it was picked up by Fox News.
 
ZeissFan said:
And I agree that Huffington Post has made millions (literally) off the work of others. They typify the Internet attitude, which is you do what you want and worry about the consequences later.

Look no further than eBay, which has no interest in enforcing copyrights.
Of course, if this person had taken an award-winning photo, I doubt you'd see them complaining that it was picked up by Fox News.
Click to expand...

Oh so it isn`t just Fox :rolleyes:
 
Why am I NOT surprised? I think the scenario Mike Elek proposes isn't too far from the truth. Besides, it's a photo of Muslim women... in their minds, they are nothing.
 
ZeissFan said:
That's the Internet, right? And it's difficult to say what exactly happened. Once a photo hits the AP wire, it's fair game. Sure, there are the usual restrictions: No TV, no Web use, no use in that city, etc., etc.

Likely, an editor was looking for a photo, searched AP Exchange and found an image that works. And very likely, the person who found it was some underling on a desk who was told, "Get a photo for this story."

And I agree that Huffington Post has made millions (literally) off the work of others. They typify the Internet attitude, which is you do what you want and worry about the consequences later.

Look no further than eBay, which has no interest in enforcing copyrights. Sellers don't know anything about a camera, browse to a site and steal everything - text and photos. And complaints to eBay almost always elicit the response: "We can find no violation."

So, once you turn a photo over to an AP member or a news operation with an Internet site, you don't have much control after that.

Of course, if this person had taken an award-winning photo, I doubt you'd see them complaining that it was picked up by Fox News.
Click to expand...

It's not like we are at the mercy of image thieves - there are ways to deal with copyright breach and image theft -

1: Register ALL your images that go to clients or go online with the U.S. patent and copyright office;
2: Sign up with an reverse image search such as http://www.tineye.com/ ;
3: When your images are stolen and unauthorized use is discovered by Tin Eye, demand payment from the infringer;
4: If they refuse or offer a fraction of the standard use rate, consult an attorney;
5: Have the atttorney file a lawsuit for copyright infringement, drag the thieves into court and break their balls; collect usage payment, plus punitive damages, plus attorney and court fees.

Some will say "I don't have the time to do that." That's where the attorney comes in to play. He/she are the ones investing their time on your behalf. Hire them, let them do their job, and somewhere down the road you will be compensated by the thieves, who will also pay your attorney.

The vast majority of people do not accomplish #1, which prevents them from accomplishing #5. The way judges look at copyright infringement seems to be, "If you don't value your work enough to register it with the U.S. copyright office, you are obviously not a professional photographer; why should I take your claim seriously if you don't take your own work seriously??"

It's hard to argue with that line of thought.

Without registration, copyright infringement is still a crime. The only satisfaction you will likely get is having an attorney send the theives a "knock it off" letter. Without copyright registration of your images, you cannot file a copyright infringement lawsuit; an infringement lawsuit over unregistered images will be tossed out by a judge, if the attorney even files it to begin with.

We do in fact have options when our work is stolen, IF it has been registered. If a photographer doesn't value their work highly enough to spend a bit of time registering it, they don't have much room to complain when it is stolen, do they?

We know there are image thieves out there. Protecting your work is necessary in today's world. It's just a matter of taking personal responsibility for protecting your work.
 
THis has been happening for decades... nothing new here. Elliot Erwitts famouns pic of Nixon was used by Nixon election campaign completley against his will (and Erwitt was in Magnum...).
 
Very interesting story. I guess that picture was a great temptation for those who took it.
It gave them the opportunity to frame the story in a certain way. Very disappointing but not surprising.
 
While this is nice, it isn't how it works in the news world. Thousands of photos a day are sent via the AP wire. No one is taking the time to track how a photo is used across the world among its AP members. If a member violates the usage agreement enough times, then steps will be taken. One-time infractions probably will get a letter. Photos used out of context? Too bad.

AP often had embargoes on certain stories. I pointed this out to one editor. His reply? "They should be glad that we're even running their s---."

AP grants its members the right to use a photo for a short period (either two weeks or 30 days), it also maintains an archive of millions of photos.

At one paper, I created a headshot file for all notables: world leaders, celebrities, local, state and national politicians. At one point, I had maybe 1,800 headshots in this file for occasional use. No photographer ever got a credit for a 50-pixel wide headshot. You had to have several shots each person: serious, smiling, glum, looking to the left, right, straight ahead.

Beyond that, some newspaper sites use a CMS that stores every photo that is ever used. And when they need a photo of an athlete who is injured, they can then find a photo from a week or a month ago and run it with the story.

In a utopian news world, everyone gets credited, and no photos is used outside of its original context. In the real world, the demands of news content and deadlines dictates that you find a photo that helps tell the story, and this is how this happens.

I can almost guarantee that this photographer's photo will be used again, in the U.S. and across the world to accompany a story that has nothing to do with the original setting. And she won't be able to do a damn thing about it except complain.

By the way, when you get your driver's license photo taken, some states will make that same photo available to newspapers when you're arrested for DUI or any other crime that doesn't require a booking photo.

noisycheese said:
It's not like we are at the mercy of image thieves - there are ways to deal with copyright breach and image theft -

1: Register ALL your images that go to clients or go online with the U.S. patent and copyright office;
2: Sign up with an reverse image search such as http://www.tineye.com/ ;
3: When your images are stolen and unauthorized use is discovered by Tin Eye, demand payment from the infringer;
4: If they refuse or offer a fraction of the standard use rate, consult an attorney;
5: Have the atttorney file a lawsuit for copyright infringement, drag the thieves into court and break their balls; collect usage payment, plus punitive damages, plus attorney and court fees.

Some will say "I don't have the time to do that." That's where the attorney comes in to play. He/she are the ones investing their time on your behalf. Hire them, let them do their job, and somewhere down the road you will be compensated by the thieves, who will also pay your attorney.

The vast majority of people do not accomplish #1, which prevents them from accomplishing #5. The way judges look at copyright infringement seems to be, "If you don't value your work enough to register it with the U.S. copyright office, you are obviously not a professional photographer; why should I take your claim seriously if you don't take your own work seriously??"

It's hard to argue with that line of thought.

Without registration, copyright infringement is still a crime. The only satisfaction you will likely get is having an attorney send the theives a "knock it off" letter. Without copyright registration of your images, you cannot file a copyright infringement lawsuit; an infringement lawsuit over unregistered images will be tossed out by a judge, if the attorney even files it to begin with.

We do in fact have options when our work is stolen, IF it has been registered. If a photographer doesn't value their work highly enough to spend a bit of time registering it, they don't have much room to complain when it is stolen, do they?

We know there are image thieves out there. Protecting your work is necessary in today's world. It's just a matter of taking personal responsibility for protecting your work.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom