kshapero
South Florida Man
Last edited by a moderator:
Iconic Photo of Sandy in NYC
- Thread starter kshapero
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 26
- Views 3K
boomguy57
Well-known
That's a cool shot! Yours?
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I think the copyright New York Times in the lower left corner tells the tale.
Just another example of an RFF member (nothing personal Akiva) appropriating someone else's image while we scream like hell when someone does it to us.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I don't scream.
But I'd still like to know who the photog is just the same.
But I'd still like to know who the photog is just the same.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I never said it was mine. It is pretty obvious that it is the cover page of a well known magazine. There is no copyright infringement of reprinting a magazine cover as long as the magazine name is not erased. Apology accepted. I just thought it was a cool photo and telling of the tragedy of Mega-storm Sandy.
boomguy57
Well-known
I didn't mean to imply the OP was stealing or appropriating an image. I was just curious if the OP had been published by the magazine. Simple question, no problem.
I appreciate the post, it is a cool photo.
...now everyone just breathe...
I appreciate the post, it is a cool photo.
...now everyone just breathe...
sol33
Established
Iwan Baan
Iwan Baan
Here is the link to the photo and story on New York Magazine:
http://nymag.com/nymag/letters/hurricane-sandy-editors-letter-2012-11/
The credits read: "Photo: Iwan Baan for New York Magazine"
Iwan Baan
Here is the link to the photo and story on New York Magazine:
http://nymag.com/nymag/letters/hurricane-sandy-editors-letter-2012-11/
The credits read: "Photo: Iwan Baan for New York Magazine"
kshapero
South Florida Man
there you go. it's ALL GOOD.
filmfan
Well-known
Take a deep breath and maybe have a glass of wine.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Akiva: again, please understand this is nothing personal.
But why did they print "copyright New York Times" on the cover of the magazine is it is OK to reproduce it?
I remain firm in my belief that we (RFF users as a group) are hypocritical when we scream about others using our photos yet we do it without thought. So no apology given.
kingqueenknave
Well-known
I doubt the publisher would mind someone pointing a group of people toward an issue of their magazine. Thanks for sharing.
newsgrunt
Well-known
I don't see an issue with fair use of this image as it's not being passed off as someone's work but as an example (entire cover) of a magazine's cover design.
kshapero
South Florida Man
As I said earlier a magazine cover is considered in the public domain and may be freely shown as long as nothing is changed especially the masthead. I am not selling it or otherwise. So, in my understanding, there is no offense nor instance of hypocrisy. Bob feel free to feel differently, if you wish.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Akiva: it is good that we can be respectful of each other's opinions when we agree to disagree.
kshapero
South Florida Man
That's why I love RFF.
Pablito
coco frío
Pablito
coco frío
Can you tell us the source of this info? I never heard that before. Thanks.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Can't remember but aren't we making a mountain out of a mole hill.The whole idea was just to show a fantastic photo of be-grieved NYC in the aftermath of Sandy. I picked it to elicit compassion towards our fellow New Yorkers. I certainly was not "stealing a photograph". I do not know about anyone else, I would be tickled pink if a photograph of mine was being passed around, as long as they were not claiming it to be their creation or trying to sell it. My two cents.
Pablito
coco frío
With all due respect, no, I don't think it's making a mountain out of molehill. At its core, this issue is fundamentally important to the future of photography whatever side you're on. So it's rather troubling to read a claim such as yours, only to be told you can't remember where you heard it.
As a person who makes a living from my images, I would NOT be tickled pink if a photograph of mine were being passed around without my explicit permission. I control the context in which my images are seen.
Publishers and other media outlets who might be paying good money for excellent photographs are settling for mediocre images because it costs then little or nothing. Many are happy to give work away in exchange for being tickled pink. Try paying rent with pink. You need green!
The result? Talented and committed photographers who can't make a living from their craft, and more and more crappy images polluting the media.
Sorry, I digress!
Why not abide by the rules of RFF? We have a rule, referred to above, that explicitly prohibits posting an image you did not create. Please remove the image. The link is the way to go.
As a person who makes a living from my images, I would NOT be tickled pink if a photograph of mine were being passed around without my explicit permission. I control the context in which my images are seen.
Publishers and other media outlets who might be paying good money for excellent photographs are settling for mediocre images because it costs then little or nothing. Many are happy to give work away in exchange for being tickled pink. Try paying rent with pink. You need green!
The result? Talented and committed photographers who can't make a living from their craft, and more and more crappy images polluting the media.
Sorry, I digress!
Why not abide by the rules of RFF? We have a rule, referred to above, that explicitly prohibits posting an image you did not create. Please remove the image. The link is the way to go.
Argenticien
Dave
I would have thought the perfect way to do the first post in this thread would have been to write what sol33 did in post #7: a link to the photo rather than a re-post of it, and a credit the photographer who made it. Even if it is legally permissible (and within RFF rules) to have re-posted the picture, I would think the link is in a way a higher tribute: it drives traffic to the New York magazine site, which may get them a few cents of ad revenue, which may get the photographer a few microcents or at least help keep his employer in business to pay him. (And as far as I can tell, does not violate RFF terms of use as long as sol33 isn't Mr Baan.)
BTW, some quick Googling gets one to a Poynter Institute article where Mr Baan reveals that regrettably the shot was not made with a rangefinder. 🙂 And in counterpoint to my own view above, that Poynter Institute "making of..." article has also re-posted the picture.
--Dave
BTW, some quick Googling gets one to a Poynter Institute article where Mr Baan reveals that regrettably the shot was not made with a rangefinder. 🙂 And in counterpoint to my own view above, that Poynter Institute "making of..." article has also re-posted the picture.
--Dave
Similar threads
