Rockwell's image of M3 is 1K$ worth!

[sepiareverb]

Ah, exposure as “payment”. Not acceptable.

From JCP page: “I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Chad Kiser www.sea41film.com for helping me to work with the Flynn family. And to Tim Page www.timpage.com.au for assistance with the images you see here. All images used with permission. No reproduction without prior consent.”

 

[Huss]

Let's see what Bellamy has to say.

 

[sepiareverb]

From the JCH Facebook page:

“Having learned absolutely nothing, Adorama's favourite writer and unrepentant image thief is up to his tricks again. They used all the images in this piece without permission when the original article expressly requires that permission is obtained. Well done Adorama. Where is my $1000?”

https://www.facebook.com/Japancamerahunter/posts/1962097860528597

 

[kuuan]

And they’ve done it again, ripped off a Japan Camera Hunter article and photos about an old M2...

https://www.adorama.com/alc/the-inc...r-photographer-sean-flynns-long-lost-leica-m2

mind blowing.. he did link to the original article of the Japancamerahunter, does that make it legal??
the Japan Camera Hunter's article from January: https://www.japancamerahunter.com/2018/01/camera-historica-the-sean-flynn-leica-m2/

 

[aizan]

we all like to kick a dog while he's down, but this is getting to be an example of toxic fandom. :bang:

jch isn't going to get his $1000 because summary articles like that fall under fair use.

 

[michaelwj]

we all like to kick a dog while he's down, but this is getting to be an example of toxic fandom. :bang:

jch isn't going to get his $1000 because summary articles like that fall under fair use.

The "dog" didn't get kicked down, it repeatedly tripped itself up being stupid

But do his original photos fall under fair use?

Irrespective of "fair use" or anything else, What the f*** is the deal with Adorama, just lifting whatever off the internet? In the end, it doesn't matter how the law views their actions, they're perceived to have stoled photography without asking for permission. They're trying to sell photography equipment, to photographers, who they just stole from. Nice move.

Either create something for your "blog" or don't bother.

 

[kuuan]

we all like to kick a dog while he's down, but this is getting to be an example of toxic fandom. :bang:

jch isn't going to get his $1000 because summary articles like that fall under fair use.

besides what the legal system says, are you considering this as fair use?
If from the beginning it had been stated that the camera find, the photos and the article is from Japancamerahunter I might consider it as fair use, not really though, if without asking permission from Japancamerahunter. But the way it was done, no way.
Btw. the articel at Adorama by now seems to have been taken down.

 

[aizan]

yes, even the images. less is better when it comes to the amount and substantiality factor, but using 6 out of 19 images is not going to raise any eyebrows.

 

[kuuan]

yes, even the images. less is better when it comes to the amount and substantiality factor, but using 6 out of 19 images is not going to raise any eyebrows.

amazing..if stealing "only 30%" of ones images + the story, of one that I would view as an "exclusive story", should be ok..
but it seems some eyebrows have been raised. The negative reactions, which imo are justified, caused Adorama to take down the article

 

[aizan]

it’s only raising eyebrows now because of the m3 debacle. it was published 5 weeks ago and nobody got upset.

the way i see it, the question before the online film photography community is not so much about image theft, of which this whole thing is a minor case, but whether we encourage the community to take up pitchforks and torches whenever someone voices a fairly innocuous perspective about why he prefers digital over film.

 

[michaelwj]

yes, even the images. less is better when it comes to the amount and substantiality factor, but using 6 out of 19 images is not going to raise any eyebrows.

Maybe not with the law, but many eyebrows have been raised (we are talking about it aren't we), and Adorama have been judged by the people already. I bet it will (if it hasn't already) cost them the the small amount of money they should have spent (if not legally then morally) paying for the images.

Sure, they have been the victims of an internet trial. But they should know better and frankly the author and whoever approved the posts should lose their jobs over it. They stole, lied, and tried to cheat to get traffic to their commercial website. It doesn't matter if it was legally okay, it was morally wrong.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

Well..it's been two days...no word from Helen. Resnick's articles are still up despite stealing photos in one...and stealing a whole article without asking for permission in another...not fair use by the way.

If Adorama can't get its act together for two days, I can only assume they condone this behaviour. As such, I can only recommend people on our Film FB page move elsewhere for there purchases as I do not condone this behaviour. I for one will not give them one more nickel. This is being discussed all over forums and Facebook. Their inaction will cost them. Shame on them.

 

[aizan]

in previous posts, i’ve already talked about how resnick didn’t lie, and how we don’t know all the facts about how the watermark was removed. and fair use is not immoral. (quite the contrary, actually. google it.) i think we’re dealing with a situation where an institution is responsible for a misdeed and not one individual. it’s less satisfying to hold a corporate body accountable than a person, since it means there’s no identifiable villain, but we as a community should stop short of demanding resnick’s head on a platter. i don’t think that’s a good sign of film photography’s revival.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

the way i see it, the question before the online film photography community is not so much about image theft, of which this whole thing is a minor case, but whether we encourage the community to take up pitchforks and torches whenever someone voices a fairly innocuous perspective about why he prefers digital over film.

Is it a minor case? One of the world's biggest 'legitimate' photography businesses steals an image, actively removes proof of ownership, gets called out for it and lies.

Just about everything I've read about this whole saga has been firmly focussed on the theft and Adorama's response to it, rather than pitchforks because someone said (stupid) mean things about film.

 

[Corran]

jch isn't going to get his $1000 because summary articles like that fall under fair use.

Except it absolutely is NOT Fair Use.

 

[jawarden]

it’s only raising eyebrows now because of the m3 debacle. it was published 5 weeks ago and nobody got upset.

Oh I don't know about that, I imagine Bellamy Hunt was upset 5 weeks ago.

I now see the Resnick article that borrowed heavily from Bellamy Hunt has been removed. Which is good IMO.

I don't want anyone to lose their livelihood here, but Adorama should have a clear policy for their writers to follow, and the writers should follow it. Seems pretty simple to me. One or both of those things aren't happening if you have to apologize for one article and remove another, both by the same author.

 

[jawarden]

jch isn't going to get his $1000 because summary articles like that fall under fair use.

Of course JCH isn't going to get $1000. They'll get $7,000 because there were seven images. You forgot to apply the Rockwell Stolen Image Multiplier™ to your calculation.

😀

 

[jawarden]

Let's see what Bellamy has to say.

I don't know if he participates here but his Twitter posts about this issue show his displeasure.

 

[michaelwj]

in previous posts, i’ve already talked about how resnick didn’t lie, and how we don’t know all the facts about how the watermark was removed. and fair use is not immoral. (quite the contrary, actually. google it.) i think we’re dealing with a situation where an institution is responsible for a misdeed and not one individual. it’s less satisfying to hold a corporate body accountable than a person, since it means there’s no identifiable villain, but we as a community should stop short of demanding resnick’s head on a platter. i don’t think that’s a good sign of film photography’s revival.

Gauging by the response here and elsewhere on social media, the people have decided that what you call "fair use" is immoral. Morality is a personal thing, and I'm pretty sure I don't need google to tell me what I think is immoral.

I agree that the institution is responsible for the misdeed. The institution is being punished by losing business, by a public backlash and tarnishing of their image. But the institution didn't steal an image and claim it as their own, one person did. The institution didn't copy and entire article and pass it off as their own, the same individual did. As a community of content creators, we should be absolutely appalled by what both the individual and the institution did. It is totally unacceptable and I think our outrage is a good sign that we will stand up for our content.

I don't think the issues being discussed here have anything to do with the "revival" of film photography, and I fail to see how you jump from someone being caught out stealing an image and passing it off as their own, and damage to "film photography's revival".

 

[Emile de Leon]

They only pay up...when they get caught..as in..purely a business move...to stem the bleeding..
If no one said a word..well...
The psychology of today is..just take it online..steal it right out from under them..and if you get caught..then deal with all that when the time comes..but if not...hehehe..we's makin good bux here...and we's didn't have to do a thing..as in... that fool over there did all our work for us....hahahahaha...
..what a way to make a living..! No brainer..! Just take it...
Laughing all the way to the bank...off some other fools time and efforts...
Don't have to buy a cam...don't have to scout the set..don't have to do anything...just steal it...ohhhh yeaaaahhh...