Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner

Let's reverse the situation.

For the sake of argument, you can all play lawyer.

Let's assume a family member or person other than the photographer supplied the image to the NYT.

You are the actual photographer. "Prove", in court, that it is yours.

It's posted on your Flickr page, sure. Where did you get it? Did someone else snap it with your camera? Did you take it at the subject's request, so now it's "her" photo? Did you actually take the photo at all? You know you did, we don't. Prove it. In court. Prove beyond doubt legally it is "your" photo.

Did YOU copy it from somewhere? Did someone else take it and give you their memory card, or did you copy it off someone else's?

Prove it.


(Just playing devil's advocate. YOU are in court with this case. The other side says the photo was NOT yours.)
 
Not even AP or NYT. Why buy, when you can steal?


It might help to understand a little more about how this could happen. So let's toss out a pretty likely scenario. For credentials here - I spent three years covering the police beat for a daily paper. I probably wrote about more than 100 murders during that time.

The crime occurs. The reporter will call or approach the family and ask if they would like to talk about their loss. Before anyone tosses out the vulture comments, let me say that you would be surprised at how often a family member is eager to talk. They want the world to know that their loved one was more than just a statistic.
At the end of the interview, the reporter would ask - do you have a photo that we can use?
A photo is given to the reporter, who turns it over to the photo editors. At no point during this, is there a sensitive way to ferret out the name of the photographer who took the photo. Think about it - this person has just lost their son/daugher/wife/etc. That's not the time to insist that they also provide the name of the photographer who took a portrait.
 
visiondr said:
I wonder if the fact that the Times and other news outlets are MAKING MONEY from your photograph has been missed by other posters here! They're not in the business of publishing as a charity. They deliberately used the photograph of your friend to increase (I'd argue greatly increase) the attractiveness of the story to potential readers and therefore sell more papers, etc. They've made a lot of money here. Imagine this story without a photograph of the victim, let alone an attractive, well done photograph. They've used something you own to make money for themselves. You, or the charity of your choice, deserve something in return.
Click to expand...
I agree with this but just want to point out one of the biggest misconceptions about newspaper publishing. The idea that papers will run a sensational story or a "scoop" to sell more papers that day to get a profit is not true. Newspaper revenue is based on sales of advertising space, the rates of which are based on circulation. People buying a paper off the street to read a specific story don't even come close to making a dent in the profits.
 
photogdave said:
I agree with this but just want to point out one of the biggest misconceptions about newspaper publishing. The idea that papers will run a sensational story or a "scoop" to sell more papers that day to get a profit is not true. Newspaper revenue is based on sales of advertising space, the rates of which are based on circulation. People buying a paper off the street to read a specific story don't even come close to making a dent in the profits.
Click to expand...

Yup, I realize this. But good newspapers sell better than poor ones. Good newspapers (as judged by circulation) make more money because they can charge more for ads. In the end, there would be no newspaper without good editorial copy. No one would buy the NY Times if the editorial copy sucked.
 
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner

I believe some of you are missing the point... Someone made a mistake by not giving credit; the others picked up the photo, which had no credit, and ran it...

Give them a chance to correct the mistake...Most media are very generous about such thjings...If payment is called for, The Times, among others, will know its duty...It might be especially generous about payment -- in view of the error in not including a credit line...

Haven't any of you run a roll of film through your camera and realized too late that you either left the lens cap over the lens or failed to wind the film correctly?
 
If I remember right, from the time something similar happened to me, the law allows for up to $25,000 in damages for copyright infringement in cases like this. However, you'd be really exceptionally lucky if what you actually got would pay for the lawyer's fee. Some large corporations know this and take advantage of it (Walmart, for example, has been known to deliberately use their customer's photos in ads without permission -- not a mistake, Bob), but this is the first I've heard of a newspaper doing it.
 
Last edited:
Two simple points of law most photographers already know.
#1 If you did not have a signed model release you did not own the photograph, hence no rights.
#2 If you gave her a copy of the photo ( most photographers give their subject a copy ) it was her property. She and her estate have the right to use her photo.
These are basic rules pertaining to rights of use. If #1 or 2 apply to you, you have no case.
 
The real question should be:

Did the NYTimes, NBC, NY1 ... necessarely have to publish the picture?
Click to expand...

Easiest question of the day. Of course they did. The NYTimes is a newspaper. That's what newspapers do. We might as well ask if they needed to write a story about the poor woman's death.
 
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner

Is the picture going to help you understand this tragedy?

tbarker13 said:
Easiest question of the day. Of course they did. The NYTimes is a newspaper. That's what newspapers do. We might as well ask if they needed to write a story about the poor woman's death.
Click to expand...
 
rlouzanIs the picture going to help you understand this tragedy?


I believe so.
I really don't mean to sound rude. But I find it sort of hard to believe that this question would pop up on a photo site. I mean, don't we all believe that our photos are important? That we are documenting life and creating images that matter at least a little.
Joe's photo showed us a little piece of Kathryn Faughey as she was in life. It reminds us that she's not just "Slain Woman."
 
bob cole said:
I believe some of you are missing the point... Someone made a mistake by not giving credit; the others picked up the photo, which had no credit, and ran it...

Give them a chance to correct the mistake...Most media are very generous about such thjings...If payment is called for, The Times, among others, will know its duty...It might be especially generous about payment -- in view of the error in not including a credit line...

Haven't any of you run a roll of film through your camera and realized too late that you either left the lens cap over the lens or failed to wind the film correctly?
Click to expand...
This is a M8 thread, what film.
 
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner

rlouzan said:
The real question should be:

Did the NYTimes, NBC, NY1 ... necessarely have to publish the picture?
Click to expand...


You people are still missing the point...A woman psychiatrist was murdured in a bizarre set of circumstances...

The news editors immediately asked their picture desk to find a picture...Someone found a great picture but it didn't have a credit line and a decision was made to use it anyway because it was a major story all over the world: Disturbed Man Slashes Psychiatrist... People want to know what the victim looks like; it draws readers into the story...

I'm amazed, rlouzan, that you even ask if anyone HAS to publish the picture...Of course, you don't HAVE to; you just do it because it's a major part of the story... Fidel Castro stepped down today; just about everyone that ran the story also used his photo...The Cuban press used old ones showing a vigorous Fidel...Many others around the world looked for a current one of a frail Castro... It's a major part of the story...

No one STOLE a picture, no one broke any rules, no one did anything wrong... All that happened was that a photo was published in lots of places and no one got the credit... It was a MISTAKe...It will be corrected...

Someone may even write a letter or pick up the phone and say they're sorry...
 
Last edited:
POINT OF VIEW said:
Two simple points of law most photographers already know.
#1 If you did not have a signed model release you did not own the photograph, hence no rights.
#2 If you gave her a copy of the photo ( most photographers give their subject a copy ) it was her property. She and her estate have the right to use her photo.
These are basic rules pertaining to rights of use. If #1 or 2 apply to you, you have no case.
Click to expand...

Wow, things sure are different where I live.
 
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner

Yes, but it´s up to Joe to decide when and where.

tbarker13 said:
rlouzanIs the picture going to help you understand this tragedy?


I believe so.
I really don't mean to sound rude. But I find it sort of hard to believe that this question would pop up on a photo site. I mean, don't we all believe that our photos are important? That we are documenting life and creating images that matter at least a little.
Joe's photo showed us a little piece of Kathryn Faughey as she was in life. It reminds us that she's not just "Slain Woman."
Click to expand...
 
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner

Bob,

Years ago I worked at a News agency, and I still think there is no excuse.


bob cole said:
You people are still missing the point...A woman psychiatrist was murdured in a bizarre set of circumstances...

The news editors immediately asked their picture desk to find a picture...Someone found a great picture but it didn't have a credit line and a decision was made to use it anyway because it was a major story all over the world: Disturbed Man Slashes Psychiatrist... People want to know what the victim looks like; it draws readers into the story...

I'm amazed, rlouzan, that you even ask if anyone HAS to publish the picture...Of course, you don't HAVE to; you just do it because it's a major part of the story... Fidel Castro stepped down today; just about everyone that ran the story also used his photo...The Cuban press used old ones showing a vigorous Fidel...Many others around the world looked for a current one of a frail Castro... It's a major part of the story...

No one STOLE a picture, no one broke any rules, no one did anything wrong... All that happened was that a photo was published in lots of places and no one got the credit... It was a MISTAKe...It will be corrected...

Someone may even write a letter or pick up the phone and say they're sorry...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Years ago I worked at a News agency, and I still think there is no excuse.
Click to expand...


Which one and what did you do? I can certainly see why you don't any more, as you appear to have a philospical difference of opinion with the field of journalism. Obviously there is room for debate in a newsroom - and I've seen some heated arguments about what to run and what not to run. But this one is such a no brainer.
I'm talking here about your argument that using the photo had no news value.

Until someone offers proof, it's not fair to assume that someone at the NY Times knowinlgy used Joe's photo without Joe's permission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom