Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
emraphoto said:
Thankyou.
And thanks again for all the comments.
I like the charity idea and I like the idea of sending out a few registered letters asserting my copyright. I don't feel "ripped off" and yes I would have certainly given permission had I been asked.
As I said before, for me this is less about intellectual property rights and more about my trying to process this deeply disturbing news -- and the manner in which I found out about it.
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
I just got done reading this and...whoa people, orphan or not, this is copyright infringement within a story so horrible, it is about in the poorest taste one could imagine.
Bottom line? This photo is going to keep running and running and running and the outlets that are using it are going to make tens of thousands in direct and indirect sales. ESPECIALLY AP!!!!
You MUST be given credit for the photo and reasonable fees for the uses need to be given to a family fund or a charity, period.
You don't need a lawyer, you need to contact pros in places like NPPA or ASMP and get a roadmap in place like yesterday.
Kathy's death is horrible enough, don't let news outlets be even greater benefactors by not handling your image's use incorrectly.
I would be glad to help with this. I am on assignment in D.C. right now but will be home tomorrow.
This is not right, it needs to be righted.
Period!
Bottom line? This photo is going to keep running and running and running and the outlets that are using it are going to make tens of thousands in direct and indirect sales. ESPECIALLY AP!!!!
You MUST be given credit for the photo and reasonable fees for the uses need to be given to a family fund or a charity, period.
You don't need a lawyer, you need to contact pros in places like NPPA or ASMP and get a roadmap in place like yesterday.
Kathy's death is horrible enough, don't let news outlets be even greater benefactors by not handling your image's use incorrectly.
I would be glad to help with this. I am on assignment in D.C. right now but will be home tomorrow.
This is not right, it needs to be righted.
Period!
jan normandale
Film is the other way
All news orgs, publishers, and editors know you have to secure the necessary permissions or acknowledgments. That is a daily part of their job. To suggest it's just an 'oversight' or a simple little error is not credible. I've seen people hauled up on the carpet for less than that type of 'slip up'.
An editor also knows that little can be done about image appropriation and they will "take first and then ask forgiveness if caught" . They are good at this.
My condolences and regrets during this personal moment.
An editor also knows that little can be done about image appropriation and they will "take first and then ask forgiveness if caught" . They are good at this.
My condolences and regrets during this personal moment.
2001alal
Member
this thread is really sad
rlouzan
Well-known
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner
Just with irresponsible journalism. First I´m a human being and only then a photographer.
Just with irresponsible journalism. First I´m a human being and only then a photographer.
tbarker13 said:
V
varjag
Guest
Umm no. Someone made a mistake by running a photo they didn't have reproduction rights on. Even if they given a credit it would still be a violation.bob cole said:
Try selling material copyrighted by Time-Warner without their permission and see how far would you go.
rlouzan
Well-known
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner
Finally, someone understands what´s happening here.
Finally, someone understands what´s happening here.
varjag said:
bob cole
Well-known
---------------------------------rlouzan said:
rlouzan, just to demonstrate what The New York Times, for one, does in such circumstances, I searched its files on the Internet under "omitted credit" and found at least 10 pages of examples...Here's the first example:
Television
...Correction: February 10, 2008, Sunday A picture caption with a television entry in the Week Ahead report last Sunday omitted the credit. The photograph, of Grand Central Terminal, was taken by Boris Klapwald.
February 3, 2008 - Arts - 210 words
Note: It took a week to get action...
FYI, "omitted" is the key word... The insurance industry sells a very special kind of insurance to protect officers and directors of corporations known as "errors and omissions." If they erred or omitted something you can sue them and the insurance company will defend them... But when The Times, or others, run a correction, this typically is the end of the line...
If payment is called for, it typicallly involves established rates depending on individual circumstances...
Litigation ends normal discourse and moves everything to the legal department where lawyers take their time to investigate. Form Letter #1 is "no merit." Form Letter #2 "Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.'' Form Letter #1127 "This matter has been assigned to Mr. Brown.''
[Mr. Brown just graduated from Columbia Law School, 11th in his class, and has eight cases on his desk.] You might hear about your situation in, maybe, a year or so...
Of course, this is just my opinion...I could be wrong...
Last edited:
MikeCassidy
Leica M3
Wrong
Wrong
The webmaster may not be willing to admit he stole an image and ITS his job to know where images come from; the NY Times is not a high school newspaper it has a substanial staff. of which I was one for 18 years.
Contact the newspaper and submit a bill for the use of the image AND surcharge it for not giving you credit. Send a snail mail letter registered, and email the webmaster again cc'ing Tom Bodkin, Bill Keller, and Jill Abramson. Make sure you state you are sending a bill for the use of the image.
Wrong
First he contacted the 'webmaster' well guess who put the image up?M. Valdemar said:
The webmaster may not be willing to admit he stole an image and ITS his job to know where images come from; the NY Times is not a high school newspaper it has a substanial staff. of which I was one for 18 years.
Contact the newspaper and submit a bill for the use of the image AND surcharge it for not giving you credit. Send a snail mail letter registered, and email the webmaster again cc'ing Tom Bodkin, Bill Keller, and Jill Abramson. Make sure you state you are sending a bill for the use of the image.
furcafe
Veteran
Actually, whether or not you have a model release has nothing to do w/whether the photographer "owns" the photo. As others have pointed out, a photographer has the copyright to his/her photos as soon as he/she takes it, though he/she can later sell it, give it away, etc. However, a person in a photo may have their own rights to the image that are completely separate from the photographer (& may not necessarily having anything to do w/copyright). The model release is simply a way for the subject (the "model") to transfer ("release") his/her rights to the photographer & give the photographer a free hand to do what they want w/the photo; it doesn't have anything to do w/the photographer's rights to their own work.
POINT OF VIEW said:
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
A better test: something owned by Di$ney or Nooze Corp (aka "Fox").varjag said:
rlouzan
Well-known
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
rlouzan said:
You think that running a photo of a murder victim is irresponsible? I would love to hear your definition of irresponsible. This has been a part of journalism since photos began running in newspapers. You should have known that before you ever went to work for that "news agency" you said you worked for.
(again, we aren't talking about the copyright issue here)
V
varjag
Guest
Yeah.. MPAA stormtroopers at your door quicker than you can cite the creditsGabriel M.A. said:
rlouzan
Well-known
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner
*What is "irresponsible" is to use a picture without the photographer´s CONSENT.
*Are you shure?
Thread: Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner
*What is "irresponsible" is to use a picture without the photographer´s CONSENT.
tbarker13 said:
*Are you shure?
Thread: Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner
ChadHahn
Established
Reading this thread reminds me of the famous picture of Che. Even though the picture was used freely for years when a vodka company used the photo in an ad the photographer sued and won.
The article can be read here.
Photographer wins copyright on famous Che Guevara image
Alberto Diaz Gutierrez took the photograph of Che Guevera in 1960.
September 16, 2000
Web posted at: 12:46 PM EDT (1646 GMT)
LONDON (AP) -- Social justice, si. Vodka advertisements, no.
The Cuban photographer who snapped a famous picture of Che Guevara has won copyright protection for the image from a British court as part of a financial settlement with companies that had used it in an ad for Smirnoff vodka, his lawyers said Friday.
Taken in 1960, the photo of Guevara -- with long curly hair, a tilted beret and a dark, intense gaze -- became a revolutionary icon. One of the world's most widely reproduced images, it appeared on countless T-shirts and posters.
Throughout the years, photographer Alberto Diaz Gutierrez, who goes by the professional name Alberto Korda, never made any money from the use of his famous picture. His motives in bringing the lawsuit were not financial, he said.
"As a supporter of the ideals for which Che Guevara died, I am not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world," he said. "But I am categorically against the exploitation of Che's image for the promotion of products such as alcohol, or for any purpose that denigrates the reputation of Che."
The 72-year-old Diaz Gutierrez spoke to reporters at a London exhibition of Cuban photography. He and supporters stood in front of a print of the famous picture to toast their legal victory -- with Cuban rum.
The lawsuit was filed in August by the London-based Cuba Solidarity Campaign on Diaz Gutierrez's behalf against the photo agency Rex Features Ltd. and the advertising agency Lowe Lintas Ltd.
The amount of the settlement, approved by the High Court on Thursday, was not disclosed. Lawyer Simon Goldberg said the ruling's real significance lay in the fact that the court had asserted Diaz Gutierrez's copyright.
"The declaration of copyright which the court affirmed will send a clear message to those who reproduce photographic images which they wrongly consider to be in the public domain without the copyright owner's consent," he said.
Rex Features and Lowe Lintas had no comment other than a joint statement, signed by all the parties, saying the claim had been "sensibly and amicably resolved."
When the suit was filed, Lowe Lintas, then known as Lowe Howard-Spink, said it had acquired use of the Guevara image through Rex Features in good faith, and denied infringement of any copyright.
Diaz Gutierrez, who lives in Havana, had complained that the ad, for a spicy vodka, trivialized the historic importance of his photograph. The image was superimposed on a hammer and sickle motif, with a chili pepper used to depict the sickle.
The photo of a steely-eyed Che, whose real name was Ernesto Guevara, was taken March 5, 1960, at a memorial service for more than 100 crew members of a Belgian arms cargo ship killed in an attack Cuba blamed on counterrevolutionary forces aided by the United States.
The Argentine-born Guevara was a key figure in Cuba's 1959 revolution, alongside Fidel Castro. When he was killed by the Bolivian army in October 1967, he was hailed a martyr of the revolution.
Diaz Gutierrez said he would donate the settlement and any other proceeds from the photograph to children's medical care in Cuba.
The article can be read here.
Photographer wins copyright on famous Che Guevara image
Alberto Diaz Gutierrez took the photograph of Che Guevera in 1960.
September 16, 2000
Web posted at: 12:46 PM EDT (1646 GMT)
LONDON (AP) -- Social justice, si. Vodka advertisements, no.
The Cuban photographer who snapped a famous picture of Che Guevara has won copyright protection for the image from a British court as part of a financial settlement with companies that had used it in an ad for Smirnoff vodka, his lawyers said Friday.
Taken in 1960, the photo of Guevara -- with long curly hair, a tilted beret and a dark, intense gaze -- became a revolutionary icon. One of the world's most widely reproduced images, it appeared on countless T-shirts and posters.
Throughout the years, photographer Alberto Diaz Gutierrez, who goes by the professional name Alberto Korda, never made any money from the use of his famous picture. His motives in bringing the lawsuit were not financial, he said.
"As a supporter of the ideals for which Che Guevara died, I am not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world," he said. "But I am categorically against the exploitation of Che's image for the promotion of products such as alcohol, or for any purpose that denigrates the reputation of Che."
The 72-year-old Diaz Gutierrez spoke to reporters at a London exhibition of Cuban photography. He and supporters stood in front of a print of the famous picture to toast their legal victory -- with Cuban rum.
The lawsuit was filed in August by the London-based Cuba Solidarity Campaign on Diaz Gutierrez's behalf against the photo agency Rex Features Ltd. and the advertising agency Lowe Lintas Ltd.
The amount of the settlement, approved by the High Court on Thursday, was not disclosed. Lawyer Simon Goldberg said the ruling's real significance lay in the fact that the court had asserted Diaz Gutierrez's copyright.
"The declaration of copyright which the court affirmed will send a clear message to those who reproduce photographic images which they wrongly consider to be in the public domain without the copyright owner's consent," he said.
Rex Features and Lowe Lintas had no comment other than a joint statement, signed by all the parties, saying the claim had been "sensibly and amicably resolved."
When the suit was filed, Lowe Lintas, then known as Lowe Howard-Spink, said it had acquired use of the Guevara image through Rex Features in good faith, and denied infringement of any copyright.
Diaz Gutierrez, who lives in Havana, had complained that the ad, for a spicy vodka, trivialized the historic importance of his photograph. The image was superimposed on a hammer and sickle motif, with a chili pepper used to depict the sickle.
The photo of a steely-eyed Che, whose real name was Ernesto Guevara, was taken March 5, 1960, at a memorial service for more than 100 crew members of a Belgian arms cargo ship killed in an attack Cuba blamed on counterrevolutionary forces aided by the United States.
The Argentine-born Guevara was a key figure in Cuba's 1959 revolution, alongside Fidel Castro. When he was killed by the Bolivian army in October 1967, he was hailed a martyr of the revolution.
Diaz Gutierrez said he would donate the settlement and any other proceeds from the photograph to children's medical care in Cuba.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
rlouzan said:
Hmmm. I guess I'm not sure where you are on this. Earlier in this thread you said the real question was whether the photo should have been published at all. You asked whether it helped readers understand the tragedy.
I guess you've backed off of that stance and are now focusing instead on the copyright issue.
rlouzan
Well-known
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner
Tim,
Joe never authorized the NYTimes, NBC, ... to publish the picture, and in "my view" the story could run sans picture. Even for fair use, you have to contact the author first.
No authorization = No picture
OK?
Tim,
Joe never authorized the NYTimes, NBC, ... to publish the picture, and in "my view" the story could run sans picture. Even for fair use, you have to contact the author first.
No authorization = No picture
OK?
tbarker13 said:
Last edited:
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Ok. But it just totally ignores the real-world pressures of daily journalism. Which is why the courts have historically been more lenient in situations where newspapers or broadcast outlets have to make quick decisions.
If they knew that Joe shot the photo and made no attempt to contact him, then I heartily condemn them. Fire all the editors involved.
But if they were acting in good faith -- believing the family had the authority to allow the photo to be used -- then I can't get too bent out of shape. And certainly can't call it irresponsible. Just unfortunate.
If they knew that Joe shot the photo and made no attempt to contact him, then I heartily condemn them. Fire all the editors involved.
But if they were acting in good faith -- believing the family had the authority to allow the photo to be used -- then I can't get too bent out of shape. And certainly can't call it irresponsible. Just unfortunate.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
It would be interesting to 'borrow' an image from the NYT or an AP affiliate media outlet, and see if their response is as docile as some here suggest the OP's should be. I'd wager that they'd have lawyers knocking at your door before you could get your CF card reformatted.
But, of course, we know there's no such thing as a double standard with the corporate media, right?
~Joe
But, of course, we know there's no such thing as a double standard with the corporate media, right?
~Joe