Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner

JoeV said:
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
Click to expand...


Actually, this happens all the time. I've seen my own stories pop up on websites, newsletters, etc., without any permission granted by my newspaper. I can't remember a single time that we sued someone over it.

Besides that, however, you are making the big leap here that they actually knew someone named Joe shot that photo. Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't.
But what you propose is doing something with the intent of violating a copyright.
 
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner

Tim,

I agree with you;) and I´m glad we finally reached an agreement.



"Truth needs no ally"

Howard Chapnick


tbarker13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you all for your input. I really appreciate it.

Here's what I have decided to do . . .

As a member of ASMP I contacted their legal department and gave their staff attorney the link to this thread.

I fully expect to abide by whatever ASMP's legal department tells me is the right course of action -- this is their field of expertise and hopefully this is one of the benefits of membership.

Thanks again, all. I will update this thread in the next few days when I have more info.
 
This thread is nothing short of an astounding read. Sparing my thoughts, just to clear up some absurdity-

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...

#1. Unless otherwise stated in a deal memo in regards to said photograph, the photographer administers all rights as provided under copyright law (which clearly many people need to read) the moment the photo is taken. In many circumstances you do not need a model nor property release to publish a photograph. What you *explicitly* need a model (and/or property) release for is to use someone's likeness in direct association with advertising for a product.

#2. gets complicated, but to suggest that the act of giving someone a print of a photo allows them unrestricted rights to republish and collect profit from that photo goes to the heart of absurdity. We are talking about copyright law here, NOT trademark law (where this logic enters sort of with first commercial use and all that). If someone gives you a Star Wars DVD for your birthday you are not permitted under law to open a movie theater and collect ticket sales for showing your gift. What you are purchasing, essentially, is a restricted license to show that dvd at your will in a non commercial arena. Gifting a photograph to a private party does not suggest forfeiture of administrative rights for commerical use.

#3. dont take legal advice from the internet, but geeeeeeeesh, do try to use some logic when reading some of these posts (mine included).
 
1) The OP discovers that his photograph has been used as an ID head shot in a news story without being credited to him.

2) The photograph has been previously posted on a public website. It is ambiguous whether the photo was "stolen" from Flickr or whether a third party provided the photo to the newspaper.

3) It is reasonable for the OP to ask the newspaper to credit that photo to him. If he asks and is persistent, and provides some evidence that the photo is his, there is a good chance the newspaper will correct the omission and give him credit. This is a reasonable outcome that is possibly achievable.

4) It is also reasonable to ask for a standard photo fee, and the newspaper may pay him without too much fuss.

These are the facts.

Of course, there are dozens of copyright laws that may not actually apply to this situation that can be discovered on the internet or called to mind in anecdotal situations.

Then, suddenly, everyone is a legal expert. It's a very emotional issue for most amateurs, but the fact remains that even with a blatant image theft one will have to prove damages. Most of the posters are imagining that some huge settlement is going to be possible.

The use of a headshot in a topical news story does not constitute some vast conspiracy to make a profit off of someone else's property, no matter how high a value some armchair "lawyer" wants to assign to it.

The fact of the matter is that in a real world evaluation of this, the OP stands to collect little beyond a small fee, if anything else, no matter how far he pursues the claim. This may be unfortunate in the eyes of many, but it's not something that will happen in the "real world" no matter how you interpret copyright law.

Again, one will have to prove damages to pursue it legally.

Google can be your friend. You'll find hundreds of such threads hotly debated by armchair online "lawyers". You won't find many instances of huge monetary awards collected.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fair+use+photo+news+story+flickr&btnG=Google+Search
 
What's described below is something totally different. His photo was used in an advertising campaign.

This has nothing to do with the situation described in this thread.


ChadHahn said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
For what it is worth

For what it is worth

You do not have to prove loss, only that you own the image in question.

The NYT does not want to use pictures they don't have the rights to.

I understand your feelings, but you really should at least email Michelle McNally at the NYT mentioned above, and just ask how they came by the photo.

I have no idea about the other outlets, or what their reaction would be.

As others have mentioned, it is highly likely AP or the NYT got it from someone in the family, and if that is the case, just chalk it up to experience and let it go, because by giving it to the AP or NYT, the family gave the news outlet permission to use the picture. They may not have technically had the right to do that, but, frankly, what's the point of even mentioning it further.

If you want to at least take a small step to protect your images, you can put a credit line in the information section of the meta data and make sure the data stays with the image when it moves.

All this is meaningless in light of your loss. We live in dangerous times.
 
lssohn said:
You do not have to prove loss, only that you own the image in question.

The NYT does not want to use pictures they don't have the rights to.

I understand your feelings, but you really should at least email Michelle McNally at the NYT mentioned above, and just ask how they came by the photo.

I have no idea about the other outlets, or what their reaction would be.

As others have mentioned, it is highly likely AP or the NYT got it from someone in the family, and if that is the case, just chalk it up to experience and let it go, because by giving it to the AP or NYT, the family gave the news outlet permission to use the picture. They may not have technically had the right to do that, but, frankly, what's the point of even mentioning it further.

If you want to at least take a small step to protect your images, you can put a credit line in the information section of the meta data and make sure the data stays with the image when it moves.

All this is meaningless in light of your loss. We live in dangerous times.
Click to expand...

very interesting first post on RFF.....
 
This problem with the New York Times, although serious, is nothing compared to John McCain's problems with the New York Times. Again, I will say, you have to call people on their mistakes. And you don't say it at the golf course you do it publicly. And if that requires litigation or somehow being able to demand a public apology, you do it. We (including me) let others walk all over us.
 
The image was posted on the Internet with a copyright notice. If indeed it was lifted by the NYT, then it's a simple matter. Was it right or not? Compensation would not be huge, I agree. But that's not the point.

As Carter says, we can't let organizations walk all over us. What's next? It's the nose of the camel, IMO.
 
M. Valdemar said:
What's described below is something totally different. His photo was used in an advertising campaign.

This has nothing to do with the situation described in this thread.
Click to expand...

I believe it does. Some posters say that if you don't have a model release or post your picture on the internet then you have no rights. The Che case proves that to be false.
 
ChadHahn said:
I believe it does. Some posters say that if you don't have a model release or post your picture on the internet then you have no rights. The Che case proves that to be false.
Click to expand...

You always have rights, but if you haven't registered the copyright it's up to you to defend them. I assume you put a copyright notice in the exif data. If so the question becomes: was the exif data still with the file when the NYT took it over? If so, they'd have seen it and they'd have no excuse.

But what the hey, they never have an excuse for the crap they do. They just stonewall and pretend it never happened.
 
OK, everyone is pontificating and offering their somewhat far-fetched interpretation of the "law".

Let's do something concrete. Suppose God just appointed you Minister of Public Fairness, and you could proclaim and enforce anything you want in regards to this situation.

1) What would you make the New York Times do to rectify this problem? (You could make them do anything you think is right)

2) How much money do you think the OP is owed by the Times and/or anyone else who swiped the image? Give a specific monetary award.

(It's all in fun, non-binding, don't be afraid to post your opinion. IF it was entirely up to you, how would you settle this? Answer questions one and two simply. Let's see what the consensus is. C'mon, you guys can all award anything you want.)
 
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner

Standard procedure is:

1) Register picture (Photographer)

2) Ask permission (Mag)

3) Quote a usage fee/terms (Photographer)

4) Acceptance of terms (Mag)

5) Send Picture + Delivery memo (Photographer)

6) Publication (Mag)

7) Send invoice (Photographer)


No se empieza la casa por el tejado.:angel:






M. Valdemar said:
OK, everyone is pontificating and offering their somewhat far-fetched interpretation of the "law".

Let's do something concrete. Suppose God just appointed you Minister of Public Fairness, and you could proclaim and enforce anything you want in regards to this situation.

1) What would you make the New York Times do to rectify this problem? (You could make them do anything you think is right)

2) How much money do you think the OP is owed by the Times and/or anyone else who swiped the image? Give a specific monetary award.

(It's all in fun, non-binding, don't be afraid to post your opinion. IF it was entirely up to you, how would you settle this? Answer questions one and two simply. Let's see what the consensus is. C'mon, you guys can all award anything you want.)
Click to expand...
 

1) What would you make the New York Times do to rectify this problem? (You could make them do anything you think is right)

Public apology (NYTimes, NY1, NBC, ...)

Stop unauthorized use.


2) How much money do you think the OP is owed by the Times and/or anyone else who swiped the image? Give a specific monetary award.

NYTimes: + $1200 (Usage Fee + unauthorized usage/s)

NY1: + $1500 (Usage fee + unauthorized usage/s)

NBC: + $2400 (Usage fee +unauthorized usage/s + syndication)

...


 
Last edited:
Joe, first let me say I am very sorry for your loss. I read the Times' story and it is a horrific one.
I am a police/crime reporter and photographer and such stories are my job to do. I work at a small Canadian newspaper. When such awful things happen, I call family, friends, or others who knew the victim well. The story is always approached as a tribute to the person's life.
I always ask the family if they have a photo of the deceased they would like us to use. Most times they provide it.
We had a murder here recently and a competing newspaper put up a photo of the victim on their website with their story. The photo was of the man, obviously at a party and having a good time. I believe they grabbed it from facebook.
Needless to say, it was pulled when the family found out; the man was killed at a party.
The policy in our newsroom is NEVER to pirate a photo from any public site, as in facebook or flickr. It is the lazy way out, and the family at least deserves the chance to provide the photo.
I don't know if it's illegal to use photos in the public domain in the US, but there is certainly that small matter of ethics; which seems to have been forgotten.
By all means, contact the editor for their policy. I'd be most interested to hear their defence, (and how they obtained your photo).
At least, your photo did some good by putting a face with a name in a horrible tragedy.
 
OK, I find this somewhat reasonable.

Anyone else? Let's quantify all these opinions......

rlouzan said:

1) What would you make the New York Times do to rectify this problem? (You could make them do anything you think is right)

Public apology (NYTimes, NY1, NBC, ...)

Stop unauthorized use.


2) How much money do you think the OP is owed by the Times and/or anyone else who swiped the image? Give a specific monetary award.

NYTimes: + $1200 (Usage Fee + unauthorized usage/s)

NY1: + $1500 (Usage fee + unauthorized usage/s)

NBC: + $2400 (Usage fee +unauthorized usage/s + syndication)

...
Click to expand...
 
If it was me , I'd ask NYT to;
-provide a credit.
-determine a reasonable/market based fee for the image
-send the funds to the estate / or a charity she supported

Thats, my 2 cents.
 
For clarity's sake . . .

This image ONLY existed on my Flickr site and on my desktop system -- until this happened.

I never sold or gave a print of this picture to anyone.

I DID include a copyright notice in the EXIF at the time I posted it. (I changed the title from the file name last week).

Click link to see EXIF data.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_exif.gne?id=1054377313&context=set-72157601314570625

And please let's not lose sight of the fact that a friend was brutally murdered and that is the real loss. I am glad that in some small way I can help put a human face on this tragedy. I simply found it disturbing that the picture would be appropriated without my knowledge or consent. And I found it traumatic to learn about the murder by seeing my picture of my friend on the local NBC news.

Appreciate all the input. Waiting to hear back from legal department at ASMP.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom