Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner

Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner

I´m speechless ...

sitemistic said:
You are not going to get any money for it. How far you want to push in forcing an apology depends on how deep your pockets are. All the rest is just discussion.
Click to expand...
 
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner

What can you do against who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists?

George Orwell


sitemistic said:
It's a snapshot. Used in a memorial. It has no monetary value. I can't even imagine the OP giving it a second thought. I don't care how anyone uses my 600 pixel, 72 dpi photos from the web...even the NYT. Good, grief.
Click to expand...
 
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.

Even for fair use, you have to contact the author first.
 
How many times have you looked at the obits in the paper and seen the photos that run with them? Often it's a photo of a gorgeous 30 year old face in a dated hairdo and out of date looking clothes, while the text tells you she was born in 1918. Loving family members supplied the picture, probably an old studio portrait, because that's the way they want people to remember her. Nobody has a clue as to who shot the photo or exactly when and where it was taken.
 
rlouzan, there are all kinds of laws and ethical concerns. But, you got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. You can't fight every battle.

I guess we´ll just have to wait and see. It´s not always about the money.

 
rlouzan said:
rlouzan, there are all kinds of laws and ethical concerns. But, you got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. You can't fight every battle.

I guess we´ll just have to wait and see. It´s not always about the money.

Click to expand...

Rlouzan,

Just a minor point. PLEASE stop writing in white. I - and anyone else using VBP Legacy as a colour scheme can't read a word you write without highlighting it.

Regards,

Bill
 
sitemistic said:
rlouzan, there are all kinds of laws and ethical concerns. But, you got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. You can't fight every battle.

In this case, though, what did the photographer lose? What did the NYT steal? Did they stand to profit by it? Did they run it in an ad? No, likely on deadline, they were trying to get a memorial in the paper.

It would never occur to me to demand a credit line on a photo used in a memorial, and I'm a professional. This thing has been blown all out of perspective.
Click to expand...

I haven't decided on a course of action, neither have I demanded anything monetarily or credit-wise from anyone. I simply expressed my dismay at a copyrighted photograph being lifted off the net and asked for advice. Have you actually read my posts?
 
Al Kaplan said:
How many times have you looked at the obits in the paper and seen the photos that run with them? Often it's a photo of a gorgeous 30 year old face in a dated hairdo and out of date looking clothes, while the text tells you she was born in 1918. Loving family members supplied the picture, probably an old studio portrait, because that's the way they want people to remember her. Nobody has a clue as to who shot the photo or exactly when and where it was taken.
Click to expand...
Good point. But I'm sure you'll agree that obits, as a matter of regular course, are more of a family/friends matter, than a world-publicized, public, murder investigation. Common sense, we hardly knew ye.

So it boils down to one lesson learned: watermarks, watermarks, watermarks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom