Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
This is such a sad tale that my tiny problems seem totally insignificant in comparison, but I wanted to get some advice from you all because I'm nagged by this.
I took an M8 snapshot of a friend at a guitar forum get together last summer. She was brutally murdered last week in New York. Somehow the media got hold of my snapshot and ran it without bothering to contact me. The shot was posted on Flickr with an "All Rights Reserved" tag.
I found out about my friend's murder by seeing my picture of her on NBC. I was later told that the New York Times and Time Warner Cable's NY1 station were also using it.
Its fine to use the picture, but to not even attempt to contact the photographer? Does THAT seem right to you?
I know, it's almost a moot point -- and entirely trivial in comparison to what happened to Kathy -- but I did decide to email the webmaster of the New York Times and ask them to post my credit but haven't heard back.
Its not even really about the credit lord knows this is not a picture I want credit for for credit's sake -- its about using an image posted on the net, clearly marked All Rights Reserved without even trying to contact the photographer. I don't get that.
Here's the shot. If you live in NYC, you may have seen it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/musicandlight/2273369574/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/musicandlight/1054377313/in/set-72157601314570625/
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refer...e/f/kathryn_faughey/index.html?inline=nyt-per
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?&aid=78516&search_result=1&stid=8
I took an M8 snapshot of a friend at a guitar forum get together last summer. She was brutally murdered last week in New York. Somehow the media got hold of my snapshot and ran it without bothering to contact me. The shot was posted on Flickr with an "All Rights Reserved" tag.
I found out about my friend's murder by seeing my picture of her on NBC. I was later told that the New York Times and Time Warner Cable's NY1 station were also using it.
Its fine to use the picture, but to not even attempt to contact the photographer? Does THAT seem right to you?
I know, it's almost a moot point -- and entirely trivial in comparison to what happened to Kathy -- but I did decide to email the webmaster of the New York Times and ask them to post my credit but haven't heard back.
Its not even really about the credit lord knows this is not a picture I want credit for for credit's sake -- its about using an image posted on the net, clearly marked All Rights Reserved without even trying to contact the photographer. I don't get that.
Here's the shot. If you live in NYC, you may have seen it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/musicandlight/2273369574/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/musicandlight/1054377313/in/set-72157601314570625/
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refer...e/f/kathryn_faughey/index.html?inline=nyt-per
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?&aid=78516&search_result=1&stid=8
Last edited:
David Goldfarb
Well-known
Indeed, I have seen that photo and also a photo of her with a guitar. My condolences. It was such a horrific story, even among murder stories.
These are professional news outlets, and they should know better. Yes, they should contact you and inquire about rights before publishing photos off the net.
These are professional news outlets, and they should know better. Yes, they should contact you and inquire about rights before publishing photos off the net.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
It's a shame that these news organizations act so carelessly when they should be aware that in this world you could hit them with a lawsuit for unauthorized use. This must have been the work of some very green employee, or an intern or someone too eager to please, and ignorant of the fact that photographs posted in the web can be viewed by everyone, but that doesn't mean they are not copyrighted.
If you threaten them with a lawsuit you'll see them react very quickly.
Sorry about your loss... it's even worse when it happened like you said. In my town, the main news is the shooting, so we've been kind of isolated from anything else.
And yours-truly simply never watches the TV news. Never... ever...
If you threaten them with a lawsuit you'll see them react very quickly.
Sorry about your loss... it's even worse when it happened like you said. In my town, the main news is the shooting, so we've been kind of isolated from anything else.
And yours-truly simply never watches the TV news. Never... ever...
M. Valdemar
Well-known
It may have been sent to the Times from a third party. They might not even be aware of your Flickr posts.
I don't believe you would gain much, if anything, from a lawsuit.
I don't believe you would gain much, if anything, from a lawsuit.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Very sad what happened to her. My fiancee's father is a psychotherapist and he's said that the whole community is worried.
I guess "all rights reserved" doesn't mean as much when they can just download the file.
You might send a query to asktheeditor@nytimes.com
Michele McNally is the Managing Photo editor there. I'd address questions directly to her. I apologize that I don't have a direct email address.
I guess "all rights reserved" doesn't mean as much when they can just download the file.
You might send a query to asktheeditor@nytimes.com
Michele McNally is the Managing Photo editor there. I'd address questions directly to her. I apologize that I don't have a direct email address.
Ben Z
Veteran
Horrendous tragedy, not to mention the callous use of your photo by some lazy reporter (more likely it was some assistant to an assistant who thought they were really clever). I'm sure there's a law somewhere that deals with it.
George S.
How many is enough?
It's also on page 6 of today's NY Post paper.
MY bottom line- If they used it in a commercial manner (which they did since they SELL those newspapers and NBC charges for commercial time) then you are entitled to compensation. Period. No matter that it now seems like a tragic photo, it's YOUR photo.
MY bottom line- If they used it in a commercial manner (which they did since they SELL those newspapers and NBC charges for commercial time) then you are entitled to compensation. Period. No matter that it now seems like a tragic photo, it's YOUR photo.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Mr Valdemar, I agree with you. He wouldn't get much if he actually went for the legal recourse... but it would worry the people at this places.
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
Thanks, I don't want to sue anybody. I guess I didn't want to learn about this the way I did.
The whole incident with Kathy has shaken me so badly that I don't know what to do -- and this silly little thing is like a pebble in my shoe. Its like if I can focus on this issue I can put off dealing with what really happened.
I was about to delete my post when I saw there were replies already.
The whole incident with Kathy has shaken me so badly that I don't know what to do -- and this silly little thing is like a pebble in my shoe. Its like if I can focus on this issue I can put off dealing with what really happened.
I was about to delete my post when I saw there were replies already.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
A number of my photographs have been republished without my permission and with no credit.
I usually send an email if I notice it. Sometimes I get an apology and a credit, most of the time, no.
The ONLY time I got really annoyed was when I gave about 25 shots to someone who was doing a website about someone I used to work for.
Someone else lifted ALL the photos, and practically copied the website verbatim for their own website. For that one I sent them a letter referring them to my lawyer, and threatened legal action. (If MY lawyer actually wrote the letter, it would have cost me $500 or so, so I didn't ask him).
That did the trick and my photos were removed, but it was a little silly since the photos have since been copied and reposted on dozens of sites.
It's a Sisyphean task once the cat's out of the bag.
I usually send an email if I notice it. Sometimes I get an apology and a credit, most of the time, no.
The ONLY time I got really annoyed was when I gave about 25 shots to someone who was doing a website about someone I used to work for.
Someone else lifted ALL the photos, and practically copied the website verbatim for their own website. For that one I sent them a letter referring them to my lawyer, and threatened legal action. (If MY lawyer actually wrote the letter, it would have cost me $500 or so, so I didn't ask him).
That did the trick and my photos were removed, but it was a little silly since the photos have since been copied and reposted on dozens of sites.
It's a Sisyphean task once the cat's out of the bag.
photogdave
Shops local
Absolutely horrible. Words are useless.
There is no excuse for running your photos without permission. IF it comes to a lawsuit perhaps the proceeds could be used to set up a trust in your friend's name or be donated to a charity.
Very sad.
There is no excuse for running your photos without permission. IF it comes to a lawsuit perhaps the proceeds could be used to set up a trust in your friend's name or be donated to a charity.
Very sad.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
You do have recourse. I would get a lawyer. I would contact the NYTs.
It was a horric story. My condolences.
It was a horric story. My condolences.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Yes, it's easy to say "get a lawyer" on a forum, but do you have any idea what a lawyer cost?
And then you'd have to prove damages. Since the photo was posted publicly and taken in a public place, that would be very difficult. And the photo was not used for a commercial purpose, say, in an advertising campaign, but to simply ID a person in a news story.
Very little, if any, damage provable there.
It's very easy for the layman to yell "get a lawyer", and get "outraged" on a forum, but in the real world, what one would most probably end up with is enormous legal fees and little, if any, compensation.
I would think that if one was persistent and did not get hysterical in their communications, they best one could hope for would be a credit after the fact.
And then you'd have to prove damages. Since the photo was posted publicly and taken in a public place, that would be very difficult. And the photo was not used for a commercial purpose, say, in an advertising campaign, but to simply ID a person in a news story.
Very little, if any, damage provable there.
It's very easy for the layman to yell "get a lawyer", and get "outraged" on a forum, but in the real world, what one would most probably end up with is enormous legal fees and little, if any, compensation.
I would think that if one was persistent and did not get hysterical in their communications, they best one could hope for would be a credit after the fact.
kbg32 said:
Sam R
Established
Sad story
Sad story
Probably got the photo from the family and they did not know who the photog was..
Sad story
Probably got the photo from the family and they did not know who the photog was..
RdEoSg
Well-known
Like Sam said, in all likely hood, one of the reporters somewhere asked a family member if they had a photo, and they probably gave that one.
Unless of course no one had a copy of the photo except you on flickr. At the very least they should all be able to tell you how they got the photo.
You could give it a few days and then write a letter to the editor and see if they run it. I'd stress the point of how this is the way you found out about your friend, by seeing your own photo in their papers and asking them what their policy is for using photos with out permission and then putting their own rights reserved tags under it.
My condolences, I've followed the story on CNN.com as well.
Unless of course no one had a copy of the photo except you on flickr. At the very least they should all be able to tell you how they got the photo.
You could give it a few days and then write a letter to the editor and see if they run it. I'd stress the point of how this is the way you found out about your friend, by seeing your own photo in their papers and asking them what their policy is for using photos with out permission and then putting their own rights reserved tags under it.
My condolences, I've followed the story on CNN.com as well.
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
Sam R said:
I think you must be right.
benmacphoto
Well-known
I am sorry to hear about this. But unfortunitly no one needs permission to take a photograph from a third party like flickr thanks to the orphan works bill
Its terrible but thanks to our government and all there is no need for credits if the image is taken from a third party.
Its terrible but thanks to our government and all there is no need for credits if the image is taken from a third party.
RdEoSg
Well-known
I found it on cnn.com as well with an AP tag on it just so you know.
My condolences...this seems trivial in light of the events, but it's still not right.
This is low class, but not surprising for the Times.
If it's not already registered with the copyright office there is little recourse other than ask for photo credit.
This is low class, but not surprising for the Times.
If it's not already registered with the copyright office there is little recourse other than ask for photo credit.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
M. Valdemar said:
Funny, I didn't hear anyone yell and I did not see any hysteria here. I merely made a suggestion. I know exactly what a lawyer would cost, and I am not a layman is terms of copyright infringements. Speaking to lawyer if one needed to, to see how or if to proceed, might be prudent. Or not.