EVERY IMAGE HAS A STORY
GOT A GREAT IMAGE?
SHARE IT WITH THE WORLD.
We're just relaunching in January 2012 with a new angle. DSLR Blog will be about images and their stories (we also write about other topics on Photography too). We welcome submissions from any type of photographer - from baby portraits to gut-wrentching humanitarian photography to pure art. Read our submission guidelines.Join Our Flickr Group!
Category Archives: Legal Issues, Ethics, Model Releases
Virgin Mobile Flickr Photo PR Disaster
I just read this fascinating story over at Gillianic Tendencies
What it seems to have happened is that Virgin Mobile, or an advertising agency they hired, decided to save lotsa moola and attempt some good PR (backfiring, obviously) by using Flickr photos with Creative Commons licenses (specifically, the ones that allowed commercial use) in a recent ad campaign. Which, fine, is legal, though, perhaps, cheap-assed. What’s getting people especially crazy over this (and this doesn’t include me, thankfully) is that they’re using these photos without the models’ permissions
It seems some random person has spotted Gillians Flickr photo of a smashed car used on an advertisement. No problem there, it was CC licensed in a way that meant only attribution was necessary. Notification to these Flickr users would have been the polite thing, but ok it’s not a requirement.
The crazy thing though is there are people in these advertisements. Without model releases. Being insulted.
There is more coverage here and over at Flickr.
Tags: flickr, virgin, copyright, cc, license, pr, disaster
BBC Ripping Off Flickr Photographers?
It seems the venerable bastion of public-funded media, “Auntie” BBC, is being a bit naughty when it comes to sourcing photography from Flickr users according to Editorial Photographers UK
Mark’s or Sparks’ clever wheeze was to sign up with the photo sharing site, then attempt to persuade his new friends to hand over their work to the Beeb – for free naturally. Of course there’s nothing new in cheapskate editors scouring Flickr for freebies. And the Beeb has excelled in its pursuit of license payers for free content for its viewers’ galleries, all under the terms of an infamous contract that allows the BBC to earn money from the pictures while placing any uncomfortable legal repercussions firmly on the contributor. But the Sparks scam has a whole new spin to it. He doesn’t just want pictures for the viewers’ gallery; nor is he asking if he can use existing material to illustrate BBC stories. He wants people to agree to give him unfettered access to all future material that might be posted on Flickr, thereby creating a constantly updated pool of images that the BBC could access at any time for free, and of course resell at a profit. A picture library for free in fact.
.. it seems also they are not above just taking what they want either …
But oh dear, what’s this then? Why, it’s a picture lifted without permission and used on the BBC Scotland news website! It’s not as if Sparks and Co couldn’t have asked. The original image had an almost indecent amount of copyright and contact information, not only in Photoshop’s File Info, but underneath it on the website where it was first published. Presumably BBC Scotland work at such a fast pace they simply can’t keep up with the number of pictures they lift without permission.
You can see how a photographer would be flattered and would be willing to offer up their work just for the portfolio/resume potential and bragging rights. The BBC though should be above this kind of thing, they should be leading the way in fair treatment of the public as they are supposed to be there to serve the public. They will get nowhere arguing they are under funded, they are certainly well funded in comparison to other media outlets who do pay and are not propped up by a television tax.
Personally I see nothing wrong with the BBC asking for free contributions. The pictures are submitted voluntarily after all. They just need to get their legal people to be a bit more fair with what they have people agreeing to.
See the full discussion at flickr here
Technorati Tags: bbc, photography, scandal, media, copyright, photographers, law, rights, news
Photography Permission Denied
Here’s the scenario. You know there is a pretty cool place you want to photograph (non-commercially) but you also know even though the exposure would be good for them they might not take kindly to you “sneaking” some pics without asking so you write off and ask permission.
That’s what Thomas Hawk did, and they said no. Even though there is already a bunch of pictures floating around and he might bring in some much needed attention for the museum.
This place I had never heard of until he wrote about it, The Neon Museum, thinks keeping images of it protected helps with their mission of “cultural enrichment for diverse members of our international community” (it seems they only want to serve the international community of ‘driving distance from the museum’).
I just got back a rather disappointing email from the Neon Musuem in Las Vegas. I had written to the museum to inquire about taking photographs of some of their neon signs this past weekend while in Las Vegas. I’m not going to link to the museum. You can find them on Google if you want. For those of you who don’t know what the Neon Museum is, it’s a boneyard of sorts of many of the old Las Vegas neon signs. It’s a place that these signs go to die and the non-profit Neon Museum states their mission as “to collect, preserve, study and exhibit neon signs and associated artifacts to inspire educational and cultural enrichment for diverse members of our international community.” Unfortunately their policy with regards to photography does not seem to fit with their stated mission.
What they should have said was “If people can see your pictures for free who is going to visit and put money in our donations box”. Then they would have a point. It would be tempting for Thomas to just go and sneak some pictures like everyone else but then he would lose his moral high ground, I really doubt he will stoop to that.
It’s not an easy thing, on the one hand without publicity no-one will visit so they close, on the other if people can see the stuff without visiting they close any way. Really they should be smart and work out a limited way that he can take some pics and they get good coverage without giving away the whole thing. Until they do that, they are just making their mission a joke.
Technorati Tags: photography, ethics, issues, news, rights
My good news is Strobists Dilemma
What a coincidence. On the same day I give away a photograph for free to be used by British Airways inflight magazine I read this from Strobist
Try to resist the cheap thrill of being paid (very little) for a photo. The true expense of that action is that you ultimately deprive someone who has devoted their life to shooting professionally much of a chance of financial survival. If you are good enough to work for pay, you are good enough to work harder and raise the standards of the profession, not devalue them.
On the one hand I can totally get your point David, I really do. And you know, I do feel a little guilt for giving my photograph away (thanks for ruining a great moment in my photography career! heh).
Having pondered on it for a little while though here are my thoughts
- If I say “no” someone else will say “yes”.
- The only person I would be depriving is me and sorry but depriving me hurts a lot more than depriving you from where I am standing.
- How the heck am I supposed to build a portfolio if I have to charge what you consider fair rates to people who consider those rates anything but.
- The people who want cheap or free will not pay more than that.
- What makes the photography industry any different?
My last point needs some clarification. Consider web sites. A company comes to me and says “I want a web site to sell my widgets”. I say “That will be $£xx,xxx.99″. They say “Whoah, my neighbour’s nephew’s friend’s sister can do it for $£x”. I say “Go get them to do it then and come back to me when they make a hash of it”.
If an industry gets commoditised it is because that industry is doing a poor job of selling itself. What is the difference between me building a website and the 12 year old kid with a copy of Dreamweaver? Oh, probably more than a million pounds in profit on the clients bottom line, and I can prove it, but I am not going to do it at the kids rates. You have to decide what the difference is between your photograph and some kids $1 stock photo. If there is no difference who’s fault is that? Not the kid and not the customer, that’s for sure.
Technorati Tags: strobist, stock, photography, news
Photographer Ethics: Should the camera never lie?
Two stories about Newspapers “doctoring” images, one laughable, the other more serious from The Digital Photography Weblog
the Charlotte Observer has sacked a staff photographer for altering the colour of an image to, as he states, “to restore the actual color of the sky”. He said the color was lost when he underexposed the photo to offset the glare of the sun.
OK this is plainly ridiculous, the “truth” of the story was restored by this superficial change, who cares what colour the sky was though really? So either way, an over reaction right? How about this one …
The Miami Herald’s Spanish-language sister paper acknowledged Friday that it manipulated two photos to make it appear that two Cuban police officers were ignoring prostitutes gesturing to a tourist.
In this one the image was intentionally created to show a false impression of Police neglect of the prostitute problem. As far as I can tell this photographer was not sacked.
Technorati Tags: photography, news, law, ethics, media
Follow Us!
Do you need a model release?
I’m going to try to bring simplicity to a complex question. Here’s a comprehensive legal answer in two sentences.
The General Rule: If a photo of a person, or of copyrighted or trademarked property, is used to advertise something, then the publisher of the photo needs a release.
The Privacy Exception: If you are hired to take photos of someone (say a wedding or studio shot), those photos cannot be published, even editorially, without a release.
If you really understand those sentences, then you know almost all you need to know about the legal requirements of model releases. Most of this article elaborates on these sentences above to make sure each part of it is clear. Continue reading »