dslrBlog » Protecting Copyright

BBC Ripping Off Flickr Photographers?

DSLRBlog Editors — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:45:31 +0000

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

Nikon Opodo Photography Competition Copyright Grab Warning

DSLRBlog Editors — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:01:37 +0000

Editorial Photographers UK pointed out this ludicrous piece of copyright-mugging in Opodos Reflections Photography Contest what makes it worse it is endorsed by Nikon of all people!

Nikon’s sponsorship of the ‘rights grabbing’ Opodo Reflections Competition has surprised and angered many leading professional photographers as well as others within the photographic community.

The controversy looks certain to tarnish Nikon’s reputation within the industry with long term professional Nikon users condemning the photographic giant’s involvement and rival manufacturers stating that they would not have got involved with a competition which contained such terms.

The terms and conditions for Opodo’s Reflections competition demands that all entrants grant them a licence to use the photographs forever for no fee. The terms also ask that photographers give up their moral rights in the photographs, and that they assign their rights in any other ‘derivative’ works, such as montages. Rather helpfully, Opodo reassures entrants that they “can submit as many photos as they like”, with each photograph entered being available for Opodo to use forever

(Emphasis mine)

Source:Nikonians

What the hell are Nikon thinking?

Seems like a pretty cheap way of getting perpetual exclusive rights to some darn good photographs. Beats buying pics everyone else has for $2 a pop, right?

Reputation tarnished? They need their collective arses kicking.

Update: Rules have been changed after protests

Technorati Tags: photography, competition, copyright, scandal, nikon, news, tips

Photography, Copyright and the Digital Age

DSLRBlog Editors — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:41:13 +0000

Thomas Hawk asks “Should Fair Use Apply to Your Family Portraits?”

I don’t want a wall sized family portrait because this is not how I consume photography these days. These days the majority of my photography is consumed on a 43″ plasma in my living room through my Media Center PC. Would I be interested in seeing my family shots on my plasma as they rotate through my digital photography collection, like all my other photography? Sure. Do I want a big wall sized print of my family on the living room wall? Not so much.

So I explain to the photographer about how I consume photography these days, on how it is of much more value to me to see my work as part of my Media Center PC than on a wall on a $1,000 print and ask if there is a way instead of buying prints, that I can just purchase the images digitally. I’d even happily pay the $2,000 for digital versions of my 5x7s rather than get prints which I don’t really want to hang in my home anyways.

And here she tells me no. Which is her prerogative I suppose, but when I mention that I could always just scan the 5x7s and watch them anyways she goes off into a little speech about how her images are copyrighted and I can’t do that, etc.

Aaah, the old portrait photographer ransom. What a clever scheme this is. Thing is the photographer in question is well within her rights. Consumers continue to pay the prices without demanding digital files and Photographers continue to charge them without offering them.

There are many photographers now who do offer (voluntarily) digital files. Surprisingly many wedding Photographers see this as the bargain end of their offering with the more expensive leather-bound-large-print service being the premium. Geek as I am, I see it the other way round with the RAW/PSD/TIFF/JPG images the more desirable providing the digital files are high resolution.

Seems quite similar to the music/film industry DRM dilemma. Clearly consumers do not want it but the copyright holders are willing to do anything to enforce these unpopular restrictions. We don’t like the MPAA for it. There is a lesson right there. But Photographers do need to make a living and that is as important as the customer getting a disc with pictures on.

The only answer to this disagreement is some calm discussion of the issue. For future reference though there are two solutions

Discuss beforehand your requirements (both Photographer and client)
Provide the option of work-for-hire rather than traditional portrait shoot

For photographers you need to either consider providing files as an option or have a very good answer to the question. Our last family portrait session I simply asked and was given a CD, no quibble, no additional fee. You do not need to particularly go that far, maybe having a price on your menu for an archive CD/DVD but it is worth considering the negative affect point blank refusal will do to your reputation and repeat custom …

Technorati Tags: photography, copyright, fair, use, law, news, tips

Walmart Photo Processing Copyright Farce

DSLRBlog Editors — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:07:18 +0000

If you take photographs that look remotely professional expect to have some trouble getting them processed at your local supermarket. Check out the trouble this Flickr user had in the Flickr 100 years old group thread!

Several times I have heard of people attempting to get (family) photos copied at Wal-Mart and refused because they were “copyrighted” – because they were made by a photograph studio. Even if the person who OWNS the copyright were to ask a Wal-Mart photo manager to copy it, they would refuse. They misinterpret the word “copyright” to mean “copywrong,” That is to say: Copy?….. wrong!

In a way I guess it is tricky for the Walmart employee. They have a blanket policy and risk a reprimand (or worse) for breaking it, even if it makes no sense. Walmarts aren’t about to provide copyright training. The answer I guess is if you can use a proper outfit, print out a “release” on headed paper or scan and print it yourself.

Comedy Update:

Heh, couldn’t resist adding this.

Technorati Tags: photography, processing, printing, walmart, news, tips

Using Flickr Photographs For Profit: Exploitation or Exposure?

DSLRBlog Editors — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:29:13 +0000

StockPhotoTalk seems to feel Flickr users are being exploited by companies using Flickr photographs (freely submitted) without payment.

MAX, the leading monthly german lifestyle magazine from the MILCHSTRASSE Publishing Group (acquired by the mighty Hubert Burda Media Group in late 2004) and a “Visual Leader” in photography since 15 years, started four month ago to publish multi-paged features of the best photos found on Flickr in the Flickr-Portfolio, usually around 6 pages. All this without paying a dime to the Flickr photographers (The Group Rules of MAX explain: “What’ s the “crop” of my work? Fame – in one word! You will get no money, sorry”).

I am firmly against anyone using Flickr photographs without permission, even with the most liberal license (credit should at least be given), but I don’t actually think (if I understand correctly) this publication is doing anything wrong. These photographers are submitting to the magazines pool. How is it any different from the San Francisco newspaper that is doing the same thing? The photographer freely provides it, the publication uses it and the photograph is seen by a wider audience than it ever would.

In my opinion if someone submits to a public pool in order to be shown to a wider audience then there isn’t a great jump for that audience to see it in print.

This argument is raging elsewhere, it is a “user generated content” argument of when does your user content become unpaid work. Lots of companies from Flickr to Google make money off of your intellectual property, nobody minds when you get a proportionate return for your hard work.

The Downside To Flickr

DSLRBlog Editors — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 09:14:28 +0000

Flickr user and Utata webmaster Irana has reported in a thread her outrage caused by a Romanian newspaper. Not only have they used her photograph without permission, not only is this picture of her as a child, but they have used it to illustrate a piece about children being used by the Romanian version of the KGB! Read more over at Flickr: Utata

I am really not sure how to handle this. I have been informed today that my school photo, from when I was a child, was used today in an article in Romania. Let’s put this straight. This is my image. This is a photo I scanned and posted on the Internet. Have I been contacted prior to publication? NO. Is there attribution on the website and in the newspaper? NO. Have I been asked my permission that my image to be given as an example of children that had been hired by the “Securitate” (Romanian KGB)? Freaking NO. This is triple offense.

You have to feel it for her, she must feel frustrated and helpless. I do hope she can work something out.

What can we learn from this? Not very much really, a lot of us lately have posted up pictures of ourselves as children, plus our own children. I guess we can go through and make them all private. In fact I mostly do make pictures of my daughter private now out of fear. Really these publications should know better, morally at least, but I fear they know exactly what they are doing and know there is little anyone can do about it.

Technorati Tags: flickr, law, photography, copyright, news

Photographers’ Money Woes

DamianM — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 08:13:43 +0000

Chris wrote in a post of his how Carl Purcell had one of his photos appear on an American stamp and how he must feel since it was a stock photo and he basically got nothing out of it. Well spare a thought for Kelly Fajack. Here he finds people violating his copyright and making money from one of his photos, literally!

The central African nation of Burundi have used one of his photos without his permission for their 10,000 Burundi franc note. The photo was not in the public domain; it was just used on Mr Purcell’s personal website.

Quite rightly he is suing the Burundi government, but to sue a government is quite tricky. Good look with that Carl, I hope you get a fair and just outcome.

Creative commons: How safe is your work?

DamianM — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:19:56 +0000

Do you use a creative commons license on your Flickr photos. Do you even know what it is? Well very basically it is a license that you grant that allows non-profit use and sharing of your photography (More Info).

Why am I talking about it now?, well the legal strength of the idea has just been put to test in court. Adam Curry the ‘POD father’ has recently taken to court a Dutch magazine for publishing pictures from his Flickr account. The magazine apparently thought that since the photos were on the internet they could do whatever they liked.

So did Adam win his case? Well let’s just say he didn’t lose. The creative commons was upheld but the magazine got away with a fine. There was no real deterrant to stop this happening again. And you and me won’t have the resources to fight back like Adam did.

Thanks for standing up for us dude