another photo used without permission or credit on Flickr

taminsea says:

That is completely f-ed. I do not understand people that do not pay any attention to copyrights. :(
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

smalldogs says:

fuck, man, what a douchebag.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

pstarr says:

UGH.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

Time to start regularly filing your copyrights and moving your photos to another site where you can have tighter controls. Nothing prompts replies and payment like threat of a $150,000 penalty for copyright infringement.

--
Seen on the Web. (?)
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

DairDair says:

One word - unprofessional. In other words, not cool. It's so easy - and respectful - to give proper credit.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

ahockley says:

Have you filed a DMCA notice with YouTube to have the video removed?
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

khugokim says:

i definitely feel your frustration just from each of your posts (and growing watermarks). what a tool...
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

Blazenhoff says:

ewww....what a violation
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

fotogail says:

ahockley knows the remedy:
www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy says:

christ.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

EOS Boy says:

Bill the motherfucker.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

TunnelBug says:

Lane,
I've encountered the same issue at least twice. Hopefully U.S. copyright laws will catch up with the times. For example, one can't go to small claims court for copyright infringement. One must go to district court, which costs a lot and carries risk, besides the fact that many lawyers would not want to do so without getting paid a pretty penny.

With small claims court you can act as your own representation and would not require a lawyer. The case is decided by a judge and is generally handled in a few minutes (think People's Court or Judge Judy).
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

DON'T EXPLODE says:

Find out where this guy is...wait outside, until he comes out...approach, and in your most excited voice say "hey is that Matt Hempey?!" and when he says "Yeah, that's me..." punch him in the throat...

I mean, hand him a bill with your attorneys card stapled to it.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

Miles_Cole says:

Sorry to hear.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching says:

thanks everyone.

i'll keep you posted.

and mrfontwacko, thanks for the funny. that seriously made me laugh.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

Automatt says:

Very sorry to hear that they're stealing your work for their 15 minutes.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

WAXY. says:

Oi! That's seriously annoying. What kills me is that you know he understands the concept of copyright...
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

nonac. says:

that sucks
I hope you arrive at a resolution to this matter, have you spoke to a lawyer? possibly consult w/ a friend who may be a lawyer?

--
Seen in my contacts' photos. (?)
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

extremely irritating...

note: comments to express your sentiment can also be left here
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi4fzvQ6I-o
and here
www.richterscales.com/blog/2007/12/bubble-is- back.php#com...
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Andy Frazer says:

Since he's so proud of himself that, "I've been working on the lyrics, and the arrangements, for a couple of months", you'd think that he would appreciate the value of an artist's work. Maybe you should steal his music and use it as background to your pictures.

I left him a comment on YouTube.

--
Seen in my contacts' photos. (?)
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

tastygiant says:

left him a comment, the shady bastard.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

yulek says:

DCMA the mother. this would have two effects:

1. teach him the meaning of the word "respect"
2. get another annoying and lame video off youtube
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

anilucia says:

Left him a comment, too. Jack**s.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

After Dark Photo says:

that's a major bummer......stupid music anyway
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

oaxoax says:

Go get him, Lane. For many people, Flickr is a just a free stock service. ..
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

KeithMokris says:

I'm sorry this has happened Lane. At least you were able to catch it. Obviously, this and the stuff I've been going through lately has changed the way I share some of my images. Thanks for all your help!
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy says:

it's not just lane's pictures, either. none of the images are credited at all.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Planet Vicster says:

Aw, that sucks, Lane. That guy's a tool for not crediting you or any of the other photographers whose images he stole.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching says:

Hi Everyone,

Thanks for all your comments and support.

I have been in touch with Matt Hempey and the Richter Scales and we are in discussion.

I will keep everyone informed of what happens.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

DON'T EXPLODE says:

Good news. Hey, glad you could laugh a little.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

monkeywobble says:

I came for the pic of Owen, but stayed for the controversy.

It'd be a beautiful perfect circle if you could get ValleyWag to cover this.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

I notice one of the commenter's on the You Tube page posted this..

"Copyright is NOT absolute. All this falls under the "Fair Use" provision of US copyright law. See Glennjo67 comment below. This is parody/comment/commentary and thus legal use of copyrighted material, though youtube has been known to illegally and thankfully temporarily take down material that is protected under fair use. Without this provision, almost not political or social satire would legally exist."

comments? I am not familiar with Fair Use Provision (and also UK based as well)
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

elyse13 says:

I'm also curious about the "fair use" provision. i think it's interesting that he seems to have decided to credit you (after you talked to him)and not credit any of the other photographers whose work he uses.
lane, you know i agree that you should be credited and (if applicable) paid for your work. how long did it take him to respond to you? did he only respond once your backers started posting messages on his video?
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

elyse13 says:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

I'm falling asleep trying to read that. I'm not sure how people become lawyers, because I would overwhelmed with the boredom.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

EOS Boy says:

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that "fair use" rules apply to an artistic work that is being reproduced for editorial or educational purposes. This guy is trying to sell his song. He's right that he can parody figures in the public domain without fear of treading on the libel laws, but that doesn't mean that he can use Lane's picture to garner financial gain either now or in the future.

Unbelievable scumbags.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Superchou says:

that sucks... I made a comment over there in support (politely worded thank you) and also reminding them that music parodies that are sold need to have licensing fees paid to the org. artist/composer... wonder if he has even bothered to deal with that.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

bootpainter says:

people like that take a lax view towards giving credit, or paying for use of images, because maybe they've done it before, and got away with it.
Simply rude of him, what a lazy mofo, who needs educating.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

realityphotography says:

fuckers.

i am so sick of people stealing.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

sean percival says:

waaaaa
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

JamesBooster says:

Richter Scales posted on their blog about this.
www.richterscales.com/blog/index.php

Also included links about fair use from the Electronic Frontier Foundation
www.eff.org/issues/ip-and-free-speech/fair-us e-principles...
www.eff.org/pages/UGC-test-suite
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

STML says:

As a complete amateur, I post all my photos under a CC license, which I'm pretty happy with, but Flickr wouldn't be the same without a lot of more professional photographers, so sorry to hear this. I left a comment on the Richter Scales' blog, and glad to see they've at least taken notice.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

well I don't know if they have some kind of comment moderation policy but apart from Lane's original comment and mine on the " The Bubble is Back!" post on their blog - I can't see any other comments mentioning this issue.

I guess you've been putting your comments on the you tube video???

Personally, I think whats the sad thing about this issue is not whether or not they were within their rights or not under whatever act or principles you care to mention... but the fact that this is symptomatic of a free-for-all culture/attitude with regards to digital content, particularly on Flickr, that is so prevalent nowadays...
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

lalalaa Dolce Vita says:

I'm comment 680- 'Here's a bursting bubble- that of free online digital content. Are all of those photos used with permission? I think not.
Check your integrity at the door, Richter Scales.'

--
Seen on your photo stream. (?)
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

droconnell says:

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!! That video ruled and was hilarious. Thanks for ruining it.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Superchou says:

@droconnell, oh please, that guy thinks he's a lot funnier and talented than he really is.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Acererak says:

Has YouTube granted you permission to publish their copyrighted marks?

"The content on the YouTube Website [...] including [...] the trademarks, service marks and logos contained therein ("Marks"), are owned by or licensed to YouTube, subject to copyright and other intellectual property rights under the law.

Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be downloaded, copied, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any other purposes whatsoever without the prior written consent of the respective owners."

I mean, if we want to open up a can of worms about Fair Use, it's only fair that we discuss this "picture" as well.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

sweater vest says:

i agree, droconnell. richter scales = pure hilarity.

on a related note....anybody catch bio-dome on comedy central the other night? also brilliant.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

tolles says:

Why didn't you ask to be credited? If you had been credited, would you have been satisfied?
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

iFranky says:

You could have twisted this less bitter and have earned the benefits of it long term. Right now... I can't imagine people will come to see a whiny bitch, the whiny bitch you changed yourself in with this entry.

I've been problogger and screencaster 2 years long. My stuff got scraped, stolen, re-edited. Did I care? Yes, it bugged me but instead of whining I preferred to write my next entry and move on. Show people why my stuff got stolen... because the team behind rocked. And we got lots of orders.
I have no time to focus on content thefts. My time goes to content, especially now I'm editor of several blogs.

Cut it, years ago no one gave a F*** when something online was copied/ripped/whatevah. Of course you deserve the credits aso... but it's better to move on and continue to produce great stuff. ;)
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy says:

when licensing fees for your photography puts gas in your car so you can make it to assignments, puts groceries in your fridge, pays for your internet connection and christmas presents for your loved ones, not to mention your rent, your car payment, your visa bill and maybe - if you're lucky - a health insurance premium, it's pretty hard to say "i'm too busy creating great new content to bother with image theft."
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

mistercasey1 says:

The Richter Scales just posted this on our blog at www.richterscales.com/blog/

This morning, our "Here Comes Another Bubble" video was removed from YouTube under a DMCA takedown order.

Some folks have left comments saying we should acknowledge all the people who created the images we used in the video. Good point. We will go through the video and cite every source, and wherever possible, we will credit the original photographer. Once the list is up, if you see a mistake in it, please let us know, and we'll do our best to rectify it.

We don't know who filed the takedown or why they did so without first talking to us, but we would like to talk about what it would take for you to cancel your request.

It probably was impolite not to offer full credit in the video in the first place. But those who called us thieves and jokingly threatened us with physical violence were also being impolite. Let's keep this civil, folks.

Thanks again to everyone who has left comments on this issue or on the video. We appreciate your feedback and are learning from it.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

smalldogs says:

well, why am i not surprised that all of this ends with the guilty party simply being "impolite" and the wronged party being labeled a "whiny bitch"?
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Planet Vicster says:

smalldogs, you took the words right out of my mouth, er, keyboard!
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching says:

Again, thanks to everyone for the words of support.

Mr. Casey, I don't want to start a flamewar or back and forth here, but the idea of adding credits after the fact is not correct. You need to find the creators of your content, ask permission, and pay any licensing fees that are requested. If you choose to not pay licensing fees, you need to find another image to use where you aren't required to.

After you've done all that, you give credit. On the video, in the credits, right next to Matt Hempey, Billy Joel and the Richter Scales.

Period, end of story.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

I feel that I should point out that the profession of blogger is quite different to the profession of photographer. They use quite different business practices and the role of the Internet is different in each despite both occupations being content creation centric. Therefore comparisons between the two are inappropriate.

Rights management and policy are absolutely critical to the success of a photographic business (I stress the word "business" there). Each business has its own policy, which is designed to provide and protect its income stream. Copyright laws are designed to protect the individual photographer and their business and are (sadly) part of everyday life now. Education about these issues is the best outcome I hope for - and I'm really glad that Mr Casey says that they are learning from this. I look forward to the re-release of their video with appropriate credits.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Steve-D says:

"well, why am i not surprised that all of this ends with the guilty party simply being "impolite" and the wronged party being labeled a "whiny bitch"?"

Maybe because the 'wronged party' IS being a whiny bitch?

You got a funny (if slightly silly) video taken down which many people had been enjoying. No one was making money off producing it or being charged for it, so why all the 'You have used my content; I DEMAND PAYMENT!' rubbish?

You could have got some recognition for you work, but instead you've turned yourself into the villan of the story. Well done.

Its sad that so much fuss is being made over a harmless bit of comedy, but the swing-back is that with all the extra publicity you've now given the video it'll be re-hosted on a dosen different sites.

Score one for fair-use.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

tastygiant says:

Someone is wronged and when they speak up about it or try to make it right, they're called a "whiny bitch"?? TF? That's sad.

Here's a thought, why dont people create their own content and stop stealing other peoples?
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Steve-D says:

How does 'try to make it right' equal a DMCA takedown order?

I don’t think anyone disagrees that when artistic work is used it should be credited, but in this case the its the artist has taken things too far. It’s even a stretch for Lane to claim himself as the ‘wronged party’.

The fact is he DID get paid for the picture. He got paid when he sold it to Wired, in full knowledge that Wired would be posting it publicly on the net. Technically the video stole it off Wired, not off Lane.

Lane might restrict downloads of his images to people in his friends list, but stick ‘Owen Thomas’ into Google Images and what’s the first image that comes up? Do you even want to guess? Somehow I doubt this is the first time someone has downloaded that image ‘without permission’.

Maybe Lane should join the ever-growing group of nutcases suing google? After all, just like the Pirate Bay it 'facilitates copyright abuse'.

Or maybe, just maybe this was a bit over the top for what amounts to a three second clip on a non-commercial comedy video.

If artists like Lane ever want to be respected by their customers and the general public they have to learn that respect goes both ways. This could very easily have been resolved amicably.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

tastygiant says:

*ahem "she" :)
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Gary Dickerson says:

@Steve-D: Just because you can easily find it, doesn't make it ok to copy. Where the image came from, whether through Wired or Flickr, is irrelevant since it does not change the fact that it is an all rights reserved image. And that Wired page just happens to include "All photos by Lane Hartwell." at the bottom.

My real comment was to the fair use statement. Yes, parody is protected by fair use, but the parody was not of the image in question. Creating a parody of another work does not give you automatic fair use rights to any other rights protected media that you may choose to include in the work.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

tastygiant says:

And I do believe she contacted everyone involved to begin with. From what I read on the youtube comments and the richterscales blog I dont remember any threats made - just informing the picture they were using was under copyright. Someone may well have taken it from googling so and so's name or going to Wired News and DLing from there - but the fact remains it was under copyright.

Also, this might be the billionth time an image was downloaded without permission. All I'm saying is give credit where credit is due before-hand.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

I doubt very much that it could be construed that the image was stolen from Wired.

You have to remember that in the professional editorial photography arena it is quite rare that a photographer sells a photograph in its entirety. And even if the image was sold on a perpetual, all-rights, all-usage, all-territories license; Lane would still be able to assert her rights as the content creator. Sale of copyright itself is very rare.

What is more likely is that Wired licensed the image from Lane. In laymans terms, they "borrowed" it, with permission, and quite possibly with payment.

Steve-D is quite right, if you type "Owen Thomas" into Google Images you get the aforementioned photograph. What Steve-D fails to mention is that Lane is mentioned at the bottom of the article as the photographer (it says "All photos by Lane Hartwell.") and very her name is hyperlinked to her website. On the front page of her website at the bottom is a link to her email address. Her email is just as easy to find as the photograph.

From viewing that picture, in just TWO mouse clicks I could be typing an email to ask permission to use that photograph in my upcoming music video parody...

So - draw your own conclusions. Personally, I need to go find my dictionary and see what it says under "lazy" again...
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

actually her name is mentioned and hyperlinked twice in the article - once at the top of the photos and again at the bottom.... should be kinda hard not to spot it really....
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

WAXY. says:

It's more than startling to read some of the above comments where people call Lane a bitch, a he when she is a woman, and then flat out blaming her. This is horrible. Lane is the victim. Period! This blaming and name calling is misogynistic and you both should be ashamed of yourselves.

And those who think Lane may not have any ground to stand on should read this:

Bloggers Beware: Debunking Nine Copyright Myths of the Online World
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy says:

Some people are arguing that their desire for free entertainment via YouTube trumps Lane's ability to make a living and protect her copywritten work. I dont get that.

Copyright is there for a good reason. The group could have used any number of images for their project, they could have sought out permissions and usage, they didn't do that.

So now Wired, which paid for certain rights to the picture, is expected to subsidize the very commercial Richter Scales group, who didn't pay for use of the image, but are reaping benefits from it such as future bookings, engagements, etc..

The Richter Scales group can ask for usage fees for using their video, they can put it on ad-supported websites and profit from people viewing it, but NONE of the people who created the content that make up the video are supposed to utter a peep of protest when their work is taken without permission.

Sorry but screw that noise. That's not right. Thousands of Silicon Valley enterpreneurs became wealthy because they based their business models on "licensing" fees for their software. Yet when a professional artist asks for compensation to use her work in a hugely popular video about Silicon Valley, she is assailed online and has to sit by while people call her a whiny bitch.

What is wrong with this picture. If Lane had not raised this issue with the Richter Scales, no one would ever have known one of her pictures was in the video. There was no upside for her. There was no upside for any of the artists whose material was used in the video besides the Richter Group. Taking that photo was wrong - the uncredited usage of copywritten work for someone else's gain, there is just no two ways about it.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

harpy says:

I'm sorry to rant, but I just read about some photographer who was not only gleeful that Lane took her photos down at Flickr because it will mean less competition for him (!) because people wont be able to "find her online," he also encouraged other people to "steal" his images because he thinks it brings him nothing but good things. That guy must have a day job or an ad-supported income stream because unless he survives on fairy dust, I dont see how people stealing his images pays the bills. And how can his subjects read that and feel confident about that man taking their picture, knowing it could wind up anywhere on the internet and he would just shrug and say OH WELL I got my commission, too bad. And I wonder how his customers feel about that, if they have paid him to photograph subjects for them. Nice. Real classy.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching says:

Again, thank you for all the support.

Steve D, I can't even start to tell you how many ways you are wrong, but you should probably do a little research before you hit submit next time.

Wired News has blogged about it with a comment by my attorney:
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Superchou says:

Lane,
I had commented earlier and have been following this thread and I just wanted to let you know that I am proud of you for making a stand.

People who are poo pooing all of this do not really understand why this is wrong.... much like people don't get why downloading mp3s or software or whatever from sites like limewire or whatever is stealing. I think that with the internet's instant availability of content and information etc... that people feel entitled to do what they please without really understanding what it means to the creator(s) of the content.

Your work is wonderful and I have had you as a contact for quite some time, always enjoying your photographs... but it is also your livelihood and by taking this image people do not understand that they are taking money out of your pockets.

My husband is a full-time composer who works for himself and licenses his music and music making related stuff - that is how he takes care of his family. Granted he gets that his work gets stolen from time to time, that is how the world works right now... does that make it right? no. Wouldn't we like to see royalties from that work, hell yeah, we have a mortgage to pay too. People don't get it and understand how supporting oneself as an artist means your paycheck does not come every two weeks like theirs does. You depend on that money to live.

It's funny, I wonder if these people would agree that lifting passages from someone's written work into their own would be ok... it is essentially the same thing.... in school we called that plagiarism.

So, yeah, I am proud of you for making a stand and protecting your art and the value of what you produce. People are gonna give you shit, it just shows they don't get it and their sense of entitlement to whatever is posted online proves that.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

sweater vest says:

It's laughable that Lane should be OK with a credit after the fact.

Lane, as the creator of the image, should and must have a say in all use of the photo, as any use of her images directly implies her support for the "borrower's" cause.

What if someone like NAMBLA decided to use one of her various shots of children in a "parody" video? Of course, there's always an outside chance that Lane has some kind of oiled boy fetish going on and approves of the usage, but let's be realistic....this could cause unrepairable damage to her career. Once again, she should and must have a say in all use of her photos.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching says:

I just found this and thought it very interesting, and somewhat disturbing:

Roundup: “Bubble video” taken down, but singer gets $3M, Bahu, RivalMap, more

By Matt Marshall 12.11.07

"Speaking of Tom Shields, he just got $3M for YieldEx — While Shields’ video got hit with the take-down notice, the a capella singer has other things to be thankful for. Shields recently left his role as venture capitalist at Woodside Fund
, and has founded a new company called YieldEx, which is still early, but aims to help Web site owners maximize their ad revenue. He’s mum on the details, but VentureBeat hears he has $3 million, mostly from Woodside."

venturebeat.com/2007/12/11/roundup-bubble-vid eo-taken-dow...

so these guys expect me to work for free? Are they serious?
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

EOS Boy says:

Well, of course they expect you to work for free, Lanie! You know, it makes it much harder to be millionaire if other people are continually demanding, you know, "payment" for "goods and services."

I would refer you to the "whiny bitch" portion of the contract, on page 641.

Ratfuckers.

I'm very pleased and proud of you for standing up to these weasels on this. You've done a great service for every photographer/artist/musician/creative mind out there who'd actually like to be paid for their work.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Ben Bailey says:

And to think, a simple search on Flickr for "Owen Thomas" would have provided links to CC licensed images (like this one) that they could have used no problemo.

Of course, they didn't bother to credit anyway so I doubt they would have done it for a CC licensed image either.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

matasci says:

Lane,
I might ask you to reconsider your decision for the following reason. What you asked to take down from YouTube was clearly derivative work.
It drew on many sources, but the artistic value of it did not depend on any of these individually, but on the whole (that is why it is different from a slideshow).

You have to recognize that art is built on the work of other artists re-working other artists works to make something new.

I was hesitant to write you, but I decided to do so after I saw your burning man galleries. I guess you can see where I am going from here. Those are pictures of other people's works of art. But your pictures are works of art in their own nature. You built upon that. I appreciate both the original artist's work and you own artistic abilities in capturing it. I think this process is fundamental to art as a human endeviour, and by taking and posting these picture you must agree with me (or else, aren't you the stealing from those artists as well?).
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

By this argument you discount the artistic endeavor of all photographers and their own skill in choosing the camera, the lens, the focal length, the shutter speed, the aperture, the film (or digital profile), any lighting they may employ, the location that they shoot from, the composition, the processing work they do in the (analogue and/or digital) darkroom and any other photograph variables you care to mention...

There is no artistic endeavor in right clicking and choosing "save image as..."

The capturing and recording of situations and events is intrinsic to the nature of photography (especially editorial photography)
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

EOS Boy says:

I must take issue with Matasci as well: while it's true that virtually all is derivative, there's a difference between "homage" and out-and-out copying of a work.

Photographing artworks on the playa at Burning Man is a far cry from making a doppelganger of the work, and even so, the organizers of the event put in writing that, beyond editorial use, "Written permission is required to use any image from the event commercially or publicly; no public use of any image may be made without this written consent." Nobody asked Lane if they could use her image. If she were less vigilant, it might very well have gone unremarked.

The Scales video, parody or no, hardly qualifies as editorial in nature but rather as commercial at worst and self-promotion at best, and while Lane's photograph is not the whole of the work, it appears essentially unaltered from its original state, i.e., a straight, out-and-out copy.

Sorry, but they're just dead wrong on this one, and if it had been one of my pictures that showed up there, I'd have been just as upset as she was.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching says:

article focusing on me and my (collective) photographer's frustrations on Wired News.

I'm going to be issuing a statement about where things stand with the Richter Scales shortly.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Automatt says:

lol @ "crazy cat lady" line - was that yours?
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching says:

yes it was...it was taken out of context just a wee bit. I was saying, semi jokingly that having someone tell me that they can take my work and use with without having to ask or compensate me is unamerican! That when we talk about things like a national health care plan, people call it socialism and look down their nose at it, but seem to be okay to tell me that my property is fine to be taken without my permission and redistributed to the masses. And that when I say "it's unamerican" people think it's like a crazy cat lady thing to say. But it is unamerican, seriously, when you get right down to it. And the people that are bitching the most are also the people that are making the most in our free market economy. Why am I not protected under the same rights? If I want socialism, I want free health care first! I have to exist in this system and pay for goods and services like everyone else. Do photographers fall into a class I am not aware of?

By the way, I have no cats. ;)
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

EOS Boy says:

There's a discussion of this story going on at Sportsshooter.com, as well. Find it here.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

matasci says:

@Angel: that's exactly my point, but I make it stronger, not disregarding the artistic endevour (that you might or might not recognize, but that's a personal question) of the author of the video.

As you correctly say there is no artistic endeviour in "saving as"... and simply posting as it it, or with only slightly minor modifications. But this is not what this issue is about.

@EOS: The burning man is just an example. If Lane obtained such a permission, all is fine. But one can find thousands of example of photographies that contain copyrighted material (accidentally or not, and it will be harder and harder to avoid that). How relevant/important the original copyrighted material is not a trivial issue (hence I might be wrong in this case, but non dead wrong) and might depend on the familiarity of the various parties with the medium in question.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

@matasci - you are quite right, this issue is about the appropriation of an image without permission or credit, for which the offending party is clearly guilty. Additionally, I submit, in previous comments I have made, that they are also guilty of being incredibly lazy; by demonstrating how easy it would have been to get in touch with Lane.
www.flickr.com/photos/fetching/2090802706/com ment72157603...

There is a popular misconception amongst the general public that permission is required before your photograph can be taken. It isn't, although you can request that your photograph not be taken and the photographer in question, if they are worth their salt, will quickly comply. This is also followed by the second popular misconception that because you appear in a photograph, you somehow are "owed something". Again false.

The case where this IS true is in commercial or advertising photography. Where model release forms ARE required (for people and property) and the models are quite probably paid for their trouble.

However, if the image is used in an editorial or news context, like this one, the photographer does NOT need to seek permission from their subjects, nor do they owe them anything. The photograph is entirely their own work.

As this is a point of law and not of general knowledge, there is usually a process of education required so that people understand this process. The Internet, for all the wonderful things it has enabled, has prioritized the need for this education as images become easier to distribute. To protect both the image makers and the image users.

Just because thousands of copyright violations have happened before doesn't make it "ok". And ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse - certainly not in court. Everyone should know that at least.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

matasci says:

@Angell: Then there was a misconception. I was referring about a serving a DMCA for copyright infringement, wich is slightly different. The DMCA contains provisions that make it perfectly legitimate, under specific circumstances, to take an image without permissin or credit and use it. I agree with you: it is surely rude and the guys might have been lazy, but I'm not convinced that a DMCA is the right answer (and intrinsically whether an artist can/should have restrictive power over transformative/derivative work by others on his/her work after it has been published)

And for a bit more education (btw: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice): You don't require permission to photograph as long as the picture is used for news reporting/editorial work. As soon as, as a professional photographer, you post them on your professional site outside of a news/editorial context this specific provision of copyright law might not apply anymore.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching says:

Someone posted a comment on my blog about Burning Man and perhaps you are the same person...i haven't had a chance to respond on my blog just yet, but will soon. but for now...

Someone on my blog said something along the lines of, "you took pictures of people and art, and you were paid for doing that. did you pay those people or give them credit?"

First of all, I didn't have a free ride at Burning Man. Journalists are not given free entrance or any special treatment or accommodation. While they have a media center, it's under equipped and it's basically just a space to meet up with other media.

Wired paid for my ticket and mileage to Burning Man. I paid for all my food and camping gear. I risked my camera gear to get those shots and actually had my camera die on me a few weeks ago, which I am pretty sure was playa related. I spent alot of money to get there and work there. I took my laptop which is permanently covered in playa dust. The writer that worked with me there, my friend Brian Doherty refused to bring his laptop because he couldn't afford to have it destroyed and I had to loan mine to him to work on. My laptop actually kinda died there, and if not for a tech friend that showed up on saturday and fixed it, I would have been screwed.

on top of that, i suffered from heat exhaustion for 2 days, yet continued to work at night. I took a bad fall that bruised me up quite bad, I continued to work. I worked my ass off. I didn't party, drink, do drugs, or anything else really. my friend who came on saturday hardly saw me. i was always working.

I spent my nights on the playa, on my bike alone, cycling around shooting. Many times i would come across a piece and there was no info attached to it about who the artist was. I had no way of finding out, even though I asked around.

Many of the people I photographed are people that I know. Not sure why I would be paying them, if I took a photo of them, chances are it was because they were a friend, or I was trying to promote them.

Every day, Brian and I would talk...what's cool out there? what do people like? is there a piece we have to cover? And we'd decide on one and go cover it. Those short pieces appeared every day on Wired and gave publicity to those projects. We asked permission from the artists to cover it, shoot and interview them. They were happy to oblige.

I actually started shooting some of these works in oakland, on my own time, unpaid. Crude Awakening, The Mechabolic, Big Rig Jig, Homo ouroboros... The Steampunk Treehouse...those all got covered. I have given images to several of those projects for use on their websites, and shots I took of the Flaming Lotus Girls work (who all take part in Burning Man), I donated images to them for prints to raise money for their projects.

I think if you ask any of those people if they feel I exploited them, or if they feel upset that I received a paycheck for shooting and publicizing their art, I am pretty sure they would tell you no. In fact, one person, who asked to use some images of his project for a competition they were entering after Burning Man, asked me for images. I was happy to do so. A week later I heard from him saying that he had not submitted my images because he read the rules of the submission and he would have had to sign away the rights to my images. He was NOT willing to do that and in respect for me and my copyright, didn't use my photos.

Bottom line is, I give plenty of work away, all the time, to those I shoot and whose stories I tell. I'm not perfect. I don't always get a name when I am shooting an event, especially if I am just shooting for fun. sometimes i want to just walk around and be a tourist and shoot.

Another thing most of you are forgetting...unless I get a model release, I cannot sell any of these images commercially. I CAN sell them for editorial use, but I can't take a photo of someone I shot at Burning Man and sell it to Pepsi. Period.

While my flickr stream does allow me visibility, I do not advertise here or on my blog. Look around other people's blogs and streams and I'm sure you'll find something that says "if you want to buy a print...."

I don't do that. not here and not on my blog. I don't go out with an armload of model releases with the idea that I use that to sell images later. I don't carry them with me unless a client requests.

If I was exploiting my subjects, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be invited back to the East Bay Rats or the Circo Caballero every year. Both of those groups are like family to me. Some have been posting in these discussions defending me. I made a whopping $100. on my photo essay in JPG Magazine on the East Bay Rats. I'd donated shots to them, given them prints for the clubhouse, gave DVD's of images after Nate's death to his family and friends. Paid for out of my pocket. Most all the Rats use my photos of them for their myspace profiles. I am happy to share with them. They respect me and what I do.

I just boggle at the ignorance and hostility that is thrown my way because I want to be paid for what I do, like any other person in the world. I want to choose the terms of my work and what I am paid. I think I have the right. I'm pretty sure all of you have that right. Why would I be excluded?

By the way, I don't actually think I made any money shooting Burning Man this year even though I was paid. The trip was very expensive and I probably broke even.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

matasci says:

Lane,
it was not me. And as I said, the Burning Man one was an example, among possible many. The point is, that your pictures contain other people's material and in some cases you don't even know whom. But your pictures are beautiful. Are a novel work of art. So might be the video those guys did. It was rude not to ask your permission, not to credit you but the principle is the same.
All I'm trying to say is that it seems to me that you're picking the wrong fight with the wrong instruments.

The instument: DMCAs are horrible. Despite the fines, they are heavily abused and stifle creativity. Just look at the number of copyrighted works appearing in any photoset (logos, buildings, books, design objects, ...). Virtually any copyright holder can ask you to take down your picture by thretening you to bring you to court. Any independent artist would comply just because even a simple negative response would need a lawyer (i.e. money).

The fight: you got unlucky that the guys have enough money to stand up and you might end up in court. At which point, your success would depend on a judge interpretation of "transformative works", because any way you want to put it, it was part of another work. And the courts decisions on this topic (e.g collages) have not been uniform.

If what you wanted to do is assert your right to earn from your work, tha you should have probably acted differently: you could have notified a DMCA to a clear-cut case of copyright infringment (a company or individual using a non-modified version of your work). If you want to assert your right to be credited when other people take your work and use it to create something new (or that those guys are jerks) then a DMCA doesn't sound the best option.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Eric Rice says:

Fascinated at a few things:

1. Blogosphere's reaction against
2. Creative interpretation of "All Rights Reserved"
3. Everyone is suddenly an IP lawyer

Little late to the party, but have been studying the whole thing, and just wanted to throw a hat into the 'support Lane' bucket.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Singpolyma says:

Crunched
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Singpolyma says:

Crunched
www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/15/misunderstandin g-copyright-...
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

btipling says:

They shouldn't have just used pictures without going the right way about things, but getting a lawyer? I think you might have underestimated the fallout from this. Cost vs benefit probably didn't turn out the way you think it would have. If you think this has been a positive thing for you, well, I think 99% of everyone will probably disagree.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

vladbosinceanu says:

Oh, the drama!

Would it have been proper for them to credit you? Sure. Did you ask before firing off the dmca notice? I'd assume you didn't, cause you felt "like a broken record" and needed some attention.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Techworking says:

Perhaps Flickr is the wrong place to make this observation, but as someone who's worked as a reporter for newspapers and magazines, and always found pro photogs a little too in love with their precious work. Do you know how often writers have their work/ideas pinched without credit/compensation? Pick your battles. If someone takes one of your photos, puts in a million dollar ad campaign, bring out the lawyers. But a flash of one shot that a blip on a free piece of work that hundreds of thousands of people have enjoyed? I understand it's not the first time for you and these guys could have and should have credited you, but it all seems a bit too pissy.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

fetching says:

I have to say, Arrington has it wrong on many accounts. But that's okay...I understand he's making assumptions because I have kept fairly quiet while negotiating with the group.

I'll be making a formal statement about this Monday morning. I'm working all weekend and can't get to it till then.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Alexandre Linhares says:

I'm sorry that people like you will act like this. Frankly, I can't understand how you would prefer someone else's photo out there. This is fair share use. I really hope this goes to court.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Tim Patterson says:

It was a parody humorous video, and I think you should have let them use it. They weren't charging anyone to see it, so they most likely don't have a budget to pay big dollars to produce it.. :(

They probably should have at least scrolled some quick credits at the end of it though. Not sure why they couldn't have done a quick re-edit and added those though..
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

An Opinionated Libertarian Conservative says:

I got something to say about this. You'd better have your flame suit on bitch, because you're gonna fucking need it.

I understand you're full time phototog.

But quite frankly, your fucking stupid assed attitude makes me wanna fucking vomit.

You don't want your shit stolen? Keep it off the fucking god damned internet, ya dumb ass bitch.

I got a a half a fucking good mind to steal every time photo you've ever fucking taken and post them to my blog and dare your dumb bitch ass to get a lawyer after me. And then, just to show I'm one hell of a guy, wait for your fucking lawyer to call me, so I could holler "FUUUUUCCCCCKKK YOUUUUUUU!" in the damn phone and hang up.

it's simple, don't want shit taken, keep it your damn self, bitch.

fuckin' TOOPID assed hoe

-Me
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

antarctic mango says:

Dear Fetching - I'm a publisher and I have been looking at some of your photos recently and I was thinking about contacting you with regard to using several of them for an up coming project. Then I come across this thread. Sorry, but personally I think you're attitude and approach to this parody and its use of your photo is all wrong - and your long comment about how you give away free photos and the damaged suffered to your equipment at burning man was lame, I do that sort of thing all the time and feel no need to publicise it.
Technically/legally you may or not be right, to be honest you can read the law both ways.
But you are right in one respect, you have lost money from the use of your photo in that video, you lost mine. I'm not willing to take the chance on my commercial project and brand suffering negative feedback because you suddenly decide you don't like the way one of the pictures we licenced from you is used by someone else in covering/commenting/parodying our project.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

nickb says:

WOW!!!

You clicked a camera's button!!!!! It's not like you spent HOURS or DAYS painting or posing him! YOU *JUST* CLICKED A BUTTON!!! GET IT?!?

Seriously, get off your high horse and read that Arrington's article again.

BTW, I hear karma's a b*tch. I guess you'll find out soon! And you deserve it!
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

OMouse says:

It was mentioned in a TechCrunch post. If you were smarter, you would have used this as a great opportunity to boost your profile..."Hire me! One of my photos was used in a video that attracted 1000s of viewers!"

Just ask to be given credit, a link to your site and then write a blog post saying that the video's nice and dandy and one of your photos is in it and that's that!

Ah well. Thanks for being selfish and ruining the fun of that video for the rest of us (and at the expense of the other artists' whose photos were also used and who didn't see a problem).
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

EOS Boy says:

So many ignorant people, so little time...

Lanie, shut the door on the rumpus room, okay, and stick to your guns. Some people just don't have a clue.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

ACME-Nollmeyer says:

OMouse Then again..... Maybe because this is getting blogged allover the place and commented a lot of flickr...
Probably more buzz than a simple byline right?

Maybe there's more PR out of the use or "non-use" of this image.
As a full time professional photographer my flickr photos get "ripped off" a bit even thought all of my photos are © "All rights reserved"... If I photographed and posted photos of an event, or possibly a portrait for editorial usage I will often allow blogposts and non-commercial use, however I request that the person contact me so I know the use, and can request proper credit (link to my site, not just my flickr stream)

A large portion of my business leads come thru my website, online friends, people who find my flickr stream, etc. I do encourage some use of my photos however it's with my permission.

I have a great photo of downtown phoenix, AZ. I receive many requests from (often times cheap) web designers which (cheap) Realtor clients who would like to use this image on their website. Most of them offer NO compensation for the use, only a link. (from a poorly designed site which has no traffic)

I purposely don't put images like this on istockphoto.com because it will make it less unique and I'll make less money on it because it would be all over phoenix based websites. IN fact I've licensed this photo a few times for single run usage and am happy to license it to clients for decent rate, while not watering it down.

Bottom line is it would be nice if more people would treat photographer's and their images with a little respect. ASK people... how hard is that? Don't assume that because something is on line that it's your for the taking.

I hope this helps educate more people. Photographers are your friends, just be decent to them and they'll do the same thing. Rum them the wrong way, and they'll snap on you, or the next guy who doesn't play nice.

later,

Adam Nollmeyer
Phoenix Photographer

--
Seen on the Web. (?)
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

Kouiskas says:

What an out of proportion reaction... You display yourself as a bitter person and give yourself a negative image, not unlike multi-million movie studios who used to sue everybody and their uncle a few years back when they saw their copyrighted work used on the web. Then most of them realized that they wouldn't make money from this kind of viral video anyway and that it's good, free, publicity. You didn't give the authors much time to add proper credits, did you? A couple of days and then send the lawyer running after them?

I'm sorry to tell you that the world is not going to behave the way you want it to. You should focus on your potential clients, not the occasional nobody who copies and pastes your pictures and would never give you a dime for it anyway.

Yes, it sucks when people can copy your image so easily, but the digital world makes photography much easier too. You can't have everything.

I remember meeting a wedding (digital) photographer who was fighting all the time with his clients, arguing about why he would only sell them overpriced prints and never the original files. That guy, like you, wanted to have the digital cake and eat it. It made no sense to his clients who could get prints for a tenth of his price at the supermarket and as a result he was losing a lot of business. That's what happens when you swim against the current.

You might have thought that any PR is good PR. In this case I'm afraid you're going to lose business out of the image you've made of yourself. The publisher's comment above says it all.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

You	Sign in \| Create Your Free Account
Explore	Places \| Last 7 Days \| This Month \| Popular Tags \| The Commons \| Creative Commons \| Search
Help	Community Guidelines \| The Help Forum \| FAQ \| Sitemap \| Get Help

another photo used without permission or credit

Comments

taminsea says:

smalldogs says:

pstarr says:

jimgoldstein says:

DairDair says:

ahockley says:

khugokim says:

Blazenhoff says:

fotogail says:

harpy says:

EOS Boy says:

TunnelBug says:

DON'T EXPLODE says:

Miles_Cole says:

fetching says:

Automatt says:

WAXY. says:

nonac. says:

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

Andy Frazer says:

tastygiant says:

yulek says:

anilucia says:

After Dark Photo says:

oaxoax says:

KeithMokris says:

harpy says:

Planet Vicster says:

fetching says:

DON'T EXPLODE says:

monkeywobble says:

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

elyse13 says:

elyse13 says:

EOS Boy says:

Superchou says:

bootpainter says:

realityphotography says:

sean percival says:

JamesBooster says:

STML says:

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

lalalaa Dolce Vita says:

droconnell says:

Superchou says:

Acererak says:

sweater vest says:

tolles says:

iFranky says:

harpy says:

mistercasey1 says:

smalldogs says:

Planet Vicster says:

fetching says:

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

Steve-D says:

tastygiant says:

Steve-D says:

tastygiant says:

Gary Dickerson says:

tastygiant says:

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

WAXY. says:

harpy says:

harpy says:

fetching says:

Superchou says:

sweater vest says:

fetching says:

EOS Boy says:

Ben Bailey says:

matasci says:

Angell - KissMyPanties.com says:

EOS Boy says:

fetching says:

Automatt says:

fetching says: