The Wall Street Journal lifted my image!
To take full advantage of Flickr, you should use a JavaScript-enabled browser and
install the latest version of the Macromedia Flash Player .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/richlegg/370451211/
www.leggnet.com/2008/04/wall-street-journal-lifted-my-ima...
I just found that the
Wall Street Journal took an image from
my blog for use on their blog. What's the problem? Well, my blog states on every page:
"Photographs and text copyright 2005-2008 Rich Legg, Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction or redistribution in any form without prior written permission is strictly prohibited. "
They never contacted me for permission. Had they done so, they would have been directed to the image for sale on
iStockphoto.com . I see this behavior from small blogs from time to time, but the Wall Street Journal? C'mon already!
I have sent them an email. Let's see how (if) they respond.
UPDATE: I have been contacted by the author of the blog post on WSJ.com. She has taken down the image and apologized for its unauthorized use. We had a pleasant email exchange and I am confident that she won't make this mistake (using copyrighted Flickr-hosted photos) again.
This photo has notes. Move your mouse over the photo to see them.
Comments
please let us know how this runs it's
course...
--
Seen in my contacts' photos. (? )
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
I hope you contacted them about this...this
kind of stuff happends to me all the time
with my site and articles...not sure what the
anawers is...I do contact the sites that I
find my stuff on, but its endless ...some
answer back, some remove my articles, some
offer compensation...its all part of this new
frontier.....Cheers
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
Yes, please.
This is outrageous.
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
This happens all the time on Flickr. It's too
bad there hasn't been any software
enhancements to help combat this type of
thing. Keep us posted, I'm curious myself.
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
Is it possible that they purchased the image
through iStock prior to running the article?
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
"Is it possible that they purchased the
image through iStock prior to running the
article?"
Nope. It hasn't sold in over a month and
the version on iStock has the GLOCK logo
removed.
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
Wow! That's pretty bad.
Please let us know how they respond.
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
holy crap. that's low.
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
The author of the blog post just contacted
me. They have taken the image down and
apologized. Fair enough, I guess. Maybe
they'll think to check copyright next time.
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
I can't believe they took the image down
rather than pay for its use - how cheap.
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
Its not your father's Wall Street Journal
anymore. Its Fox Street Journal, owned by
Rupert Murdoch. Should one expect any better
from such notorious hucksters?
--
Seen in my contacts' photos. (? )
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
Get a lawyer! !! this is down right
plagiarism
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
I would amend your copyright message to.
"Photographs and text copyright
2005-2008 Rich Legg, Inc. All rights
reserved.
Reproduction or redistribution in any form
without prior written permission is strictly
prohibited and will cost you a one off fee of
10 million US dollars and removal of the
image if I find you have used it. "
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
I wish I could agree that the email exchange
was sufficient, but I don't believe so.
1) the claim that she
"misinterpreted" the policies on
theft of copyright material smells of bovine
excrement. I have no doubt whatsoever that
the WSJ fully trains their staff on the
liability of copyright theft.
2) You should be entitled to a public and
written apology. Merely removing the image
(and your comments) strikes me as an attempt
to sweep this under the rug, so to speak.
It's quite possible the author of the blog is
fearful of her employment (as she should be)
- but I'd wager that not a single WSJ
management level employee beyond the blog
author is aware of the issue.
I went through a similar situation about 8
years ago - except the company in question
lifted the entirety of my pages. Photos,
text, the whole shebang.
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
As someone who works in the media (ABC News)
I know for a fact exactly what happened here:
this "writer" is probably about 24
years old, she had a deadline to meet,
searched the web for any image that would
work, blatantly stole yours and hoped that
you wouldn't notice. You're lucky you even
got the courtesy statement (which, she
probably thought, would make it all
"ok" somehow).
I'm realizing all too clearly lately the
over-arching problem of the internet which
is, people see it on the web, and think it
either must be free, or it belongs to
"everyone." As a perfect example
of that, check out what happened to my friendrui. Check out the statements on the forums he
links from Flickr users of all people. I saw one that disgusted me
to no end-- it justified the blatant theft of
images by saying, "you may lock your
house, but people can still throw a rock and
break your window." Wha...? So theft
is just OK now, because it's POSSIBLE?
As a result of your experience, Rui's
experience, and the countless stories I've
seen about people's images popping up where
they shouldn't, you'll notice I've taken my
entire stream private. And, if I were you my
friend, I would design and implement a damn
obtrusive watermark and do it now. You work
entirely too hard to make your images (I've
seen the elaborate set-ups you build; you've
shown them to us) just to watch them stolen
by some lazy hack.
Posted 3 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
This photo also belongs to:
Additional Information
© All rights reserved
This photo is public