You aren't signed in     Sign In    Help

Nerve Media, Inc. ("Babble") stole a photo of my daughter without attribution, acknowledgement, or permission

Nerve Media, Inc. ("Babble") stole a photo of my daughter without attribution, acknowledgement, or permission by sweet juniper.
A warning to parents on Flickr: this afternoon I received 20-some e-mails from people either (1) telling me this picture of my daughter (one that has been viewed more than 4,000 times) was attached to a feature story on the upstart parenting site Babble.com; or (2) expressing surprise that I would sell a picture of my daughter to the upstart parenting site Babble.com.

The trouble is, I never sold or agreed to allow Babble use of this picture. They just stole it out of my flickr stream and added it to their front page attached to some story about lead poisoning. I suppose I could count myself lucky that they didn't attach it to one of their stories about smoking pot while playing with your kids or one of their stories about throwing your kids down the stairs so you could fuck your tranny heroin dealer and how much of a badass parent that makes you.

Babble's editor Ada Calhoun responded to my notification of infringement by agreeing to remove the photo, and told me that their photo editor had told her the photo was creative commons and therefore fair game. That photo editor was grossly misinformed. None of my photos have ever been creative commons, and even if this one were, the license generally demands (1) attribution; and (2) noncommercial use. Babble's pure theft of my copyrighted material would have failed both those requirements. This is all the more troubling because (1) I have always reserved all my rights with the copyright notification that appears to the right of every photo; and (2) long ago I also chose to take all possible steps to prevent downloading of my photos from flickr (you can't just right click and save any of my photos).

I don't mean to be an overreactive dick, and if they had stolen one of my pictures of Detroit or some random photo of graffiti, I wouldn't be this upset. But they chose to steal a photo of my daughter and use it to promote their product. Babble is not some babe-in-the-woods new mommyblog, it's a product of the same media company behind literary smut peddler Nerve.com, which has long been a promoter of online artistic expression and has certainly protected its own copyrights vigorously. I find it fascinating that the people behind Babble.com could be so unsophisticated about online copyright that they would make the kind of mistake that even parents.com or your average mommyblogger on the street would never make. [*UPDATE* Babble has been stealing photos from flickr as long as the site has been around--- see the comments]

Luckily, I happen to be a former corporate litigator who spent about half his legal life working in intellectual property litigation. I was able to drum up some legitimate threats and quickly resolve this with Babble to get the photo taken down within a few hours of being posted.

They did offer me $100 to let them use it. I told them no thanks.

It's things like this, above and beyond all those supposed creeps out there, that make me want to stop posting pictures of my kid completely. 

Comments

< Prev 1 2
(156 comments)
view profile

Kimblahg  Pro User  says:

Oh SNAP! I have heard this before- not cool.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sweet juniper  Pro User  says:

Kimblahg- have you heard about Babble doing this before? I have been wondering how many other parents have had their photos stolen for use in the headers of Babble features.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Kimblahg  Pro User  says:

Yes, I JUST read about it & will try to find it for you.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

mamarosa  Pro User  says:

Babble thinks stealing pictures is ok.

Also, there is a group on flickr for this kind of thing.

www.flickr.com/groups/96748022@N00/
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Reference Library  Pro User  says:

You're not being a dick at all. And this (babble, flickr theft, outright theft, non-credited art/illustration) is stupid and fucked.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

marytsao  Pro User  says:

That sucks.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

MelissaS  Pro User  says:

I don't mind when someone uses my images to link to something directly related to my site. However when we venture into "My Images As Stock Art/Photography" my hackles are raised and it's not pretty.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sweet juniper  Pro User  says:

Nothing like raised hackles.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

veggiegirlrn says:

That's terrible! Thanks for posting what happened, it prompted me to update my flickr settings.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Sarah_S  Pro User  says:

That's crazy! What did they think "All Rights Reserved" meant?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Nothing But Bonfires  Pro User  says:

My hackles are raised FOR you. The outrage!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

blurb  Pro User  says:

Did they not know who they were dealing with??

LIARS ARE THE WORST.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Amy & Carl  Pro User  says:

oh, that's awful. what an icky story to attach to a photo with such beautiful meaning.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Reference Library  Pro User  says:

My hackles won't stand for this!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Kyran P.  Pro User  says:

i'm stunned.

out of curiousity, how would you have been disposed toward letting them use it if they had asked nicely on the front end?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

*Mama*Bear* says:

I'm sorry. I know another blogger who had the exact same thing happen to her. Was also told that the person didn't know better...though someone knew enough to "print screen."
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sweet | salty  Pro User  says:

I'm so effing glad that you took it up with them. But it's freaky. Don't you wish there was some kind of photo-GPS that would tell you when your images were published elsewhere? Especially when it involves kids.

I'm with you on the Time-To-Live-In-The-Woods-And-Eff-This-Whole- Online-Published-Photography sentiment.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ekletsgo says:

Wow- that's really disappointing! I like reading that site and it's scary to see what they did. All of my daughter's photos are visible to "friends & family" only because I'm scared to see something like this happen- or worse. Good luck!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

kajatl  Pro User  says:

I'm sorry to hear this :(
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

posthipchick says:

Maybe they'll leave a comment on your blog publicly kissing your ass?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Sarah Brown  Pro User  says:

Whoa! Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is all kinds of fucked up. I'm so glad you can tear open your hoodie to reveal the Super Lawyer on your chest. OH SHlT BABBLE!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Emily GP  Pro User  says:

What the fuck? And Juniper of all kids, how did they not know half of their readers would recognize her and email you?

Didn't you write for them for a while too? Either way this is seriously messed up, I hope you teach them a lesson.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

dkfamily  Pro User  says:

Yikes! That's really terrible. Thank you for posting about this. I'm with Kate, some kind of picture tracking thing would be great.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Elizabeth/Table4Five  Pro User  says:

So Babble's photo editor is thinking to herself "hmm, how can I illustrate a story about lead poisoning? I know! I'll use a photo Dutch posted of Juniper leaning up against a wall with flaking paint, because obviously that will imply that the paint itself contains lead, and then by association, imply that Dutch doesn't care if his daughter is coming into contact with lead paint. Yeah, that's it"

That just sucks in such a huge, nasty way.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

wordnerd  Pro User  says:

wow, frankly I find this shocking and more than a bit disappointing from a site like Babble....really, you make such a good point in saying that they knew better. Thanks for posting this and advising us. I don't think Babble will be on my daily reads list anymore. Difficult to support a company that endorses (or attempts to justify) this kind of behavior.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

fichadelphia says:

Is there a different photo sharing option (other than Flickr) that would allow for greater control and tracking of your images?

My partner uses Flickr to display his photos (mostly of structures and stuff) and we've found his photos in other locations in the past. I think he may have even found a person who was taking credit for taking photos of his...
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

jodi*mckee  Pro User  says:

wow, that really, really sucks. good for you for going after them.
too bad everyone who posts pictures of their kids isn't a former corporate litigator.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Snickrsnack Katie  Pro User  says:

I also work in intellectual property and I agree that this is not okay on any level. Good for you for sticking it to them and getting them to take it down! What losers!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

iheartnewyork  Pro User  says:

that is wrong, wrong, wrong and makes me angry.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Darius Danger  Pro User  says:

Wait one hot second - they thought this was okay? I am so amazed at the sheer size of their balls I am speechless.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

renaissancegirl  Pro User  says:

"It's things like this, in addition to all those supposed creeps out there, that make me want to stop posting pictures of my kid completely."

Why do some assholes have to ruin it for the rest of us.

--
Seen on your photo stream. (?)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

mmmm, brains  Pro User  says:

Lovely. I can't believe the nerve of some people.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

two cups of tea  Pro User  says:

Preach it, Dutch. And what ironic juxtaposition: beating the bullies indeed.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

LeahK  Pro User  says:

It always kills me when people start stealing from the most well-known sites. Reminds me of the time someone was posting Dooce's belly shots as her own, and to an audience of mommybloggers no less. How stupid was Babble not to think Juney would be recognized immediately by hundreds of readers? Duh.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Xiobhan  Pro User  says:

Makes me wonder where my kid might be-- floating around out there... yeeshka. Admittedly, he's not nearly as cute as Juney Pop. Still!!!! That is one good thing about the internet -- the power to rally.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

autumn.a.  Pro User  says:

bastards!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

MollyChase says:

It's almost kind of funny to me that a photo editor would have such an awful effing day that she would attempt to appropriate the intellectual property of an intellectual property attorney, and a widely-known one at that.

I'm sort of dealing with the same thing at work--a vendor who has appropriated the use of text, ideas, and other material that was created by the company I work for and is profitting from their unattributed use. Since I'm the creator of a lot of the material, I anticipate spending a lot of the next two days on the phone with lawyers.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

brokenwrists [deleted] says:

That just... boggles the mind. Really.

And then they offered $100 for it? Wow, why not add insult to injury while you're at it.

This makes no sense to me as a designer. Nowadays, you can get large, royalty-free stock photos at places like istockphoto.com for a few bucks. Compare that to a decade ago, when all that was available to were a limited selection of stock photos at a few hundred dollars a piece with expirations, model releases and usage restrictions... or doing your own photo shoots for thousands of dollars.

In this day and age especially, there is no excuse for this. (Not that there is EVER a time or excuse for stealing a photo.)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

brokenwrists [deleted] says:

re: comment from where the snowflakes fall

Flickr actually makes it very difficult for would-be picture snatchers to grab your images. Unless you allow for images to be downloaded, photos are overlayed with a small transparent image. You can test this -- right-click an image and save it to your desktop. All that you'll get is a small 1x1 pixel file.

Flickr just has that disclaimer to let you know that if you post it, they can't ultimately protect your images from being copied. If you post an image online, there are several ways to make it difficult to steal (Flash, right-click disable, etc.) But anyone can screenshot a page, and there's no way for a host to prevent, or even know, if someone's taken a screenshot.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

soundflower  Pro User  says:

Can't beat the irony: they didn't understand copyright, they presumed YOU didn't understand copyright, and they stole from a lawyer.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

two-magpies says:

Disgusting to do it anyway; disgusting to, as was said above, somehow infer the painted walls are dangerous. Unbelievable. And you wrote for them some time ago didn't you? They must surely know you're a lawyer and that you'd find out about this.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

lola goetz  Pro User  says:

also, there are PLENTY of cc photos that allow attribution & don't restrict commercial use. and flickr has made it easier to search by those tags. i find it hard to believe the editor didn't know that.

--
Seen on your photo stream. (?)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sweet juniper  Pro User  says:

Ada Calhoun, Babble's editor in chief, just told me that it was not Babble's photo editor that "found" my photo, but a "young assistant" who she says "did not understand flickr" and has been severely reprimanded. She asked that I not pursue it anymore because the young lady has been punished enough.

This "naive young photo assistant" was sophisticated enough to circumvent the right-click protection and obtain the photo through a screen grab, so I have some suspicions about where the blame actually lies here. Also, given information I have received from some folks who have been on the inside at Babble, I have some suspicions that this was done intentionally. At the very least, it exhibits the kind of recklessness that has been standard at Babble since the beginning [apparently, the EXACT thing happened to Robin at shutterblog.com (copyright image, right-click protection, screen grab, "oops, the intern did it!" apology).]
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

k_a_t  Pro User  says:

i cannot believe that they didn't ask for your permission. it's not a picture of you, it's of your daughter. hello! as far as kids are concerned, of course you would ask.
i don't have kids, but hearing this would certainly make me think twice about publically sharing my kid's photos for sure. i'm curious as to know what else will happen with babble.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Amy & Carl  Pro User  says:

Looks like Babble's not the only one stealing photos:

www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/24/intv. virgin.flick...
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

saraminerva444 says:

Bastards. Good for you for getting that resolved. You're not being an over-reactive dick. You're being a good father.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

calhounmedlin  Pro User  says:

Babble's Editor-in-Chief here.

As I explained to James during our lengthy email exchange last week, there are several young interns and assistants helping out the photo editor. One had a woefully bad understanding of copyright and made this unfortunate error.

The second I found out a photo had been posted without permission, I had it removed and held an emergency meeting to make sure everyone on staff knew that using permission-free images was entirely forbidden at Babble. I would never knowingly allow a photo without permission to be published, and deeply regret the error.

If anyone else has had a photo appear on Babble without permission, they should email me directly (ada@babble.com) and I will take care of it. We take this kind of thing very seriously and have put an explicit photo policy in place to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

- Ada Calhoun
Editor-in-Chief
Babble.com
ada@babble.com
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sweet juniper  Pro User  says:

I already included Babble's side of the story in a comment above. But what I still don't understand is how the decision of a young photo assistant with a woeful comprehension of copyright was not scrutinized or questioned by anyone in the chain of command before ending up on Babble's front page. I guess that's just where the buck stops at Babble: ditsy, bubble-gum popping interns from the myspace generation.

Ada is correct that the photo was removed after Babble was contacted (though it was not "the second" Ada was informed, but rather only after I declined her e-mailed offer of $100 for the continued use of the photo).

Based on this incident and from what I have learned since it happened, Babble has, at best, been reckless with its use of others' copyrighted material. At this point, though, I do believe Babble's staff will take this issue more seriously in the future. My real concern now lies not with Babble but with the millions of other ways photos of our children may be used or co opted without our knowledge. When is one of us going to find out about a picture of our kid in some magazine in South Korea? Babble is a part of an American media company who has incentive to respond to the threat of litigation. I was lucky, I guess, but this further concern was part of the consideration for the decision I made last night to take over 900 of my photos off flickr.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Emily GP  Pro User  says:

This whole thing, and the virgin thing makes me want to make all my photos "friends and family" only.
Thanks for posting this, and the follow up.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

[ aboring ]  Pro User  says:

whoa. glad you found out.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Heather-L  Pro User  says:

This is not the first time Babble has gone ahead and used photos w/o permission:
www.shutterblog.com/exposed/000143.html
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

shutterblog  Pro User  says:

Yes, as mentions, they did this to me (and a couple of other professional photographers on Flickr) last November / December which resulted in months of legal wrangling with attorneys and this:

www.flickr.com/photos/shutterblog/458161279/

After going head-to-head with me and my attorney for MONTHS on this 'intern issue', there is absolutely NO EXCUSE whatsoever that they are still pilfering Flickr and pulling this "ignorance" excuse.

I would have thought they would have been more careful after entering into our legal settlement. I guess not.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

shutterblog  Pro User  says:

Your PSA of the day from someone who's been there, got the t-shirt. It is not enough to rely on the copyright symbol. Take the time and register your photos. It's quick. It's easy. It costs $45 for enough photos as you can cram on a CD. And in the future when this happens (because it will happen again - if they stole mine last winter and are stealing other people's this fall, it will occur again until someone punches them in the wallet where it counts) as long as your images are registered you are entitled to $150K / infraction and all legal fees.

If my attorney had not been a client and donated her hours pro-bono, I was looking at roughly $265/hour to merely draft a letter to Babble on official legal letterhead, and being billed for roughly 5 hours to compose the letter. Nevermind follow-up contact and potential court-costs after the fact. (Just filing a suit would have been around $250 in the state of Florida.) They are hoping a quick $100 or so under the table here and there on the unsuspecting and that a little cash will "make it go away".

If you put it on the web, and you want at least some rights when a corporation invariably steals it, register it.

© All rights reserved is as good as the print-screen it's erased from.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sweet juniper  Pro User  says:

Now I'm never going to get to sleep tonight. I'll be too busy drafting an imaginary federal court complaint against Nerve Media. Damn you Lawyer Jim, I don't want to be you anymore! Please get out of my head!

And while I agree the © All rights reserved protection is limited without registration, I disagree that it's worthless. More hoops to jump through if the work is not registered prior to infringement, but failing to register does not give bad actors like Babble and Nerve Media the freedom to steal with impunity.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Miss Emish says:

I've heard of this happening quite a bit to the many talented photographers here on flickr. Please consider adding me as a contact if you are going to restrict posting. I really love your photos.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sesame ellis  Pro User  says:

Are you kidding me? Did they not learn their lesson before when they stole my images and Shutterblog's and -Angela's a year ago????? Did our lawyers not explain it to them clearly enough? Seriously, this is outrageous. I hope you take them to the cleaners and if you need some proof that they have done this before, just drop me an email (rachel@racheldevine.com) and I will be happy to speak up.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sweet juniper  Pro User  says:

It truly makes me sick that Babble acted so surprised when I reported this---as though it has never happened before----and blamed it all on some mysterious young intern who just didn't know any better.

In the last hour I have "discovered" three additional photos on flickr that have been used as photo headers for babble stories. I have contacted those photographers to let them know.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

dkfamily  Pro User  says:

Although I am nowhere near the photographer you are, I find this whole situation scary and is making me reconsider keeping/posting my photos here. It's just too easy for them, isn't it?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

shutterblog  Pro User  says:

I'm in total agreement on the "© All rights reserved" thing -- but even I didn't realize (until I went through it last year) to really have a legal leg to stand on the images would have to be registered as well. Most people don't have a legal background, nor the $265/hour it would take to get a good attorney to fight on their behalf. (Because with Nerve / Babble, you get absolutely nowhere until you get legal.) If I'd had my image registered, I would have went to court -- I would have laughed at the thought of settlement they way they treated me.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Norby  Pro User  says:

FWIW, Virgin Mobile AU was completely within the law to use the photos that they did, even if they could have attributed them better, given that the license was set to CC commercial and (based on what I've read so far) model releases are only required if there is implied endorsement or if you're a celebrity.

-/\/
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sweet juniper  Pro User  says:

Yeah, all the Virgin Mobile thing teaches us is that we shouldn't let people who believe in the creative commons with no limitations take pictures of our kids.

The photographer may have no statutory claim, but the parents of the girl might still have some kind of privacy claim against the company.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

motherwoman  Pro User  says:

As a media librarian I run up against the wishful thinking of many parties that copyright dead. As you know -- being the rare bird you are -- it is ridiculously hard for people to secure good legal counsel on the topic. Fundamentally, the image suck that corporations represent these days have people so distracted that it could happen.

Thanks for turning down the $100. hey.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

veg4me says:

It's nice that Babble can ask you to "not pursue it any more because the intern had been punished enough".

I don't really think there's a limit to how far we will go to not only protect our art, but more importantly OUR CHILDREN. They are a site about parenting, you would think they'd "get it".

Internship at Babble=being some schmuck's scapegoat.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cotinga25 says:

Wow. Just wow. I can't believe glossy, 'professional' Babbble would do something like this. Though this is rather late, I just wanted to tell you that the hackles of my hackles are raised for you!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sesame ellis  Pro User  says:

Just read Ada's comment above and wondering if this is the same "intern" who was "no longer with the company" after the incident using our images during their launch. I had to come back to read this again because I really just can't believe that it happened again.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

shutterblog  Pro User  says:

I'm with you...it's like I can believe it, because they were so arrogant and blame-shifting with us. But I can't, because they came this close into landing into court with me - and they know it. If four months of settlement agreements don't mean a long discussion with your interns about appropriate use of Flickr photographs (which you and I were both told had already occurred back then), then I don't know what is. Unless of course they still realize that settling for a pittance with individual people who don't have legal teams on retainer backing them is easier than combing pay-stock sites or hiring a starving artist for licensed images... (That is of course until the publicity and readership-losses ultimately cost them more than stock art or a studio rental would have...)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

toddlertoes  Pro User  says:

I'm sorry and I can't believe the nerve....
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

k_a_t  Pro User  says:

will you be updating your blog with this story?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sweet juniper  Pro User  says:

no, because inevitably I would have to link to them. and I don't want to give them any traffic. somewhat ironically, this little flickr page already has more traffic than the original lead poisoning article for which they stole my photograph. But part of me suspects they did it intentionally so I would get all outraged and write a post and send a bunch of people who'd never heard of babble over there. they really embrace unnecessary controversy (remember the Neal Pollack hatchet job?---they brought that suckdog twat in to write a 'review' of a book she didn't read, basked in the traffic of outrage for a few days, and then continued to write about it ad nauseum. Turns out Babble would have had a different take on Alternadad if Neal had gone along with their original plan to excerpt it on Babble. Such fucking hypocrisy) and they have clearly made a practice of stealing the artwork of others because they knew they can (1) try to pass $100 under the table to make the victim go away; or (2) force the victim to give up in the face of litigation costs. What a bunch of fucking unethical assholes.

It is such a nasty, outrageous and completely unethical way for a self-declared online magazine to operate. They should be held to the same standard as any other magazine with millions of dollars worth of revenue.

The only thing I would still like to do is gather everyone they ever screwed and sue Nerve Media, offering my legal services free of charge. I would love to take the deposition of Jodie Abrams, Babble's photo editor, or Rufus Grisom, to find out once and for all how long they've been pulling this crap, and lying about it.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Xiobhan  Pro User  says:

I have noticed that many great writers are no longer posting for StrollerDerby (SuburbanBliss and GoonSquad Sarah among them.) I hope it is in part because of stuff like this.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

artemis9.rm says:

fuck babble.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

calhounmedlin  Pro User  says:

Just to clarify: ever since we found out about this horrible mistake last week, we have been working to identify all photos taken without permission and to remove them from the site. We feel sick about this failure to get proper permissions for certain images and are working as fast as possible to undo the damage. I'd like to also address some of the issues raised above:

* Nerve has to our knowledge never been accused of appropriating images or removing watermarks, and I would invite the above intern or anyone who has ever heard of this happening to contact me immediately.
* The issues raised by Shutterblog and Sesame Ellis were, I believe, a separate design matter related to our launch in December 2006. To my knowledge, amends were made, but if anyone still has any complaints or questions: again, I encourage them to please contact me. I'll include my direct phone number too: 212-625-9914x248.
*The changes in Strollerderby have been amicable and are due to a revamp that will be finished by October 15th. They are unrelated to this.
*We certainly bear Sweet Juniper no grudge and wish him all the best with his great blog.

You're all 100% right in what you say about how bad misusing photos is. And if we were a bigger corporation, we would have had better training and more formal rules from the outset. But we are not a big corporation, nor are we greedy or acting maliciously. Nerve Media is a very small company with just a handful of full-time editorial employees. Our only goal is to create exciting, honest magazines.

So, again, I encourage you all to please email links to any photos used without permission: ada@babble.com. We are fully aware of how grave this error is, and we are working very hard to fix it as fast as possible. -- Ada Calhoun, Babble.com
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

MrClean1982  Pro User  says:

Babble STOLE one of my shots as well!

www.flickr.com/photos/mrclean/359397708/

I say we make them pay for it!

Count me in on a class action suit!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sweet juniper  Pro User  says:

"Griscom said that Nerve is profitable, with a projected profit margin of 20 percent on more than $3 million in revenue this year."

www.marketingvox.com/archives/2006/12/12/nerv e-launches-b...

20 percent of $3 million = $600,000 pure profit

I have also received an e-mail from someone who used to be on the inside at Nerve who says the company's profits are actually much higher.

You have a full-time photographer/photo editor on staff. Maybe it's time Rufus used some of that $600,000 profit to hire someone to help her take some goddamned pictures.

"if we were a bigger corporation, we would have had better training and more formal rules from the outset"

You mean like, "we won't use photos unless we pay for them or take them ourselves." Gosh, I imagine it takes a gigantic Fortune 500 company to come up with something so complex as that!

You have absolutely no credibility here Ada. I've seen your e-mails to Robyn [shutterblog] blaming the same lousy intern. The same tired, old, polite lies.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sweet juniper  Pro User  says:

Don't worry, Mr. Clean, I saved a screenshot of their use of your photo.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sesame ellis  Pro User  says:

You want the emails they sent to me about the same thing? This is OUTRAGEOUS that the editor would claim it was a separate design issue. They asked me how much it would be to use my images, I quoted them a price, never heard back from them and then at launch my photos were all over their site. When I billed them for it, they refused to pay and claimed misunderstanding and blamed it on an intern named Sara. It took me lots of time and a few letters from my attorney to sort the issue out. If that issue had been truly been resolved, then this additional misunderstanding would never have happened. Shameful.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Miss Emish says:

The poor, poor interns. Their actual job title seems to be "scapegoat." It's easy to blame it on the bottom. Never mind that they're supposed to learning and getting guidence. Some lesson.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

dkfamily  Pro User  says:

"if we were a bigger corporation, we would have had better training and more formal rules from the outset."

So, only big companies have to be ethical? I don't understand this statement at all.

Good for you, Dutch, and everyone else for bringing this to our attention. I stopped reading B*bble regularly very soon after it had launched. I won't be going back now.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sweet juniper  Pro User  says:

I just received word that Rufus is e-mailing individuals who have left comments here providing inside information about Nerve's "policies" and asking for clarification and demanding more information.

Please understand that Rufus has no control over this space and you should not let him intimidate you if he attempts to contact you. If you feel more comfortable sharing information with me privately, please e-mail me at sweetjuniper@gmail.com, and if you'd like I will relay that information here in the comments anonymously on your behalf.

The information that one commenter felt compelled to take down after being e-mailed by Rufus was that as an intern at Nerve s/he was treated extremely poorly and repeatedly told to use photo editing software to remove watermarks from Corbis and Getty when preparing images for the site.

Another commenter whose comments were removed because s/he didn't want to get into it with Rufus was a former director at Nerve who confirmed what the former intern said. S/he wrote: "It was our daily practice to scour all available websites for editorial images and to use them without regard to copyright, etc. I tried to fight this practice, among other dubious and wretched activities, and all it did was put me out of favor and on the chopping block." That is the individual that "Little Bill" is addressing in the following comment.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

rufybaby says:

Hey folks --

All I can say is that we are trying to do the right thing here, as we always have in the past and present (little bill describes our policies well above ... nice to hear from you Bill). Our posts here and communications with people who have posted have one purpose only: to politely and respectfully get information about any problems. Sweet juniper, on the other hand, has a very specific agenda here: he is trying to find a way to make some money off of us. I do hope the rest of you will consider reading Babble.com now and then ... though we are not perfect, we put a lot of energy every day into making what i think is a pretty great website for young parents.

best to all (including even you, sweet juniper),

Rufus
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Sarah Brown  Pro User  says:

I think it's pretty clear to his friends and readers that the last thing Jim is trying to do here is make money off of anyone, and you just really screwed up any possible grace or forgiveness by saying so in this thread. Such total bullshit.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sweet juniper  Pro User  says:

Rufus, with all due respect, you don't know shit about me. You stole a picture of my little girl and used it to peddle a story on your struggling website. All I want to see is that someone like you who routinely and cavalierly steals and infringes copyrights can be stopped. I don't want a fucking dime from this (not every one in the world is a moneygrubbing Manhattan asshole, I know that is easy to forget when you're nine stories above Broadway).

You fucked with me. You fucked with my 2-year-old daughter. You've done it before to many others. You deserve every bit of negative attention you will get for what you've done.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

rufybaby says:

Sweet Juniper, will all due respect, the minute you alerted us to the problem we took the photo down and talked about the problem with our photo department. We have apologized to you repeatedly for the mistake. I think your response is out of proportion. The photos you are posting elsewhere as supposed infractions were posted with permission from the photographers, so your postings are defamatory and inaccurate. We are all parents here with young kids ... nobody is out to get anyone. I think you are losing perspective on the fact that this is a literary website for parents. Please feel free to call us if you want to discuss it further.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

babblestealsphotos [deleted] says:

The photos rufus is referring to are here:

www.flickr.com/photos/14147369@N07/
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

brokenwrists [deleted] says:

"...we would like to pay $100 to any photographer whose image was used without permission as an apology (which 4x what we pay to Getty images for usage)".

Perhaps what is paid for royalty free photos. That would be photographers who have WILLINGLY signed over their images to Getty and models in those photos who have WILLINGLY signed over rights to use their face on any advertisement, in any situation, without any further consent or compensation.

A large majority of the GOOD images on Getty, and other high-quality photo sites, are rights restricted. This means they cannot be used on types of projects which the photographer or the model (and the model's parents in the case of a minor) have not pre-approved. They also have expirations, and the price is based on the usage (size, time, percentage of total advertisement).

For example, an image I used in a cafeteria trayliner on a single university campus cost $425. The portion of the trayliner covered by the image was approximately 40% and it expired after one semester.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

brokenwrists [deleted] says:

"We are all parents here with young kids ... nobody is out to get anyone. I think you are losing perspective on the fact that this is a literary website for parents."

While I agree there was probably no malicious, harmful intent behind the usage of the photographs, I respectfully disagree that Dutch is losing perspective of the situation. What does the fact that it is a literary website for parents have to do with it? I've worked in the advertising industry for about a decade and I would never put my child in one of my campaigns, even if it were for a fantastic, not-for-profit cause. It's just something I feel strongly about.

It's situations like this that caused me to make all pictures of my children private in my Flickr account.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Trains and Boats  Pro User  says:

"Sweet juniper, on the other hand, has a very specific agenda here: he is trying to find a way to make some money off of us."

That made coffee come out of my nose. Seriously? None of his readers will ever believe that.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Miss Emish says:

argumentum ad hominem...it will burn you every time. SarahBrown said it well.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

eustacia42  Pro User  says:

This IS crazy. I don't even know any of the people involved in this thread (check my contacts list if you don't believe me), but I find Rufus's "trying to find a way to make money" comment ludicrous and petty. And obviously missing the point entirely.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

k_a_t  Pro User  says:

low blow rufus, low blow. it's not even true! GEEZ. many of us readers of sweet-juniper know that. it's not about the money!

i don't even HAVE kids but i freaked out when i saw this b/c i don't want someone using my photo without permission. you can bet i'd be even more freaked out and upset if it were a picture of my KID.

i think what's upsettting for a lot of people is that y'all have done this more than once. and don't you have a photo editor whose job is to say "hey! where did you get this photo?!" seriously.

the response is not out of proportion. it's the response of a DAD. of a parent. even i get that.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Fruganzee  Pro User  says:

We all know that the Sweet Junipers are Bugaboo coveting, McMansion dwellers who just can't seem to stay on top of the minimum payments on their maxed out credit cards.

Rufus, I will have you know that I used to casually browse Babble. Your behavior and pathetic excuse making has assured that I will never, ever do so again, and will tell everyone I know to avoid it like the plague. Well done.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

rufuslicksballs says:

Hey rufus I just used a photo of your son in an ad to encourage the use of birth control. My best friend's intern's neighbor said that it was all right. Hope that's ok with you. If not let me know and I'll give you a dime to make the problem go away. You Douche!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

LittleBill  Pro User  says:

Look everyone. I don't work at Nerve. I haven't for the better part of a year at this point. And while I hold some loyalties to them as friends and a good job that I held for a few years, I am responding to this of my own volition.

I think it's all getting a bit carried away. sweet_juniper started this post. It was long and made assumptions on the character of the people who work there, whom I know quite well. However it's to be expected from someone wronged as sweet_juniper was wronged.

Yet Nerve flat out admitted the wrongdoing. Aplogized for it and attempted to make amends. At least they are trying to make everyone directly involved happy, right?. I mean, a $100 we're-dumbasses-tax is a hell of a gesture, especially if you begin to consider how many (or few) of these are out there.

So to reiterate. Nerve says, 1) Yes we messed up. 2) We're very sorry for that 3) Here's a consolation payment even though we're taking it down (don't tell me you're NOT taking it) and 3) says they're taking steps to correct this.

So yay, right?

Nope! Let's let the Nerve/Babble bashing session resume. Why? Because it's DRAMA and it's fun that's what we do on the internet!

SweetJuniper, you were right. Nerve was wrong. They admitted to it. Let's let this thing run its course so everyone can be happy, no?

and to whomever created a character named "RufusLicksBalls", way to keep it mature,
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

LittleBill  Pro User  says:

also: note to self: don't write long comments when waiting for Ambient to kick in. Wobbly screen words are odd.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

veg4me says:

I didn't decide to be angry about Nerve/Babble's "oversight" because I was caught up in drama.

I think most of us are angry about it because it appears to be a pattern with them. They've apologized in the past and yet continue to make the same mistakes.

This isn't some internet induced hysteria, it's parents and photographers banding together to prevent this from happening to someone else in the future.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

divrchk  Pro User  says:

If this were a first offense, that would be one thing. But, this has happend numerous times in the past. I think we are all outraged that such a large corporation does not learn from their mistakes. They blame an intern who apparently is interning for the longest intern period ever. Aren't internships usually less than 1 year? And, if the same intern would fuck up doing the same thing more than once, don't you fire said intern and move on?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

MelissaS  Pro User  says:

I stopped writing for Babble a couple months ago due to other time commitments. I gave my official notice after Dutch emailed me about this situation.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

< Prev 1 2
(156 comments)

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).

[?]

sweet juniper's photostream

1,501
uploads

Additional Information

All rights reserved Anyone can see this photo

Add to your map