Nerve Media, Inc. ("Babble") stole a photo of my daughter without attribution, acknowledgement, or permission
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 Babble.com.
The trouble is, I never sold or agreed to allow Babble use of this picture. They just screen grabbed 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 either lying or so poorly informed about digital media she ought not to be working with photo content for such a well-funded online magazine. 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). This was a screen grab in which the Babble employee went around these protections provided by flickr to protect its users' copyrights.
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 and when caught has always blamed the same clueless intern--- 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 and faves
iheartnewyork, ~*~Sheyla~*~, Dineen, sesame ellis, and 40 other people added this photo to their favorites.
Kim+5 (69 months ago | reply)
Oh SNAP! I have heard this before- not cool.
j.griffioen (sweet juniper) (69 months ago | reply)
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.
Kim+5 (69 months ago | reply)
Yes, I JUST read about it & will try to find it for you.
mamarosa (69 months ago | reply)
Babble thinks stealing pictures is ok.
Also, there is a group on flickr for this kind of thing.
www.flickr.com/groups/96748022@N00/
Reference Library (69 months ago | reply)
You're not being a dick at all. And this (babble, flickr theft, outright theft, non-credited art/illustration) is stupid and fucked.
marytsao (69 months ago | reply)
That sucks.
MelissaS (69 months ago | reply)
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.
j.griffioen (sweet juniper) (69 months ago | reply)
Nothing like raised hackles.
veggiegirlrn (69 months ago | reply)
That's terrible! Thanks for posting what happened, it prompted me to update my flickr settings.
Sarah_S_K (69 months ago | reply)
That's crazy! What did they think "All Rights Reserved" meant?
Nothing But Bonfires (69 months ago | reply)
My hackles are raised FOR you. The outrage!
blurb (69 months ago | reply)
Did they not know who they were dealing with??
LIARS ARE THE WORST.
Amy & Carl (69 months ago | reply)
oh, that's awful. what an icky story to attach to a photo with such beautiful meaning.
Reference Library (69 months ago | reply)
My hackles won't stand for this!
Kyran P. (69 months ago | reply)
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?
*Mama*Bear* (69 months ago | reply)
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."
kate.h.inglis (69 months ago | reply)
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.
ekletsgo (69 months ago | reply)
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!
savoryexposure (69 months ago | reply)
I'm sorry to hear this :(
posthipchick (69 months ago | reply)
Maybe they'll leave a comment on your blog publicly kissing your ass?
Sarah Brown (69 months ago | reply)
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!
Emily G Photography (69 months ago | reply)
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.
dkfamily (69 months ago | reply)
Yikes! That's really terrible. Thank you for posting about this. I'm with Kate, some kind of picture tracking thing would be great.
Elizabeth/Table4Five (69 months ago | reply)
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.
wordnerd (69 months ago | reply)
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.
fichadelphia (69 months ago | reply)
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...
jodi*mckee (69 months ago | reply)
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.
Snickrsnack Katie (69 months ago | reply)
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!
iheartnewyork (69 months ago | reply)
that is wrong, wrong, wrong and makes me angry.
Darius Danger (69 months ago | reply)
Wait one hot second - they thought this was okay? I am so amazed at the sheer size of their balls I am speechless.
renaissancegirl (69 months ago | reply)
"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. (?)
mmmm, brains (69 months ago | reply)
Lovely. I can't believe the nerve of some people.
two cups of tea (69 months ago | reply)
Preach it, Dutch. And what ironic juxtaposition: beating the bullies indeed.
LeahK (69 months ago | reply)
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.
Xiobhan (69 months ago | reply)
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.
autumn.a. (69 months ago | reply)
bastards!
MollyChase (69 months ago | reply)
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.
brokenwrists [deleted] (69 months ago | reply)
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.)
brokenwrists [deleted] (69 months ago | reply)
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.
soundflower (69 months ago | reply)
Can't beat the irony: they didn't understand copyright, they presumed YOU didn't understand copyright, and they stole from a lawyer.
two-magpies (69 months ago | reply)
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.
lola goetz (69 months ago | reply)
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. (?)
j.griffioen (sweet juniper) (69 months ago | reply)
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).]
k_a_t (69 months ago | reply)
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.
Amy & Carl (69 months ago | reply)
Looks like Babble's not the only one stealing photos:
www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/24/intv. virgin.flick...
saradickens (69 months ago | reply)
Bastards. Good for you for getting that resolved. You're not being an over-reactive dick. You're being a good father.
calhounmedlin (69 months ago | reply)
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
j.griffioen (sweet juniper) (69 months ago | reply)
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.
Emily G Photography (69 months ago | reply)
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.
[ aboring ] (69 months ago | reply)
whoa. glad you found out.