Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Allegedly, an Alamy tog has photographed a photo (from an exhibition) by Nadav Kander and it has sold via Alamy for a cover of Big Issue. Mr Kandar is, unsurprisingly, unchuffed

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/BzicPZ3HdAZ

 

Edited by Cryptoprocta
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was wondering why there's not more being discussed on this subject. It might happen to any of us while exhibiting in a gallery! 

 

Richard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kander and/or Alamy should sue the photographer - the magazine acted in good faith, though I'm surprised the art director didn't recognise the image.

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that understandably the image has been removed from Alamy, I would have been interested to know how much of the image the actual portrait took up. The Big Issue is printed on pretty poor paper so high resolution wouldn't be needed. Not trying to justify it, just wondering how it happened. Surely no photographer would steal an image like this and pass it off as their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Alex Ramsay said:

Kander and/or Alamy should sue the photographer - the magazine acted in good faith, though I'm surprised the art director didn't recognise the image.

 

Alex

Well, perhaps it was originally in context- not infringing- and the mag has cropped it, in which case it may be liable.

Has anyone seen the cover? I can't find the image on Alamy going back a couple of years- I wonder if it's been pulled.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Alex Ramsay said:

Kander and/or Alamy should sue the photographer - the magazine acted in good faith, though I'm surprised the art director didn't recognise the image.

 

Alex

Woah, be careful, big boy!  One should NEVER encourage legal action against one of the photographic community...

Edited by Colblimp
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

Woah, be careful, big boy!  One should NEVER encourage legal action against one of the photographic community...

 

Why not? Blatant copyright theft is in the interests of none of us

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Alex Ramsay said:

 

Why not? Blatant copyright theft is in the interests of none of us

As I've suggested we don't yet know enough to say that that has happened.

Is it the one on Kander's post or this b/w one, which doesn't look like a gallery print?

https://www.bigissue.com/latest/how-the-david-lynch-foundation-helps-people-who-have-experienced-homelessness/

Edit: No, that's credited to Josh Telles elsewhere.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alex Ramsay said:

 

Why not? Blatant copyright theft is in the interests of none of us

Unbelievable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

.. Surely no photographer would steal an image like this and pass it off as their own. 

 

Oh, yes! 20+ years ago a photographer flat-copied a spread from a 'reportage book on an Asian country by world class photojournalists' and passed it off as their own as part of a commissioned assignment for a colour supp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spacecadet said:

As I've suggested we don't yet know enough to say that that has happened.

Agree entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Google "big issue cover july" and it's still in the Google cache but it looks like BI have taken it down because the link no longer shows it.

It's a pretty good reproduction so must have been a pretty straight copy- I wonder if the only way Kander knows it's not legit is that he hasn't put it on Alamy himself.

So I think I agree- now we know enough- if Kander didn't licence it, IMO it's an infringement.

The BI are on the hook too for secondary infringement- actually they're liable for most of the damages as the photographer has merely made the copy, he's not the publisher. He might be liable for moral rights if he's claimed it's his image. Alamy is covered by the contributor contract as breach of warranty.

I would be going after this myself.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

Woah, be careful, big boy!  One should NEVER encourage legal action against one of the photographic community...

 

Just wondering how would you deal with someone who photographed an image of yours and sold it, passing it off as their own or sold an image of yours that they found online say?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MDM said:

Just wondering how would you deal with someone who photographed an image of yours and sold it, passing it off as their own or sold an image of yours that they found online say?

 

Andy was just suggesting, I think, that we might reserve judgement until all the evidence is in...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably it''s still for sale on the street then. It puts David Lynch in a difficult position as he obviously supports the BI cause as it's similar to that of his own foundation so I imagine he wouldn't want them to go to the expense of a recall, or to sue them even. His anger does seem to be directed at the photographer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Presumably it''s still for sale on the street then. It puts David Lynch in a difficult position as he obviously supports the BI cause as it's similar to that of his own foundation so I imagine he wouldn't want them to go to the expense of a recall, or to sue them even. His anger does seem to be directed at the photographer.

Not much point trying to get a weekly pulped.

It's a UK issue (haha) so Kander can go to  IPEC if he gets no joy. But he ought to know that whilst his ire is rightly directed at the photographer, his lawyer should be aiming at the BI.

Unless I've missed something we don't know what David Lynch thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Presumably it''s still for sale on the street then. It puts David Lynch in a difficult position as he obviously supports the BI cause as it's similar to that of his own foundation so I imagine he wouldn't want them to go to the expense of a recall, or to sue them even. His anger does seem to be directed at the photographer.

I haven't seen David Lynch's response, do you have a link?

 

BTW, there are two photos of a piece of grafitti using this particular image as a clear reference point still in the collection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I haven't seen David Lynch's response, do you have a link?

Sorry , sloppy of me from dipping in and out of the conversation (and the kitchen) whilst I'm in the middle of doing something else. I meant difficult for Nadav Kander as the cause is close to David Lynch's heart, and probably to Nadav Kander as well, who would want to take money away from a homeless charity. No, it was Nadav Kander whose anger seemed to be directed at the photographer in the Instagram link that you posted. Sorry about that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Unless I've missed something we don't know what David Lynch thinks.

 

Yes, sorry, we don't, I've corrected myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Sorry , sloppy of me from dipping in and out of the conversation (and the kitchen) whilst I'm in the middle of doing something else. I meant difficult for Nadav Kander as the cause is close to David Lynch's heart, and probably to Nadav Kander as well, who would want to take money away from a homeless charity. No, it was Nadav Kander whose anger seemed to be directed at the photographer in the Instagram link that you posted. Sorry about that.

I think it's almost certainly the tog who bears the brunt of this.

However, it's 'unfortunate' that of all the photos of DL on Alamy, the BI chose one they had to crop out of context (in a frame in an exhibition).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the first image here.

It looks like it may have been Live News. The opening of the show maybe?

 

wim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Colblimp said:

Woah, be careful, big boy!  One should NEVER encourage legal action against one of the photographic community...

 

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

Just wondering how would you deal with someone who photographed an image of yours and sold it, passing it off as their own or sold an image of yours that they found online say?

 

 

1 hour ago, John Morrison said:

 

Andy was just suggesting, I think, that we might reserve judgement until all the evidence is in...

 

I was just seeing what he said as a general statement, independent of the present discussion, and wondering what his thinking is in general about copyright and image theft. Myself I would consider that legal action should only be used as a last resort but I would not rule it out in the case of blatant image theft (not saying that is what happened here).

 

In the light of wim's post, one might speculate that it was a genuine live news picture of the exhibition that has been cropped, making it appear that the photographer was claiming the image to be their own work when it may have been a reportage image. It will be interesting to see the outcome. 

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

It's the first image here.

It looks like it may have been Live News. The opening of the show maybe?

 

wim

so this would mean the contributor never claimed it as it's own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As taken,  it's arguably in context as far as infringement is concerned- the frame is included, making it clear it's not an attempt at a copy. It probably wouldn't meet Alamy's current requirements for context but that's by the by- CFF is about March 2012.

IMO by cropping and thereby removing the context the BI has infringed and the photographer may have if the context isn't enough, and if putting an image on a picture library is an infringement, which may be doubtful. But in terms of damages, the BI is the main offender here.

Kander presumably has nothing but the cropped image to go on, because Alamy has pulled the original, so he may have simply assumed the worst- that the photographer was deliberately attempting to infringe on his copyright, which I don't think he was, seeing the original but without knowing how it was captioned.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, wiskerke said:

It's the first image here.

It looks like it may have been Live News. The opening of the show maybe?

 

wim

If it was a Live News upload from gallery opening, the picture (assuming it was from this frame) is pretty close in and appears to crop out other ingredients, such as what looks like a mounted caption making it pretty un-newsworthy IMO.

 

As far as BI is concerned though, any competent picture editor should be asking serious questions about its authenticity and double-checking its source.

 

Holiday cover on the desk?

Edited by Richard Baker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.