A cautionary tale

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

 

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.

 

 

this is from Kander's post

 

Quote

Now this week The BiG Issue which is a magazine in the U.K. publishes a interview with David and buys this despicably shot picture of my photograph, crops in and uses it on the cover of the mag this week. 

 

 

so he seems aware it was cropped by BI. 

[Marianne]

It would be helpful to see the full caption of the image Wim posted, but, as noted, it has been pulled. You would think that even the small amount of context in the photo would have been sufficient to alert a photo editor to the fact that they should investigate who shot the image, and the caption may well have credited the original photographer. 

We can't be sure that the google image that showed up hasn't cropped out more of the context, but even if it hasn't, it is certainly troubling that a photograph of a photograph was used on a magazine cover, when the magazine could and should have contacted the actual photographer. IMHO, the photo editor (or the staffer who sourced the image) should have known better.

In these days of bloggers and citizen journalists, it seems that even legitimate journalists' standards have slipped. Sad state of affairs. 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Marianne

[Marianne]

Sorry it didn't appear to post and then posted 3x! 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Marianne

[Marianne]

Evil triplets!

Edited July 8, 2019 by Marianne

[MariaJ]

IMHO the photograph on alamy doesn't really put the artist's original photograph in context.  It appears to take up almost 3/4 of the frame.

 

I noticed a lot of anger on instagram directed at alamy and the photographer, assuming it was deliberate image theft.  However if the photograph was marked as having no releases (which we don't know) then the BI staff should have known better than to use it, especially with such a close crop of the original artists' work.

 

 

[Chuck Nacke]

Keeping in mind that all I know about this is from the Forum.

 

I think it is sad that this happened, any picture editor worth

their coffee or ... would have caught this.  I do not know how

the photograph of the photograph was placed on Alamy?

But Alamy should have caught this, the photographer who

photographed the photograph should have made sure that

the "creator of the image" or the photographer was credited.

They may have and the publication may have ignored all?

 

In my opinion this is what happens when people who are not

trained in journalism, try to work in journalism.

 

Chuck Nacke

[sooth]

13 hours ago, Marianne said:

It would be helpful to see the full caption of the image Wim posted, but, as noted, it has been pulled. You would think that even the small amount of context in the photo would have been sufficient to alert a photo editor to the fact that they should investigate who shot the image, and the caption may well have credited the original photographer. 

We can't be sure that the google image that showed up hasn't cropped out more of the context, but even if it hasn't, it is certainly troubling that a photograph of a photograph was used on a magazine cover, when the magazine could and should have contacted the actual photographer. IMHO, the photo editor (or the staffer who sourced the image) should have known better.

In these days of bloggers and citizen journalists, it seems that even legitimate journalists' standards have slipped. Sad state of affairs. 

the caption of the alamy photo said it was a print exhibition, and one of the visible keywords was nadav, although print buyers don't really look at the keywords

 

btw, google doesn't crop anything.

 

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by sooth

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, sooth said:

btw, google doesn't crop anything.

If  you click some other Alamy images in that search, they are cropped compared to the Alamy image. That might be on Alamy's end, of course.

[riccarbi]

There is a BIG difference between taking a photograph of a photo  within a "context" (say, at an exhibition, with your photo also showing a part of the gallery space, perhaps some visitors, and so on ) and a photograph of another photo totally separated from its context (namely, setting your lens zoom level to exclude anything but the photo you are depicting or cropping it when editing).
IMHO, in the first case, you are documenting an event; in the second case, you are (most times, not always) just trying to circumvent copyright. Furthermore, you must be very clear and detailed in your caption by including the original photographer's name, the title of the picture, the exhibition title, place, and year, and so on; even if there is more than one photo in your picture. Obviously, all photos of that kind should be marked as editorial only.
Yet, I admit it's not always easy to tell one scenario from the other. Obviously, it also depends on the quality of your picture, it's almost impossible to create an acceptable "copy" of another photo with your camera without using a tripod, for example. Furthermore, was your shooting close-up intentional or not, did you make it because you wanted to fake you were the original picture's author or just to take a better picture? Who is responsible if you took the photo within a context and the buyer cropped it removing walls, frame, people and so on? What about the caption, are you sure the buyer read it? (it's always better to add an artwork's author and the exhibition details in your photo filename and title. so that nobody can say "I ignored that the photo depicted was actually by...").
Very difficult matter, indeed.

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by riccarbi

[vpics]

10 hours ago, riccarbi said:

 (it's always better to add an artwork's author and the exhibition details in your photo filename ...

Although, most agencies rename the files.

 

Totally agree with the rest of the post.

[John J Bloomfield]

So was this image sold on an editorial licence - that is what I had assumed as I couldn't see Alamy QC letting it go through any other way......also not sure how a professional journalist would look at the original image and see at as anything other than 'editorial' and think cropping like that would be acceptable.

You can still see the uncropped version here 

Edited July 17, 2019 by John J Bloomfield

[Cryptoprocta]

3 hours ago, John J Bloomfield said:

So was this image sold on an editorial licence - that is what I had assumed as I couldn't see Alamy QC letting it go through any other way

Alamy QC has no input in editorial/commerical.

Images get passed and then we set all the details, whether we have releases, whether to tick the editorial only box etc.

 

This use was editorial.

The issue is the cropping of the original.

 

In another place, someone quoted

"Alamy licence agreement:
Grant of rights and restrictions
Images of in copyright artwork may be cropped or otherwise edited for technical quality, provided that the original context and setting of the image is not altered."

However, that info isn't easy to find.

This page claims to have " ... all the information you need about buying stock imagery in one place, including; how image licensing works, what we mean by commercial and editorial use and what you’ll find in our collection." and it doesn't have that info:

https://www.alamy.com/help

 

Then I looked on the file page of one of my own editorial images and couldn't find a link to the restriction quoted above, which is here:

https://www.alamy.com/terms/rm-contract.asp

     which I had to find by taking part of the quote and googling it.

(SO that help page doesn't have "all the information you need", so is misleading.

Maybe someone has to agree that they've read that page before signing up as a buyer (but OTOH, Alamy's front page says, "Hassle free - no subscriptions, no credits, no need to register!"

 

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by Cryptoprocta

[John J Bloomfield]

cropping in a way that removes context I think is against the industry accepted definition of 'editorial use'

[Harry Harrison]

In a statement on Instagram Big Issue initially denied responsibility and blamed Alamy.  They have now thought better of it and seemingly accepted full responsibility:

 

Here

[Cryptoprocta]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

In a statement on Instagram Big Issue initially denied responsibility and blamed Alamy.  They have now thought better of it and seemingly accepted full responsibility:

 

Here

Thanks for that. I hadn't read the backtrack.

[spacecadet]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

In a statement on Instagram Big Issue initially denied responsibility and blamed Alamy.  They have now thought better of it and seemingly accepted full responsibility:

 

Here

Only as far as Alamy's end is concerned- I wonder if certain parties' lawyers have been in communication. Anyway BI's lawyers seem to have told the BI the facts of life. No mention of infringement in that statement, claimed or not. One hopes Kander has now had the correct advice.

Saying you don't know what's going to be in your magazine doesn't say much about your journalism.

Edited July 18, 2019 by spacecadet

[Harry Harrison]

Actually I skimmed through AP in the supermarket on Tuesday and of course the current printed version only has the earlier statement from Big Issue pointing the finger at Alamy, and stating that AP had tried to contact Alamy for a statement with no response, what a difference a day makes. I guess they'll update the story in next week's issue.

[Harry Harrison]

This was in another thread but I'll put it here as it's related to artworks:

 

http://www.artnews.com/2019/07/17/ai-weiwei-volkswagen-lawsuit/

 

Ai Weiwei wins lawsuit against VW distributor -  a tad over $260,000

[wiskerke]

And yet another cautionary tale:

https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/faits-divers-justice/il-retrouve-la-photo-de-sa-jambe-amputee-sur-des-paquets-de-cigarettes-1563387214

and on Twitter.

This time about having/not having a release.

 

wim

[meanderingemu]

9 hours ago, wiskerke said:

And yet another cautionary tale:

https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/faits-divers-justice/il-retrouve-la-photo-de-sa-jambe-amputee-sur-des-paquets-de-cigarettes-1563387214

and on Twitter.

This time about having/not having a release.

 

wim

 

 

do i read the article properly that they are implying these are pictures taken by the hospital when he went to see if he could get a prosthesis? 

[Cryptoprocta]

5 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

do i read the article properly that they are implying these are pictures taken by the hospital when he went to see if he could get a prosthesis? 

Yes,  English report:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/18/man-finds-amputated-leg-cigarette-packets-without-consent/

Edited July 19, 2019 by Cryptoprocta

[Harry Harrison]

A new development - more from Nadav Kander:

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0GlxWPnzhB/?igshid=105aldeb6zc04

 

[wiskerke]

54 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

A new development - more from Nadav Kander:

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0GlxWPnzhB/?igshid=105aldeb6zc04

 

 

Blaming his wife. The photographer. Blaming His Wife.

 

- OK I obviously was mistaken by thinking it could have been from Live News, because it had appeared alongside other Live News images of openings and shows in past Google and Alamy searches.

His wife. Not the intern this time. (That probably was the one at the Big Issue.)

 

wim

[meanderingemu]

7 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

Blaming his wife. The photographer. Blaming His Wife.

 

- OK I obviously was mistaken by thinking it could have been from Live News, because it had appeared alongside other Live News images of openings and shows in past Google and Alamy searches.

His wife. Not the intern this time. (That probably was the one at the Big Issue.)

 

wim

Interesting.  Wouldn't this makes the case worse for them, as either the non right owner of the picture uploaded to Alamy (he took picture, she uploaded), or the account selling is not the right owner of the picture (she took the picture)   

[wiskerke]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

Interesting.  Wouldn't this makes the case worse for them, as either the non right owner of the picture uploaded to Alamy (he took picture, she uploaded), or the account selling is not the right owner of the picture (she took the picture)   

 

Yes someone should really check out his contract. And maybe his prenups 😀.

 

wim