Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Still, IMO, the photographer hasn't infringed- he's taken an editorial image, in context, in a gallery where photography was permitted, or at least not explicitly forbidden. BI cropped it to remove the context and published it and if Kander doesn't want redress from them it's his business but I still think he's barking up the wrong tree.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Still, IMO, the photographer hasn't infringed- he's taken an editorial image, in context, in a gallery where photography was permitted, or at least not explicitly forbidden. BI cropped it to remove the context and published it and if Kander doesn't want redress from them it's his business but I still think he's barking up the wrong tree.

 

True, but it was very little context to begin with. Then the intern at the Big Issue very well knew what he/she was doing when cropping the image. So while the image was absolutely borderline, the real culprit is the end user here. Or the intern. Not the wife.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Still, IMO, the photographer hasn't infringed- he's taken an editorial image, in context, in a gallery where photography was permitted, or at least not explicitly forbidden. BI cropped it to remove the context and published it and if Kander doesn't want redress from them it's his business but I still think he's barking up the wrong tree.

but now the account owner, we do not actually know who the photographer is, as gone public that they infringed copyright rules of their own work, so they actually gave BI counsel an avenue to get redress.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do know who he is. With over 40,000 images he is (well was) easy to find on Alamy. Technically speaking we only know his pseudonym of course.

Early on in this case everything was still searchable on Google.

No I'm not outing him. You do your own research.

 

wim

Share this post


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

but now the account owner, we do not actually know who the photographer is, as gone public that they infringed copyright rules of their own work, so they actually gave BI counsel an avenue to get redress.   

I don't know where you get that idea. You can't infringe your own copyright.

My point is that IMO the original photograph doesn't infringe copyright. The only possibility of redress against the photographer might be if he misrepresented it as having a property release, but that's a breach of contract, not copyright infringement. AFAICS the BI doesn't have a contract with the photographer so can't sue him in any case.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I don't know where you get that idea. You can't infringe your own copyright.

My point is that IMO the original photograph doesn't infringe copyright. The only possibility of redress against the photographer might be if he misrepresented it as having a property release, but that's a breach of contract, not copyright infringement. AFAICS the BI doesn't have a contract with the photographer so can't sue him in any case.

 

 

if his wife uploaded the picture, either she uploaded his picture and is not the owner, so that is infringement, or uploaded her work on his account so he is selling something he doesn't own the rights,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wiskerke said:

We do know who he is. With over 40,000 images he is (well was) easy to find on Alamy. Technically speaking we only know his pseudonym of course.

Early on in this case everything was still searchable on Google.

No I'm not outing him. You do your own research.

 

wim

i mean, based on the blaming the wife, which of the two is the photographer.  we know who the account owner is.

Share this post


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

 

 

if his wife uploaded the picture, either she uploaded his picture and is not the owner, so that is infringement, or uploaded her work on his account so he is selling something he doesn't own the rights,

I'm sure a lot of people hire people to tag and upload their work, or get a spouse to do so.That is not infringement.However, the buck stops with the photographer.

Also there are people who have joint accounts and image factories, who must come to some arrangement to pool their work and upload them as one entity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Funny story, so much anger against the photographer and not a single word about the pathetic apologies of BI. Does he know that he "grants to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media"?

He's lost all my admiration.

Edited by CarloBo

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.