Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Harry Harrison

UK government's 'crass' ballerina advert

Recommended Posts

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/12/ballet-dancer-could-reskill-with-job-in-cyber-security-suggests-uk-government-ad

 

Not only did the government have to pull this advert (culture secretary Oliver Dowden described it as 'crass') but it's now revealed that the photograph was taken from a free download site.

 

The photographer is upset about this and has put up a short video on Youtube:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbFVzKwxxjQ&feature=emb_logo

 

....but as the top comment to her video points out "It is great to hear about the origin of the image, but unfortunately as soon as it was published on Unxxxxsh, you lost any control over how and when it was used. Photographers, please do not use Unxxxxsh, it values your work at zero and undermines the value of all photography."

 

Story on Petapixel here.

 

The issue was raised in parliament by Labour MP Kevin Brennan, ""It turns out Fatima is not Fatima at all. She is apparently Desiree who is from a ballet school from Atlanta in Georgia in the USA. Could you at least promise if the government is going to put 'crass adverts' out - as you describe it - they at least feature real British artists and they actually get paid for use of their images?"

Edited by Harry Harrison
Additional info
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. I tweeted her about it last Monday. Her posts are private, so didn't expect to get a reply (plus I imagine she was snowed under with notifications about it). I had hoped that perhaps all the furore would make her think twice about submitting to such a platform.

 

I hadn't bothered to watch the video till now, as I suspected that it would just be the pretentious b******s/b******t it is: I find the whole damned thing sickening. She's full of fine words, that in no way whatsoever align with her actual actions. She appears to be playing the saint (poor Desiree - I support all artists in the creative community - etc. etc.) yet she does not seem to recognise the (primary) part that she has played in this. She does not show remorse for using the platform, does not say that she will never use it again. She is the one responsible for the abuse of Desiree's image, she is the one who is denigrating the artistic community that she claims to love so much.

 

Ironically, of the many Tweets I read, the vast majority were supportive of her and condemned the UK Govt for their use (and manipulation) of the image. I wonder how many of these same people would freely use such images from the same source? Personally, I believe that, yes, the image and the whole idea was crass, but the primary fault lies with the photographer who chose to release the image in this way.

 

And..from the video:

Q. "What are you going to do from here?"

A. "We're [sic - who's "we"?] exploring all our options and we're talking and consulting with different professionals to figure out the best way to protect our rights in this situation"

 

Code, I imagine, for 'Hey, this could be big. I hadn't considered it before, but maybe I could sue U******h/The UK Gov't here? A long shot, but it might just work: my lawyers are on to it.'

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, losdemas said:

She is the one responsible for the abuse of Desiree's image,

Well, not entirely.

Unsplash's terms make it clear that there's no model release included in the licence. As to personality rights, we don't have them and it would be hard to make a case for a US court to have jurisdiction. The ad clearly wasn't aimed at the US market.

At the end of the day the buck stops with the publisher, in this case our sleazy government, who whilst  siphoning off billions on contracts to its cronies will cheapskate its way out of paying a decent fee to some British photographer who desperately needs it.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Well, not entirely.

Unsplash's terms make it clear that there's no model release included in the licence. As to personality rights, we don't have them and it would be hard to make a case for a US court to have jurisdiction. The ad clearly wasn't aimed at the US market.

At the end of the day the buck stops with the publisher, in this case our sleazy government, who whilst  siphoning off billions on contracts to its cronies will cheapskate its way out of paying a decent fee to some British photographer who desperately needs it.

 

OK, my bad. Didn't see the wood for the trees from way up here on my high horse.  Apologies to all for the rant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, losdemas said:

 

OK, my bad. Didn't see the wood for the trees from way up here on my high horse.  Apologies to all for the rant.

Fair enough, you made some fair points about Unmentionablesh, my reply contained about 500 millirants anyway.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


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

Well, not entirely.

Unsplash's terms make it clear that there's no model release included in the licence. As to personality rights, we don't have them and it would be hard to make a case for a US court to have jurisdiction. The ad clearly wasn't aimed at the US market.

At the end of the day the buck stops with the publisher, in this case our sleazy government, who whilst  siphoning off billions on contracts to its cronies will cheapskate its way out of paying a decent fee to some British photographer who desperately needs it.

 

 

the last part is fascinating.  not sure why political parties use images that they don't control what the usage has been (beyond being cheap), and the implication of what is in there.  i thought controlling the message was no.1 in all political rules.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what kind of advertising agency our uk Government uses. From Guardian 6/7/20:

"There are thousands of bakeries from which the UK government had to choose to star in its latest public information campaign. The Haxby Bakehouse was probably the only one to have produced loaves flour-stencilled with F*ck Boris” during last year’s general election.

Nonetheless, a photograph of its owner, Phil Clayton, dusted with flour and carrying a tray of freshly baked goods appeared in national newspapers on Saturday with the headline “Welcome back to freshly baked bread”, to promote the government’s “Enjoy summer safely” campaign.

On Monday evening the government pulled the adverts featuring Clayton, acknowledging that the photo had been used without his consent."

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the ad agency the British government uses likes free photos without releases. 

 

How are the owners of this free photo site making money? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Fair enough, you made some fair points about Unmentionablesh, my reply contained about 500 millirants anyway.

 

 

Still trying to convert millirants into miffed's...

 

😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See if you can guess whose image

New Jersey, NJ, Mid Atlantic, The 'Garden State', Morristown, nursing home residents, seniors, elderly, wheelchairs, aging, healthcare, sightseeing vi - Stock Image

has been used on twitter here:

 

Donald Trump, 74, posted the image with Joe Biden's head photoshopped into the frame filled with care home residents alongside 'Biden for President' with the 'p' crossed out to read 'Biden for Resident'

 

Here is the answer

😂

 

wim

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if JG has seen this and if so how he feels about his image being used this way. Without stepping into the toxic quagmire of US politics, it's a cautionary tale. We never know how or by whom our images will be manipulated and used. 😬

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I wonder if JG has seen this and if so how he feels about his image being used this way. Without stepping into the toxic quagmire of US politics, it's a cautionary tale. We never know how or by whom our images will be manipulated and used. 😬

 

He has.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manipulation is not forbidden under Alamy's contract.

Theft is, so that's the question there if it's been nicked from that newspaper and not honestly bought from Getty or Alamy, will it count as fair use? It's election season after all. 🎃

 

wim 😱

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Manipulation is not forbidden under Alamy's contract.

Theft is, so that's the question there if it's been nicked from that newspaper and not honestly bought from Getty or Alamy, will it count as fair use? It's election season after all. 🎃

 

wim 😱

 

 

 

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the original image had been "borrowed" from the newspaper. But who knows. 🙈

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good example of the "damage" that Television has done to the news.

For those who do not understand, Watch 'NETWORK'

 

While I do not have the time to look fully into this story, it is just one more

example of poor information leading the "Poorly Informed Sheep to Slaughter."

 

Just one more sad story that will be forgotten tomorrow.......

 

Journalism is not a hobby......

 

Photojournalism is a "Profession."

 

Chuck

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with it being the design agency's fault.

 

Saying that I personally suspect the photographer had no idea about the clause restricting usage of "people" images in the unsplash terms when the image was uploaded. 

 

Is the video (the advert) still online anywhere or is it just a print advertisement ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panthera tigris said:

 

Is the video (the advert) still online anywhere or is it just a print advertisement ?

It was a poster campaign I believe, certainly not video, and was withdrawn immediately it started receiving adverse publicity. Actually there is an extra nuance to this, it was apparently created last year, pre-COVID, as part of a campaign to recruit young people into cyber security but releasing it in a time when young freelance creatives, particularly in the arts, have been effectively abandoned was very clumsy.  It was also very easy to Photoshop, people have produced a good range of amusing versions on social media.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

We never know how or by whom our images will be manipulated and used. 😬

 

 

However, caveat emptor still remains a potent factor, as illustrated by that much publicised case a few years ago when a Turkish man's face was used to promote Greek yoghurt, and IIRC he was awarded substantial damages.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

it's a cautionary tale. We never know how or by whom our images will be manipulated and used. 😬

 

 

yeah, you once in a while see articles on people who used friends or family as models with release and then are shocked how the image gets used. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/10/2020 at 04:29, meanderingemu said:

 

 

yeah, you once in a while see articles on people who used friends or family as models with release and then are shocked how the image gets used. 

 

I'm sad to say that nothing shocks me these days...😧

  • Haha 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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.