The bottom line is that the copyright of an image rests with the photographer, unless that copyright has specifically been passed on to another party with the full agreement of the photographer. That's how it's always been, that's how it always should be.
This morning I've encountered another example of how little regard some organisations have for copyright. Luckily this time it's nothing to do with any of my shots, but since it does involve someone's work being taken and used without permission, I've been in touch with the photographer to let them know about it. A friend of mine posted a link on Facebook to a news story on the Digital Spy website, about a motorbike rider in the US who is suing BMW after suffering a permanent priaprism (i.e. unfailing erection) following a long ride on one of their bikes. The article itself can be seen on the Digital Spy website here. Here's a quick screengrab:
The story is accompanied by a photograph, and it's this photograph that caught my eye. Underneath it, the caption simply says '© flickr'.
As a Flickr user, I know that Flickr don't hold the copyright to the photos that they host. The copyright remains with the photographers themselves, and each picture page also includes a copyright notice.
In the comments on the article, someone's pointed out that the photo isn't actually of a BMW bike, it's of a Suzuki Bandit, and so a very quick Flickr search later, I'd found this picture by 'chilloutandsmile', aka Frank, from Bochum in Germany. Click the link and you'll see for yourself, it's the same picture as used in the Digital Spy article.
A quick look at the copyright notice on Frank's page shows that this shot is 'all rights reserved'. Which means that permission has to be obtained before using it. So I've posted a comment on the article asking about their use of copyrighted material, and I've posted a comment on Frank's page with a link to the article, asking him if he's aware of his shot being used. Place your bets now as to whether or not Digital Spy bothered to ask him for permission...
Copyright is one of those things that is harder and harder to enforce in a digital age. But the underlying truth of it all is simple: Nobody has the right to simply take someone else's work and repost it for commercial gain in any way, be it to accompany a news article, a press release, an advert, an event promo, anything. Organisations such as Getty Images and Associated Press exist to handle the licencing of images. Photographic Copyright is a very real concern, and yet too many times we are seeing journalists, writers, advertisers, promoters, and web content developers taking the easy route and stealing someone else's work in the hope that nobody really notices. Sticking a '© flickr' notice under a photograph really doesn't cut it!
It is hard enough for photographers to make a living in a world where everyone has access to a digital camera, whether it's a DSRL, a compact, or a phone! The market for images is saturated, Google searches for images are returning multiples of millions of results in many cases. But this saturation is no reason for complacency when it comes to respecting the rights of photographers. Professionalism should be something that all strive to achieve, and the first step to that achievement comes from respect.
UPDATE: Digital Spy have now changed the photo to one supplied by the Rex Features agency:
That mad thing about this is you can search Flickr for CC images licensed for commercial use. Providing they are attributed correctly, everything is kosher.
ReplyDeleteThere is really no excuse for this kind of thing!