No help needed! A media outlet has used my image...

AnCatDubh

To continue on the "Help! A media....." theme -

just a cautionary tale which I hadn't previously thought about for those that believe in allowing a certain freedom to use (some of) your photography work where you find it permissible ie. on your own terms

I have a certain personal belief in terms of openness in general - particularly of data, and extended into some photography where I think/believe there is a public interest (yeah, I understand most people around here won't get that and maybe this is an opportunity to say I told you so ) .

Ok, with that in mind I release an image which I feel should be available to the public at large under a creative commons share alike, with attribution. The image occasionally gets used and sometimes I even see it online. No major issue with this. It can be cool. In fact there can be a great satisfaction from time to time to see your image published in some contexts.

Now, Stoopid media outlet (Irish) uses image and lazily attributes to the site holding the image, rather than the prescribed attribution as per the image detail. A couple of thousand views later and no one's any the wiser that I took the image.

Ok that gets me a little annoyed. I have no issue with the image being used (I put it out there to be used - and its not the most amazing shot anyhow) but the sods could have given me attribution as specified at the source where they lifted it from.

There is context to my annoyance. This isn't the first time : same media outlet - though a different image on the previous occasion.

** generalised sweeping statement ** Shouldn't media (in particular) educate their [photo] editors to flippin attribute properly. It's not rocket science. I know they shoot first/answer questions later with deadlines etc.., but in my humble opinion it's overstepping the mark.

Related issue but a different kind of outlet - On foot of the above, I get curious and find the same image in use (modified) elsewhere, this time properly attributed as per the source of the image, but - i'm not sure i'd agree with the context in which it is being used and there's my name splashed across the image - lolz, but it would have been better in this instance if they hadn't been such good net citizens and used the image without proper attribution.

I know, I know, you can't please some people... you are probably thinking "decide what the flip you want", and this is probably the point.

This is the 'gotcha' for me. I've no issues with the second people using the image as that is what I had provided it for, but it makes me think about the whole creative commons thing. Do I want my name associated with certain activity albeit all it says is I took the photograph and allowed it to be used. I don't particularly support the organisation in question.

Perhaps for attribution, it is a two edged sword.

There's probably a lot of considerations which I, or maybe we as photographers, don't think of while doing what we love and thinking we are doing the right thing. I mean we all have the right to publish our work online, but what if someone takes your work and uses it (with or without your permission), and then the subject of your work gets upset with the context in which it is used. Are you then down to a whim of a legal mind as to whether you are or may be in some/any way responsible.

Something for me to think about.....................

alfalad

Care to share the links, I'm curious now?

AnCatDubh wrote: »

To continue on the "Help! A media....." theme -

just a cautionary tale which I hadn't previously thought about for those that believe in allowing a certain freedom to use (some of) your photography work where you find it permissible ie. on your own terms

I have a certain personal belief in terms of openness in general - particularly of data, and extended into some photography where I think/believe there is a public interest (yeah, I understand most people around here won't get that and maybe this is an opportunity to say I told you so ) .

Ok, with that in mind I release an image which I feel should be available to the public at large under a creative commons share alike, with attribution. The image occasionally gets used and sometimes I even see it online. No major issue with this. It can be cool. In fact there can be a great satisfaction from time to time to see your image published in some contexts.

Now, Stoopid media outlet (Irish) uses image and lazily attributes to the site holding the image, rather than the prescribed attribution as per the image detail. A couple of thousand views later and no one's any the wiser that I took the image.

Ok that gets me a little annoyed. I have no issue with the image being used (I put it out there to be used - and its not the most amazing shot anyhow) but the sods could have given me attribution as specified at the source where they lifted it from.

There is context to my annoyance. This isn't the first time : same media outlet - though a different image on the previous occasion.

** generalised sweeping statement ** Shouldn't media (in particular) educate their [photo] editors to flippin attribute properly. It's not rocket science. I know they shoot first/answer questions later with deadlines etc.., but in my humble opinion it's overstepping the mark.

Related issue but a different kind of outlet - On foot of the above, I get curious and find the same image in use (modified) elsewhere, this time properly attributed as per the source of the image, but - i'm not sure i'd agree with the context in which it is being used and there's my name splashed across the image - lolz, but it would have been better in this instance if they hadn't been such good net citizens and used the image without proper attribution.

I know, I know, you can't please some people... you are probably thinking "decide what the flip you want", and this is probably the point.

This is the 'gotcha' for me. I've no issues with the second people using the image as that is what I had provided it for, but it makes me think about the whole creative commons thing. Do I want my name associated with certain activity albeit all it says is I took the photograph and allowed it to be used. I don't particularly support the organisation in question.

Perhaps for attribution, it is a two edged sword.

There's probably a lot of considerations which I, or maybe we as photographers, don't think of while doing what we love and thinking we are doing the right thing. I mean we all have the right to publish our work online, but what if someone takes your work and uses it (with or without your permission), and then the subject of your work gets upset with the context in which it is used. Are you then down to a whim of a legal mind as to whether you are or may be in some/any way responsible.

Something for me to think about.....................

pixbyjohn

AnCatDubh wrote: »

To continue on the "Help! A media....." theme -

just a cautionary tale which I hadn't previously thought about for those that believe in allowing a certain freedom to use (some of) your photography work where you find it permissible ie. on your own terms

I have a certain personal belief in terms of openness in general - particularly of data, and extended into some photography where I think/believe there is a public interest (yeah, I understand most people around here won't get that and maybe this is an opportunity to say I told you so ) .

Ok, with that in mind I release an image which I feel should be available to the public at large under a creative commons share alike, with attribution. The image occasionally gets used and sometimes I even see it online. No major issue with this. It can be cool. In fact there can be a great satisfaction from time to time to see your image published in some contexts.

Now, Stoopid media outlet (Irish) uses image and lazily attributes to the site holding the image, rather than the prescribed attribution as per the image detail. A couple of thousand views later and no one's any the wiser that I took the image.

Ok that gets me a little annoyed. I have no issue with the image being used (I put it out there to be used - and its not the most amazing shot anyhow) but the sods could have given me attribution as specified at the source where they lifted it from.

There is context to my annoyance. This isn't the first time : same media outlet - though a different image on the previous occasion.

** generalised sweeping statement ** Shouldn't media (in particular) educate their [photo] editors to flippin attribute properly. It's not rocket science. I know they shoot first/answer questions later with deadlines etc.., but in my humble opinion it's overstepping the mark.

Related issue but a different kind of outlet - On foot of the above, I get curious and find the same image in use (modified) elsewhere, this time properly attributed as per the source of the image, but - i'm not sure i'd agree with the context in which it is being used and there's my name splashed across the image - lolz, but it would have been better in this instance if they hadn't been such good net citizens and used the image without proper attribution.

I know, I know, you can't please some people... you are probably thinking "decide what the flip you want", and this is probably the point.

This is the 'gotcha' for me. I've no issues with the second people using the image as that is what I had provided it for, but it makes me think about the whole creative commons thing. Do I want my name associated with certain activity albeit all it says is I took the photograph and allowed it to be used. I don't particularly support the organisation in question.

Perhaps for attribution, it is a two edged sword.

There's probably a lot of considerations which I, or maybe we as photographers, don't think of while doing what we love and thinking we are doing the right thing. I mean we all have the right to publish our work online, but what if someone takes your work and uses it (with or without your permission), and then the subject of your work gets upset with the context in which it is used. Are you then down to a whim of a legal mind as to whether you are or may be in some/any way responsible.

Something for me to think about.....................

Tommy.......whats wrong..... no one biting

AnCatDubh

alfalad wrote: »

Care to share the links, I'm curious now?

I'll pm the links if i get a chance later.

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Tommy.......whats wrong..... no one biting

Ah no, not my point at all. I might have confused both points in my long winded post

The thing is kinda twofold -

When they do bite which only happens occasionally for me anyhow, you would expect them to observe the terms on which they are getting free use of an image. In this particular case they are a commercial outfit. They sell advertising. I haven't asked them to use the image so they are making the choice as to what to use and with that choice comes the terms, in this case requiring attribution which didn't take place.

The second point (and different scenario) is I didn't think of how I might feel if an image of mine is used with proper accreditation but for a purpose which I may not particularly agree with. There is almost a tacit association by virtue of the attribution which you may legitimately seek on the use of an image. The point here is how comfortable or otherwise might I be with that if an image was used for a cause at variance to my personal opinion or belief.

artyeva

your second point reminded me of this.... was the photographer irish? seem to remember someone on here knowing him....

CabanSail

On the first point, because they did not abide by the conditions for the free use, would you be entitled to payment?

AnCatDubh

CabanSail wrote: »

On the first point, because they did not abide by the conditions for the free use, would you be entitled to payment?

Probably, but i'll most likely just complain to them as I did before and based on previous experience they'll oblige and change the attribution, until the next time they do it (maybe i'm just cynical :rolleyes:) , and we are back into a circle.

To be fair to the media outlet, on the last occasion I got the impression that it was a genuine error and there was no issue or debate about rectifying it - forgive/forget ensued I suppose. Though at this stage it would appear that their collation/capture methods haven't improved any.