Bloggers Divided Over Lane Hartwell Photography Issue
A heated debate between bloggers is currently taking place regarding a recent issue involving my good friend and fellow photographer Lane Hartwell.
Here’s the backstory, earlier this month local a cappella group The Richter Scales created the video “Here Comes Another Bubble”, which makes fun of Web 2.0 and includes photos of many well-known people involved with Web 2.0. The problem is that they made no attempt at contacting the photographers regarding use of their photos and they didn’t include any photo credits, either on the video or their website.
Lane Hartwell noticed that they had used a photo she took of Owen Thomas for Wired and contacted The Richter Scales. They added a credit to the YouTube description for the video, however they claimed the photo was covered under fair use, not a violation of her photo’s copyright. Unhappy with their response and how they handled the situation, Lane contacted YouTube and had the video taken down for copyright infringement.
Last Friday Lane did an interview with Lewis Wallace for Wired and after the article was posted, the issue exploded online. Many bloggers are attacking Lane, saying that it is a “fair use” issue and that she spoiled their fun by having the video taken down, others are defending her rights to protect her photography and still others as saying that if she puts her photos online, then they are fair game. One of the main questions yet to be resolved is if this was a clear “fair use” issue or not. Hopefully some lawyers who specialize in this area will address this specific issue. [UPDATE: Attorney Jason Schultz posted his thoughts on the issue.]
Lane is currently in negotiations with The Richter Scales regarding this issue, which is why she hasn’t made a full statement, but she has posted a brief update to her blog.
Here’s more coverage of the issue from Shelly Powers, Brian Solis, Eric Rice, Tara Hunt, Derek Powazek, Brian Oberkirch and PDNPulse.
Lane has had a long history of her photos being used with out permission or credit and recently she quit her day job to become a full-time photographer, so this is now her livelihood. Because of the problems she’s had, Lane recently made her entire Flickr photostream private.
Side note: I’ve had my own fair share of problems with people using my photos without permission or giving credit, including recent issues involving local newspaper San Francisco Examiner and startup ZingFu.
UPDATE 1: Jack Schofield decided fact checking was no longer necessary when he wrote about Lane on the Guardian Unlimited Technology blog, saying that Lane was going to sue The Richter Scales. To clear up the additional confusion caused by his post, Lane to posted an update confirming that there is no lawsuit.
UPDATE 2: Tara Hunt wrote a great follow-up post to clear up some of the rumors and mis-information that has been spreading around this issue.
UPDATE 3: Lane has just posted her statement regarding video dispute.
People have asked me why I’m taking this action. When I find someone using my work without my permission, I ask them to remove it or pay a fee. They usually remove it and we are finished. The band did not remove the image from the video when I brought it to their attention and instead they told me they had the right to use it. They could have easily apologized, removed the video from YouTube and re-edited without my image and reposted.
UPDATE 4: Here’s Derek Powazek’s excellent write-up on the situation, including his take on Collaborative Media and ethics.
UPDATE 5: A new TechMeme thread is forming on the issue, based on Lane’s recent statement.
UPDATE 6: Jason Schultz, an attorney with the Samuelson Law, Technology, & Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley Law School and former EFF attorney, posted his thoughts on the legal aspects of this issue, specifically as it relates to “fair use”.
UPDATE 7: PlagiarismToday has posted an in-depth and very balanced analysis of the situation, one of the best posts I’ve seen so far on the controversy.
UPDATE 8: The Richter Scales have re-edited the video to remove Lane’s photo and have re-posted it to YouTube as “Here Comes Another Bubble” Version 1.1. They were in negotiations with Lane, but decided not to work with her on a resolution and instead posted an update to their blog along with a poorly constructed list of credits for the video. For instance with Brian Solis’ photo credits, they don’t link to his name (no, that would be too obvious), instead they link to a blog that is claiming copyright on other people’s photos.
Here’s the best quote of The Richter Scales blog post:
As background, when we created Version 1.0 we didn’t see similar YouTube videos crediting every image used…
YouTube? Seriously YouTube? They are the absolute worst example of giving proper attribution for creative work. Almost every time I blog about a video on YouTube I need to first research for any information about the video that was uploaded to YouTube. Often there isn’t even a credit for the person who created the video.
PlagiarismToday shares a similar viewpoint with me regarding their YouTube excuse.
UPDATE 9: Lane has posted a follow-up response to new The Richter Scales video.
UPDATE 10: PDNPulse contacted some of the other photographers whose work was used in the video. It turns out that Romana Rosales, who shot the photo of Michael Arrington, wants her photo removed as well. This thing is never going to be resolved.
UPDATE 11: Stephen Shankland posted a Q&A with Lane Hartwell on CNET.
filed under: Photography
19 comments on “Bloggers Divided Over Lane Hartwell Photography Issue”
Comment on this post
Attention: The following comments will not be approved:- Irrelevant or abusive comments. Let's keep things civil and on topic.
- Spam and any other overly self-promotional comments. You know the difference.
Basically what we are saying, if your comment does not add to the conversation, it will not be approved.
For corrections or typos, please email us instead.
on Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I’m staying on the sidelines with this one, but I’ve noticed a strange correlation between the sides people took and the quality of the photos on their flickr account.
on Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 11:24 am
If that is the entire defense — the video is a parody so we can use any photo we want under fair use — then the singing group doesn’t really have a defense.
On the other hand, if you posted the snapshot to ridicule it (not sure how one would do that) or to illustrate a point about how to adjust white balance or fix chromatic aberation, that would be a different story. You’d have at least an good argument that your use was fair. Which side would win? That would depend on a host of details.
The singing group and the shutterbug might be having a symbiotic relationship going, whether they realize it or not.
on Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 11:42 am
I have certainly been more conscious of what I post online, since this issue began sprouting up a few months ago. I’ve seem some of my pics from flickr show up on friends websites. They’ve been kind enough to give me the photo credit, but I have wondered what my own reaction would be if they didn’t?
Fair use has more to do with something that is newsworthy, than self-promotion or entertainment purposes. For that matter, I would have to say that Lane has every right to take action. This is her livelihood. I see some people/groups just being more lazy than malicious when it comes to not getting approval for using an image. How hard is it to send an email asking permission?
on Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
This happens all the time with written material. I write several different blogs, and the ones with essay or story-type posts (meaning not personal entries) are frequently lifted and reposted on blogs that collect advertising revenue based on their hits. I’m not sure what to do about it…
on Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I went to a concert a few weeks ago and posted an image I took with my cell phone’s camera to my Flickr stream. I publish under a fairly open CC license. But in searching for other people’s posted images I saw a copy of my own, reposted by another user, and marked ‘All Rights Reserved’. I looked up the name of this person only to find their previous job was as a Copyrighter!
I wouldn’t mind seeing what Lane mentioned on her post - some way to automatically watermark images. You just can’t trust people to honor licenses and decency/respect.
on Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I’m curious who owns the rights to the picture of Owen Thomas. It appears on this Wired page, which contains a copyright notice that says “© 2007 CondéNet, Inc. All rights reserved.”
If CondéNet owns the copyright of the image, how can Lane legally negotiate usage rights with The Richter Scales?
If Lane somehow kept ownership of the image she shot for Wired, how come she hasn’t asked Wired to correctly attribute the image as being her copyrighted by her, not CondéNet?
on Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
It is worth noting that a fair number of people have had success at using the Creative Commons provisions and getting assistance from Creative Commons to follow up people that are breaching the CC terms etc. In most cases a simple Cease and Desist letter is all that is require. Worth looking into at least.
on Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
@rajbot:
The image of Owen Thomas is mine. My contract with Wired News/Conde Net gives them exclusive rights for a period of time and then they revert 100% back to me. I am the sole copyright holder.
on Tuesday, December 18th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Hi Scott -
“Photo Attorney” Carolyn Wright weighed in on the issue on her blog, and made this succinct, helpful observation:
“The comments on Techcrunch show the widely-varied opinions about whether others can use your photographs without permission. However, opinions don’t matter in infringements - the law does.”
I would also add that registering your images with the U.S. Copyright Office is the best way to use a proven legal means to fight copyright infringement.
Best,
Joe
on Friday, December 21st, 2007 at 8:15 am
This whole argument is dumb. The only people who seem to be supporting Hartwell are her friends in the industry. Surprise, surprise.
The Richter Scales did not attribute a photo. True enough. Until the law catches up with new technology, Fair Use will be decided on a case by case basis. The bloggers critical of Hartwell may be a bunch of annoying blowhards, but in the end they were correct. Fair Use is Fair Use. Hartwell would lose in court, big time.
I’m sure Hartwell’s a fine person to those she knows and loves. However, in this case she’s proven herself to be pedantic and lame, of full of unwarranted, self-righteous indignation. Unless Hartwell has releases for every person in the picture, she’s hypocritical being belief. If you’re going to create a stink, better dot your i’s, cross your t’s.
Oh, and all those supporting Hartwell better make sure you wipe your hard drive of any songs or video clips you didn’t pay for, because YOU ALL are guilty. You just don’t have Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen harassing you with “invoices”.
on Friday, December 21st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
One thing that has bothered me about this whole discussion is that people are talking about the group The Richter Scales instead of talking about the individuals, the people,making the decisions and taking the actions. Why does Lane have to stand on her own, but The Richter Scales have shelter in their group?
on Friday, December 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Lloyd, that’s an excellent point. My guess is that there was much debate about it between the members of the group. Also you’ll notice that their last blog post on the issue came from the group, not an individual member.
on Saturday, December 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
@Mark:
I don’t require releases for the type of work I do. The photos I shoot, and most of the photos I shoot, are for editorial purposes. I do not sell them for stock commercially, however I can sell them as editorial stock.
Do you understand the difference? If you are confused, you might want to do some reading up on it before you comment.
The only people that have used my photos commercially are the ones taking it and using it without my permission. While the Richter Scales are claiming to be a non-profit, there is a huge distinction there…non profit and not making any money are two very different things.
The Richter Scales sell CD’s and concert performances. That is commercial usage, which I am against and Owen Thomas did not sign a release to allow. They violate Owen’s rights, not me.
-Lane