SF Examiner Uses Photo Without Permission or Attribution
Another week and another one of my photos was used without permission or attribution. This time it is the The San Francisco Examiner with an article by Joshua Sabatini about Chicken John’s campaign for mayor. They used a photo I shot of Chicken John and his dog Dammit, but did not ask about using the photo or even provide a photo credit, but instead just listed the words “Courtesy photo” (does anybody know what that means?). The photo is licensed under a Creative Commons license (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works). The photo was used in both the print and online versions of the Tuesday, September 25th issue.
See Previously: ZingFu Ignores Creative Commons Licenses on Photos
UPDATE 1: Chicken John has confirmed that he did not provide The Examiner with my photo. So the question remains, where did they find the photo?
UPDATE 2: A representative from The Examiner emailed me, apologizing for the mistake and said that they will run a correction in the paper, add a photo credit to their website and pay me for the use of the photo.
For more content like this, subscribe to the RSS feed, Twitter & FriendFeed.
Leaving a comment? Please see our Comment Guidelines.
on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
You should file your copyrights with the the LIbrary of Congress. You’ll soon have a drop off in lifted images by the media.
If you haven’t seen it a bit of a primer on protecting your images with formalized copyrights on my blog
on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Courtesy photo basically mean a photo provided by the subject they don’t have to pay for.
In the old days, it was usually provided as part of a press kit with prints that said they could be used for promotional purposes.
The problem is media organzations don’t understand creative commons and that they can’t just publish any photo they find on the web.
SF Weekly did something similar with a photo I took of Josh Wolf a few weeks ago. They did take it down after I contacted them though they didn’t offer to pay me for using it in the first place.
on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
So disappointing.
Is Creative Commons really that hard to comprehend? A simple Google search would provide all the answers anyone could possibly need, and the CC site even features explanations in comic book form (doubtless a boon for the illiterate copy-and-paste “journalists” who staff the Examiner).
on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Hey Scott, you might find this article relevant:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/24/creative_commons_deception/
on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I would send them an invoice.
on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
“Courtesy photo” is newspaper speak for “Provided to us by the source”. For example, publicity photos provided to a drama critic by a theatre company or a candidate’s headshot distributed by the campaign. Is it possible that someone working on behalf of the campaign gave them the photo without attribution?
on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
TheBrad has a good point. Did you check with Chicken and crew to see if any of them sent the photo to the Examiner for use in the article?
If that had happened it would still be shitty that they didn’t give you photo credit, but at least more understandable.
on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Since Chicken is a news story, could they claim “fair use”? It’s a cheap shot, but one I’m certain the Examiner wouldn’t mind trying.
on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
TheBrad & Colin, I’ve contacted Chicken John regarding this issue and he said that The Examiner did not ask him for a photo and that he did not provide them with the photo.
on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Any response from The Examiner?
on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
They’re lame for sure… it’s not even a story for chrissakes… they are just desperate for content. Not that they would ever stoop so low as to include my ideas or anything…. just quippy bla bla to fill the pages so the advertisers keep shelling out the bread.
Ga-rosss.
Not only did they not ask me for a photo, they told me that the story would be small. Front fucking page. Fuckers.
on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
This wouldn’t qualify as “fair use” unless they were writing an article on the photo, rather than the subject of the photo. For example, if you are writing an article on how Kubrick lights his films, it would be fair use to pull stills from 2001 as examples of what you’re describing.
Scott, I’d agree you should invoice them, and start invoicing everybody who does this. And please name and shame the culprits more.
on Wednesday, September 26th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Maybe you should create a page that lists all the fuckers that swiped your photos. You’ve got good google juice.
on Wednesday, September 26th, 2007 at 8:35 am
I gotta agree with paul… start with an invoice, and I would send it today. Don’t give them the option of simply taking it down, and note in it about them already being in breach of contract for the non-attribution bit.
on Wednesday, September 26th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
I second Eddie’s suggestion of a separate page, and the folks suggesting the invoicing. Be sure to place on the invoice the terms for late payment, just as many doctors do, with interest automatically accruing on unpaid amounts.
Then publish a page listing all such outstanding invoices, along with how overdue they are, and total charges accrued.
On thought I have had, because a number of my CC-by-nc Flickr photos have also been stolen by various commercial (mostly web) publications (e.g. a certain V.W.), is to consider putting in a “default price for commercial use without asking” on your Flickr profile page: http://flickr.com/people/laughingsquid/ which you can then cite/quote on your invoices, since these are all folks using your photos for commercial use without asking.
on Thursday, September 27th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
It pleases me greatly that your non-confrontational posting on the site garnered such quick and tangible results… although they still are paying for something that they could have used for free in a non-commercial manner.
Come to think of it, it still seems improper to pay for using a picture that is clearly intended for non-commercial uses. Payment almost seems like a slap in the face to CC licensing. As if the license is just a suggestion…
on Friday, September 28th, 2007 at 3:37 am
Congrats Scott on such a pleasant outcome!
Michael said: “It still seems improper to pay for using a picture that is clearly intended for non-commercial uses. Payment almost seems like a slap in the face to CC licensing. As if the license is just a suggestion”
IANAL: The Non-commercial Creative Commons clause doesn’t mean that you don’t want any commercial use ever no matter what, all it means is that non-commercial is one of the conditions of *free* use that doesn’t require asking. Put another way, a NC CC license just effectively means that for C (commercial) use, the default copyright applies, e.g. the author reserves rights etc. Thus those seeking C use still need to contact the author, who may request payment, or freely give permission etc.
on Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Good to see they did the right thing. But it’s disconcerting that they only did so after they got caught. Makes you wonder how many of your photos (or my photos) are in print or online with no attribution.
on Monday, March 17th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I have a similar story and the newspaper is saying that they have not infringed any copyright.. and is under the “fair use” as defined by the copyright law.
any comments?
http://www.photo.net.ph/blogalicious/2007/10/01/major-daily-violates-photographers-copyright-and-intellectual-property/