What to do about this photo....

[Richard King]

In Jan 2007 I took several pictures of Brian Wilson playing at the CES Show in Las Vegas. I submitted a picture to Wikipedia and it has been the main picture of Brian on his Wikipedia page for quite some time. I requested that anyone can feel free to use the picture, but to credit me for the shot (not that anyone would know who I am). Today I tripped upon this: http://blogs.citypages.com/gimmenoise/2009/10/brian_wilson_to.php and there is my picture with no photo credit to anyone, much less me. I have sent the author of the story a request to either remove the picture or give me proper credit. Of course the story is from sometime last year, so, obviously it will probably not be seen by many in the future. I find it rather amazing that people would rip off another person's work in a public forum like that.

[UstadKhanAli]

In Jan 2007 I took several pictures of Brian Wilson playing at the CES Show in Las Vegas. I submitted a picture to Wikipedia and it has been the main picture of Brian on his Wikipedia page for quite some time. I requested that anyone can feel free to use the picture, but to credit me for the shot (not that anyone would know who I am). Today I tripped upon this: http://blogs.citypages.com/gimmenoise/2009/10/brian_wilson_to.php and there is my picture with no photo credit to anyone, much less me. I have sent the author of the story a request to either remove the picture or give me proper credit. Of course the story is from sometime last year, so, obviously it will probably not be seen by many in the future. I find it rather amazing that people would rip off another person's work in a public forum like that.

 

For years, I resisted putting "www.elevenshadows.com" or "www.kenleephotography.com" or my name on my photos. However, I constantly found my photos all over the internet, rarely with any credits. Well, that's not quite right, once or twice there *were* credits...just not to me!! There's even a book that reprinted a photo taken from my website because the person thought it was "public domain". Since when was a photo taken only several years ago become public domain?

 

I finally started putting identifying marks on the photos. Every once in a while, I'll come across someone (typically a band, as I do club and concert photography occasionally) who has cropped the website off from the photo entirely, but when I've written to them, they've at least been cooperative at taking it down or putting it back up in its original state.

[MikeRivers]

Journalism has gone to pot in the Internet age. There are no more principles because nobody bothers to learn the fundamentals.

 

On the other hand, I've never known an amateur photographer being contacted because of a photo credit and offered a paying job.

[Richard King]

Journalism has gone to pot in the Internet age. There are no more principles because nobody bothers to learn the fundamentals. On the other hand, I've never known an amateur photographer being contacted because of a photo credit and offered a paying job.

 

While it would be nice to be offered a job as a photographer, they would have to find me from among the MANY Richard King's that exist out there. I've bumped into myself several time over the years. There's even a "real" studio guy who "stole" (only because I was here first) my name and won several Grammies. I guess I just expect a "professional" to credit the proper parties for work that they use and had nothing to do with.

[Adey]

Seems like a lack of common decency really. Regardless of whether there are any financial implications, its good practice to credit people for there work because it shows that you are a professional and respectful person. It also shows to those who are reading it; that its the right thing to do.

 

Cheeky bastard:cop:

 

[Mudcat007]

I just checked the link above. I can't find a photo of Brian Wilson on that page.

[Richard King]

I sent the jerk an email telling him to either credit me or remove it. It appears that he decided to remove it.

[UstadKhanAli]

Journalism has gone to pot in the Internet age. There are no more principles because nobody bothers to learn the fundamentals. On the other hand, I've never known an amateur photographer being contacted because of a photo credit and offered a paying job.

 

I've sold numerous photos from photo credits on websites (other than my own) and books. Does that count?

[MikeRivers]

I've sold numerous photos from photo credits on websites (other than my own) and books. Does that count?

Only that it means you've lost your amateur status. Congrats!

 

It does bring up an interesting point, though. What do you call those of us who have a full time profession (or in my case, a pension) with steady pay, yet we do things usually as an outgrowth of a hobby or personal interest for which we get paid, often at legitimate "professional" rates?

[Richard King]

What do you call those of us who have a full time profession (or in my case, a pension) with steady pay, yet we do things usually as an outgrowth of a hobby or personal interest for which we get paid, often at legitimate "professional" rates?

That's an easy question to which the answer is.... "Lucky, very lucky".

[techristian]

 

I finally started putting identifying marks on the photos. Every once in a while, I'll come across someone (typically a band, as I do club and concert photography occasionally) who has cropped the website off from the photo entirely, but when I've written to them, they've at least been cooperative at taking it down or putting it back up in its original state.

 

 

Those are the ones that you learned about, but what about the 1000 websites , with your cropped picture, that you never stumbled onto? How would you go about tracking them down? Search "nature photos" ? or whatever?

 

Dan

[MikeRivers]

 

Those are the ones that you learned about, but what about the 1000 websites , with your cropped picture, that you never stumbled onto? How would you go about tracking them down? Search "nature photos" ? or whatever?

 

There's a mobile phone application (oddly, not for the desktop) called Google Goggles. You take a picture of something, send it through the application, and it does a web search for it. I suppose you could feed it a photo and let it search for other photos that look like it.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Those are the ones that you learned about, but what about the 1000 websites , with your cropped picture, that you never stumbled onto? How would you go about tracking them down? Search "nature photos" ? or whatever? Dan

 

 

There's also identifying digital watermarks and such that one can embed in the code of the photos.

 

You can't get too worked up about these things, I don't think. I think you can take reasonable precautions, put it out there, and hope for the best. There's always going to be people who steal your photos. And you can go ahead and strap a giant watermark across your photos, right in the middle, big and proud, but then, what does that do to your image? Right. It's ugly. So you have to find some sort of middle ground that is acceptable to you. And what is comfortable for you may not be for the next person.

 

You can make your photos displayed in a flash format. Then someone does a screen capture. Great. You can have watermarks and have your photos displayed in flash. That's better, I suppose. Then you can have the digital code embedded in each file. I suppose that would be the best if you are really bent on protecting your photo. Then, of course, you have to have the time to be able to track down all the perpetrators. At some point, you have to weigh the balance between all this and saying, "Hey, you know what? I want to get on with creating and not get worked up about policing my stuff." As always, you determine your comfort level.

[Richard King]

The same picture is also being used here:

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news/2009/04/22/beach-boy-rides-a-wave-to-tyneside-72703-23444584/

[Ernest Buckley]

I sent the jerk an email telling him to either credit me or remove it. It appears that he decided to remove it.

 

Thats amazing. Amazing how cheap people can be. What was the harm of just including your name under the photo? btw- any of you guys who post photos on line should always include your name on the photo.

 

Several years ago I produced an instrumental track that another singer-songwriter was interested in. She asked if she could have a copy of the track so she could write to it. I told her no problem. I never heard anything about the track after that just figured she didn`t use it. About a year later, I go to her website and there it is available as a download. I told her to remove the file... had to get an attorney to write her a letter basically telling her to take it off or else....

 

With everything in the digital domain now, everything is prone to this sort of behavior. Thats why I continually state that piracy is an ethical issue.

[nat whilk II]

Old client/buddy of mine for many years was a pro stills photographer for the movie industry - started back in the early 60s. Shot a zillion movie poster stills - the famous one with John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John from Grease was one of his.

 

He was always getting ripped off - had to hire attorneys when it got to be just too much. Even the studios that hired him would sometimes treat his images as their own property in contradiction to the explicit wording of his contracts.

 

In other words, the more pro you get, the worse it gets.

 

He eventually put up a large portfolio with Getty and that seemed to help some - got paid with some regularity from them for use of his photos.

 

But he always said that, after the digital revolution, the field was being ruined by a bunch of amatuers giving away their work for almost nothing. And taking other people's work for absolutely nothing.

 

nat whilk ii

[Richard King]

I sent a link to my Brian Wilson photo page and a copy of the picture to the above publication where they solicited pictures and stories. My story that went with the picture went like this:

 

 

In January 2007 I was lucky enough to attend a concert by my favorite singer/songwriter of all time. The event took place in the Gibson Guitar booth at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The concert was in a tent and was attended by approx 200 people. I was able to get very close to the stage (and actually could have reached up and pulled Brian off his stool if I had wanted to). He put on a great show and a good time was had by all. I took many pictures at the event, which can be found here: http://www.pbase.com/rking401/brian_wilson&page=all I uploaded one of my pictures to the Brian Wilson Wikipedia page and it is now being used as the main picture on the page. The problem is that certain so called "journalists" throughout the world are downloading that picture and using it as their own in their stories and articles about Brian with no credit being given to the photographer (me). I have found at least two sites that have used the picture, one of which removed it when I sent them an email telling them to either credit me or remove it. The other site seems to not have a way to contact the "author" of the story where the picture was used. What's the official Chronicle position on this type of activity?

 

 

I wonder if I will get a reply or if they will publish my "story".

[michaelhigh]

I met Brian Wilson in 1989 when he put out his first solo LP, if you don't count PS. He clearly looked uncomfortable meeting his public, it kinda made me sad for him. I think he was put up to it by his then-record company, Sire, because the album came in so far over budget. It only peaked at #18, IIRC. What an amazingly brilliant talent, truly the greatest American pop composer of the modern era.