Jump to content

Lady Gaga stealing images from SS


Recommended Posts

I suspect her sharing the image WITH the watermark will have done Shutterstock and the contributor far more good than her purchasing it and using it correctly.

Now if the stock agencies could somehow work out a way to watermark with their name and the contributors name we would all be laughing - because everytime someone nicked the image it would be free adverting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

I suspect her sharing the image WITH the watermark will have done Shutterstock and the contributor far more good than her purchasing it and using it correctly.

Now if the stock agencies could somehow work out a way to watermark with their name and the contributors name we would all be laughing - because everytime someone nicked the image it would be free adverting.

Or change watermarks to "stock company name IF YOU CAN SEE THIS THEN THE IMAGE HAS BEEN STOLEN PLEASE REPORT TO"

Maybe if watermarks got a bit more in peoples face about what they are meant to protect more people would notice them and change their behaviour

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty predictable response from SS. Yes, she broke the rules, yes, a contributor is out 66 cents, but at the end of the day higher ups and corporate brass decide what's best for the business. If SS's legal counsel decided to pursue a lawsuit retaliatory fire would've surely rained down on this side from angered fans, creative industries, other artists, etc. We live in the age of cancel culture where a single tweet can instruct millions of full grown adults on what to boycott, how to feel, whether or not to be outraged, etc. An average Joe who committed the same sin would probably NOT have been provided the same act of mercy. DMCA notices with offers to settle are widely circulated on the web. SS just decided the juice just wasn't worth the squeeze.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sharkshock said:

We live in the age of cancel culture where a single tweet can instruct millions of full grown adults on what to boycott, how to feel, whether or not to be outraged, etc. An average Joe who committed the same sin would probably NOT have been provided the same act of mercy. 

You have spoken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It turns out the photographer behind the stock photos is children’s author Richard Nelson, and he doesn’t seem to mind not getting paid for the usage — in fact, he Tweeted out a non-watermarked version of Lady Gaga’s message for the singer to use."

https://petapixel.com/2020/01/27/lady-gaga-criticizes-music-pirates-with-pirated-photos-shutterstock-responds/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Versatile guy with 3400 images (a lot of selfies there) and childrens book author! Unsurprisingly not averse to free publicity (only no publicity is bad publicity!). He's hoping that the 38 cents he didn't get will be compensated by more sales via publicity and SS knows they got the opportunity to get thousands of $$$$ worth of free publicity with just one tweet...seems it's the way of the world today!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy’s got at least two sales out of it: https://www.queerty.com/shutterstock-tweets-shade-lady-gaga-fans-arent-20200124

He deserves a lot more.

Unfortunately, the legions of copycats on the forum will be creating their own versions as we speak and some less industrious contributors will be submitting cropped editions of the watermark-free versions of the original and Shutterstock will inevitably accept them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 4:53 AM, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

Great publicity for SS 

I don't think it's the kind of publicity that will generate sales.  Look at the attitude of her fans in those tweets: they all feel entitled to take whatever they want off the internet whenever they want and pay nothing for it, and this "celebrity" encourages that entitlement mentality by doing crap like this.  

Does anyone really think giving Lady Gaga a picture that she could afford to buy a million times over is going to cause her fans to swoon all over the photographer and make him fabulously wealthy overnight?  

Sorry.  These kinds of stories piss me off.  They remind me of the story about the photographer who was offered an opportunity to give his work away for free publicity and "exposure", to which the photographer replied, "Sure, but first, why don't you build me a house, and I'll make sure you get all the free publicity and exposure you want".  Sure seems like photographers are the only ones desperate enough or who value their work so little that they're willing to give it away.  I don't see other professionals doing that.  

Free publicity means almost nothing these days when you have so many people who think that they're entitled to your work.  It's really just inviting most of them to walk all over you and steal more.  I would rather sell one sub than give away a dozen pictures in the hopes of getting a return on those freebies.  But that's just me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...