Jump to content

Lady Gaga stealing images from SS


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Thijs de Graaf said:

Yes. I spoke to someone who buys stock photos for his company and thought that the photographer earned a lot more from a photo. There are way too many good photographers. 🙂

I have run into this with a small company I took shots of at a charity day and have as editorial - they contacted me to explain they understood I was within my rights to take and sell the images but were not happy with other people making money off pictures of their work.  They were only there for the charity and felt me selling was not in the charity spirit.  Then I told them how much I would see if my work sold.  They were shocked on behalf of photographers - realised the shared creative roots, accepted my point about promotion of their work and we "shook hands" on the idea I would donate part of any fees to said charities.

People buying images that are costing themroughly $5 (individual pack price per image) generally imagine the photographer getting a third to a half of that ($1.60 - $2.50) and are rather shocked to find we are actually getting 1/20th of the price they pay.  Not that said shock results in them doing anything useful like demanding more money to the photographer.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 5:11 AM, Rudy Umans said:

The problem with these things is that celebrities are setting an example. If they get away with things like this, their millions of fans might think they can too.

I didn't like Shutterstock's sissy response at all.

Amen.  Shutterstock needs to sue her for every possible penny allowed under law.  That and ONLY THAT will put an end to the idea that our work is free for the taking.  So what if it pisses a few thieves off.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MSPhotographic said:

Amen.  Shutterstock needs to sue her for every possible penny allowed under law.  That and ONLY THAT will put an end to the idea that our work is free for the taking.  So what if it pisses a few thieves off.  

What if it pisses off or alarms big customers like, oh I dont know, record companies?  Or even lots of little customers like the people who actually choose the images and happen to be fans of Gaga so they go and persuade their employers to switch to a different stock company?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 hours ago, MSPhotographic said:

Amen.  Shutterstock needs to sue her for every possible penny allowed under law.  That and ONLY THAT will put an end to the idea that our work is free for the taking.  So what if it pisses a few thieves off.  

 

2 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

What if it pisses off or alarms big customers like, oh I dont know, record companies?  Or even lots of little customers like the people who actually choose the images and happen to be fans of Gaga so they go and persuade their employers to switch to a different stock company?

There is a fine line between being firm and being a bully.

A number of years ago, Getty Images tried to be a bully. Not sure how all that ended, but it didn't end well for Getty I don't think

Now, I do think that what Getty did was a little extreme and not very smart, but there must be a way in between acting like a best friend and an outrageous  demand letter. Maybe something like the cost of the highest license and a legal/administrative cost, which comes out at maybe a few hundred dollars. Of course the contributor (the victim) should get his/her share then of the highest license cost.  That way, SS still gets their point across without drawing too much negative attention. But hey, what the hell do I know?

http://kelleykeller.com/the-getty-images-demand-letter-fighting-the-copyright-bully/

http://kelleykeller.com/wp-content/uploads/Getty-Images-Demand-Letter-REDACTED.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rudy Umans said:

 

 

There is a fine line between being firm and being a bully.

A number of years ago, Getty Images tried to be a bully. Not sure how all that ended, but it didn't end well for Getty I don't think

Now, I do think that what Getty did was a little extreme and not very smart, but there must be a way in between acting like a best friend and an outrageous  demand letter. Maybe something like the cost of the highest license and a legal/administrative cost, which comes out at maybe a few hundred dollars. Of course the contributor (the victim) should get his/her share then of the highest license cost.  That way, SS still gets their point across without drawing too much negative attention. But hey, what the hell do I know?

http://kelleykeller.com/the-getty-images-demand-letter-fighting-the-copyright-bully/

http://kelleykeller.com/wp-content/uploads/Getty-Images-Demand-Letter-REDACTED.pdf

The thing is even the humourous if pointed response SS made garnered negative reactions from her fan base.  While a quiet polite letter as you suggested may have got a licence fee I rather expect that the higher ups at SS calculated that a public response and no licence would garner them far more in advertising that the cost of the licence fee.  The higher ups are not going to considering the difference a couple of dollars makes to a contributor they are going to be considering a few dollars in their account compared to a level of publicity that would cost 10s of thousands in advertising.  The quiet letter you suggest may also have backfired if she decided to take exception to it and share it to her fans claiming being victim (I am not for one moment suggesting she would - but).  If some of her fans are going to kick off when no redress was sought can you imagine what they would do if if she complained? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 11:18 AM, Starsphinx said:

The thing is even the humourous if pointed response SS made garnered negative reactions from her fan base.  While a quiet polite letter as you suggested may have got a licence fee I rather expect that the higher ups at SS calculated that a public response and no licence would garner them far more in advertising that the cost of the licence fee.  The higher ups are not going to considering the difference a couple of dollars makes to a contributor they are going to be considering a few dollars in their account compared to a level of publicity that would cost 10s of thousands in advertising.  The quiet letter you suggest may also have backfired if she decided to take exception to it and share it to her fans claiming being victim (I am not for one moment suggesting she would - but).  If some of her fans are going to kick off when no redress was sought can you imagine what they would do if if she complained? 

Well I didn't say the letter (invoice rather) had to be quiet and friendly. That's what SS response was, friendly (I called it sissy in my first post about this) and I don't think I would have been that friendly. I have also no problem if SS announces to the world there are consequences on little hat tricks like this. Maybe not on Social Media though, that's too risky in my opinion. Too many uneducated and opinionated "experts"

Having said that, I know there is a way to be firm and demanding without being either too friendly(sissy)  or too nasty. Been in that position many times in my other life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MJD Graphics said:

One thing everyone seems to be forgetting is that the photographer posted the same image on her Instagram without watermark for her to use, so there is no way anyone can sue anybody. The photographer, who also writes children's books, has grabbed this to get free publicity.

The image in question as posted by the OP has watermarks

Who is talking about suing? That will never work with the amount of money involved. We are talking about how to go about recovery in cases like this (not necessarily just this case)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rudy Umans said:

The image in question as posted by the OP has watermarks

Who is talking about suing? That will never work with the amount of money involved. We are talking about how to go about recovery in cases like this (not necessarily just this case)

Yes, the original Instagram of Lady Gaga has a watermarked image, but the photographer posted one on her Instagram without watermark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rudy Umans said:

Look at the moderators, we had so many and every time one get a little comfortable here on these forums, they ship him/her somewhere else.

Yes, does seem to happen quite a lot, haven't seen anything from Jeff in a while. I don't think SS would even respond on the forum to a matter like this, it's probably something they wouldn't want known how they handle it. Of course they posted a really lame response on Instagram but that doesn't mean something might be going on in the background.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 3:04 AM, Starsphinx said:

What if it pisses off or alarms big customers like, oh I dont know, record companies?  Or even lots of little customers like the people who actually choose the images and happen to be fans of Gaga so they go and persuade their employers to switch to a different stock company?

Funny, the big recording artists and labels don't seem to have ANY issues with suing people that pirate their music, or steal portions of their lyrics or beats.  And thanks to this very fear you talk about photographers are being walked over in a BIG way, to the detriment of the entire industry.  Images can't be simply taken from the internet and it happens because we are afraid of upsetting someone.  Go enjoy your tent.

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

Funny, the big recording artists and labels don't seem to have ANY issues with suing people that pirate their music, or steal portions of their lyrics or beats.  And thanks to this very fear you talk about photographers are being walked over in a BIG way, to the detriment of the entire industry.  Images can't be simply taken from the internet and it happens because we are afraid of upsetting someone.  Go enjoy your tent.

I dont notice the big artists kicking up and suing when a studio nicks their music - or when suing a prospective customer may cost them MORE than not suing. A stock photo is not the value equivilent of a number one hit. In terms of music the her use of the image is equivilent to 8 bars of chorus beat created by some one nobody has ever heard of.  When such a creator moans the studio is using those 8 bars in a new commerical he is likely to be told to be glad of the exposure and shut up complaining or they wont recommend him to artists any more - and he is very likely to shut up and not bite the hand that feeds.  

That is the problem here - suing Gaga gets maybe a couple of hundred in damages and an apology - and could easily cost double or more than that in lost custom.  I mean if Joe Bloggs nicks an image then suing is not going to lose custom because nobody knows who he is or cares.

Yes I know it hypocritical and "if things were the other way around" etc etc etc.  But they are not.  I do not deal in how things should be, I deal in how things are, and the bottom line on this one is suing her could quite easily cost more in lost custom than would ever be gained and while it is not fair and that should not be the case etc etc that is how it is.  So the end of it is both the original contributor and SS have got themselves a big chunk of publicity by graciously accepting the wrong against them as a mistake.  That the rest of us Joes are more likely to have our work nicked by nonentities we cannot get publicity off forgiving is just tough shit.

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...