Hey, there! Log in / Register
Cool, I can run Globe photos without getting permission now!
By adamg on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 11:18am
UPDATE: Heard back from a boston.com editor, who says the photo "slipped through the cracks" and that they'll take care of it.
At least, that's what I'm assuming after seeing one of my photos show up on the front page of the Globe's Back Bay Your Town site without anybody from the Globe asking for permission. I realize there's fair use and I always appreciate links from giant media organizations (and I certainly do my share of linking to Globe stuff), but really, running an entire photo at near original size without asking first? Seems a bit much. Especially since somebody might now think the photo is copyright 2010 New York Times Co., when it's not.
See the duck photo below? Yeah, there's a reason it looks familar:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
"Fair Use" means (in theory,
"Fair Use" means (in theory, at least), that the photo should be thumbnail size. Otherwise, they need to seek permission.
not fair use
I disagree. The main issue is whether the use is transformative, the size of the image is secondary. In this case the photo was originally intended to depict a news event and the Globe also used it for that purpose. If the Globe had used the photo as part of a how-to book on the art of statue decorating it would be different, but as it is its not fair use.
They even used the same
They even used the same caption!
The Globe's local pages are
The Globe's local pages are notorious for this kind of thing. They used to regularly snag whole stories complete with photos from NeighborMedia Cambridge without asking before they were asked to stop. I guess the assumption it that they are doing you a favor by putting your content on their commercial site. You would think that they would at least send you a proportional share of the ad revenue generated by your content. But you would be wrong.
Kind of amusing that the
Kind of amusing that the Globe's Cambridge page just put up one of my posts on the Cambridge sign ordinance recall petition. Not the photo though. I don't get paid for any of it anyway so I like the exposure, but I would want compensation if they grabbed my picture.
I emailed the editor the link hoping to get the extra reads, as what I write is mostly advocacy, so it serves my purpose. Some of our NeighborMedia folks who have been pros strongly object to this freebie business.
Given the blatant bias in the piece, there is the issue of whether it should be labeled news or opinion. It's clearly both as is a lot of bloggy content.
Ah, the brave new world of media. I don't have the answer to the bigger policy questions, but I hope folks read my semi-rant.
Wow! That is blatant!
Since they think that is reasonable, clearly you *should* be able to do the same. Would certainly be cheaper than having to license their photos. Presumably they pay their photographers, and since they didn't pay you, your taking use rights seems reasonable.
They've copyrighted the content
Well, the page says "© 2010 NY Times Co". So I guess they own it now.
There is no "thumbnail" clause in fair use
They stole the picture plain and simple, resizing the photo doesn't absolve them of that fact. Let's not explain as fact aspects of the law that don't exist.
edited to add: if you registered your images you could make a small fortune off of the globe after a couple of these situations.
Ummm...
It does credit your site and provide a link. Weren't you upset when they were refering to this blog as "a Boston Web site" and not linking to it (leading you to respond by IDing the Globe as "a newspaper in Boston"). Now you're upset when they do credit your content and drive traffic to the site.
Ask Tom Franklin at The Record in Hackensack, N.J., about fair use. His "Raising The Flag at Ground Zero" photo has been used with credit several times over by various publications. Having worked with the man, I know he's never objected to it. He just goes about his business and still shoots local crime scenes in Bergen County while his name and photo circulate across the country. T
hat's what newspeople do. I'd suggest you do the same in this instance, Adam.
The Globe once again recognized your contribution to this community and gave you credit for it. It didn't steal from you and, in this case, actually benefitted your site through the links and pageviews. That doesn't seem like something to get riled up about.
Slippery slope
As I mentioned up front, I like links, and I do appreciate links from the Globe, especially since, as you note, they seem to have gotten the whole attribution thing down. You may recall I boycotted GateHouse sites when they sued the Globe over Your Town links and excerpts.
But there's a key difference here: They ran something I did in its entirety (granted, at a slightly smaller size). That would be akin to me running an entire Globe article, rather than a link and excerpt. If I did that, there would be absolutely no reason for one of my readers to continue onto the Globe site (and if I did that, how long before I heard from a lawyer at some fancy New York firm?).
Is this one photo worth screaming to a lawyer about? No. Unless it keeps happening. In the meantime, I've e-mailed the editor of that page; we'll see what happens.
Actually not that different Adam
Welcome to the club pal. Remind me to teach you the secret handshake.
Only if that entitles me to a free beer at the secret clubhouse!
Actually, I see from their Dorchester page they are doing the same exact thing you sued them over - using the other site's headlines and ledes (look at links to stuff from the Dorchester Reporter). Obviously that doesn't bother me (although I've got to wonder about SEO - I'm thinking boston.com's version of my story is going to come up higher than my version on Google), but I can see how a publisher might object.
Just in case you're wondering...
If you change your mind and decide to take action, I promise we won't boycott you.
No need for UH to take
No need for UH to take action. If NYTCo has half a brain, there will be bitch-slaps down the chain of command. Boston.com can't protect their own content very well if an accused violator can show that Boston.com does the same thing in violating other people's content. "It's a well-accepted practice of the trade."
It's still stealing
even if you give credit and link back to the original, you HAVE to get permission from the copyright holder unless the artist states the work is under the Creative Commons or similar license. That's part of the problem, these myths are recycled over and over as facts.
Edited to add: Unless they did an article about the picture itself, in which case editorial fair use would then apply.
Update: boston.com pledges to fix the issue
Heard back from an editor there who said the photo "slipped through the cracks," will fix it. I'll be talking to somebody from boston.com this afternoon, as well.
gone baby gone
I see the photo is gone already.
"slipped through the cracks"?
How exactly does a photo download itself onto a Globe computer and get uploaded into their system "through the cracks"? This was intentional, just like it is ever other time they've "borrowed" an image off the web.
Even if they attributed the photo to you, it's still not valid use of the photos!
Didn't the Globe just sue a 3rd party website lifting content off the Boston.com website?
Did the Globe actually copy the photo?
Or did they just refer to it by adding <img src="..."> onto their page? That's not copying or stealing, it's just referring. The web was designed to make this kind of sharing simple and easy and ubiquitous. It is mutually beneficial to all.
(Doing so without attribution is bad, however.)
I checked the image while it
I checked the image while it was still up, and the file had been copied to the boston.com servers.
Right
In its own way, the "hot linking" Ron mentions is equally bad - they get the page views and I get the bandwidth bill - but, yeah, they downloaded a copy of my photo, manipulated it in, I'm assuming, Photoshop, then saved it to their server.
Mixed bag
They're doing similar with my NA stuff appearing on the S End pages. I'm happy to share and get a wider audience, but the Globe doesn't really come out and say "not all content here is actually Globe content"
kind of...
OK, at the end of each article it does give a link back to where it came from, so if it's not the Globe you can see another entity.
Although today's Back bay library article you see on Adams main picture is an interesting Globe-ism. The glove article is really a 3 line story pointing back to the Huffington report. Could the globe not just have linked right to Huffington? hmmmm
Payment for non-exclusive use
Since they already used the photo, you should ask for their standard payment for a freelance photographer, and only grant them a non-exclusive use for the photograph -- so that you can continue to use it as much as you want without asking them permission.
My photo policy
If you take a look at the photo page here, you'll notice tons of photos I didn't take.
I post them under three different conditions:
If somebody posts a photo on Flickr either in the Universal Hub pool or tagged as universalhub, that means the photographer has given me permission to post a copy here, along with credit and either a copyright notice or a link to the Creative Commons license he or she is using.
If somebody posts a photo via Twitter that I think is cool or newsworthy (such as this one from last night), I'll send them a "direct message" (basically, Twitter's version of e-mail) asking if I can post a copy (occasionally, I'll do the same with Flickr photos not tagged as universalhub). If they say yes, then up it goes, along with a credit.
If somebody e-mails me a photo, well, the assumption is that they want me to post a copy.
If I see a photo I think folks here might be interested in, but for which I haven't gotten permission to post via one of the above paths, I'll link to it, but I won't post a copy.
and local photographers
appreciate your respect for our work.
reasons why i always tag my
reasons why i always tag my photos universal hub, love helping out the little guy. this site gives me more timely correct info then the globe does!
Hear hear! And without a
Hear hear! And without a popup on every new page.
The Globe's pilfering of
The Globe's pilfering of photos and captions shows a lack of professionalism and pure laziness. Perhaps Globe staff should spend less time trolling the web to snatch other's photos and actually pick up a digital camera to snap their own pictures.
I still can't get past the fact that the writer for their local section doesn't even know that Boston Common isn't the Commons! It would have taken 10 seconds to Google it to check for accuracy. LAZY. LAME.