Tag Archives: Photograph

 

There are many generous people in society, many just doing what they do without worrying about what financial costs or burdens, they just do what they think is right and hopefully the recipients appreciate the generosity in which it was given.

 

One such person is Carol M. Highsmith  , probably one of America’s best loved and most iconic documentary photographers. She has been documenting american lifestyle and iconic images for decades. She is at the very top of her field.

 

She is also a very generous soul, donating thousands of images to the United States Library of Congress at no charge since 1988, so the general public can have free access to her documented images. Congress calls the donation “one of the greatest acts of generosity in the history of the library”

 

Carey Dunne, in her article for the online publication Hyperallergic, tells us how it was discovered:

 

“Carol Highsmith received a letter from Getty Images accusing her of copyright infringement for featuring one of her own photographs on her own website. It demanded payment of $120. …. Highsmith came to learn that stock photo agencies Getty and Alamy had been sending similar threat letters and charging fees to users of her images, which she had donated to the Library of Congress for use by the general public at no charge. ”

 

It wasn’t just one or two photographs either. Over 18,700 of her photos have been claimed by Getty and Alamy as their own. Some included false watermarks and gave no credit to the original photographer at all.

 

The article goes on ….. “Highsmith has filed a $1 billion copyright infringement suit against both Alamy and Getty for “gross misuse” of 18,755 of her photographs. “The defendants [Getty Images] have apparently misappropriated Ms. Highsmith’s generous gift to the American people,” the complaint reads. “[They] are not only unlawfully charging licensing fees … but are falsely and fraudulently holding themselves out as the exclusive copyright owner.” According to the lawsuit, Getty and Alamy, on their websites, have been selling licenses for thousands of Highsmith’s photographs, many without her name attached to them and stamped with “false watermarks.”

 

Its not the first time Getty have been caught doing something illegal with other peoples images. They seem to feel they are beyond reproach.

 

It makes for an interesting read here .

 

The issue for those of us that use social media is, how do we know that Getty, Alamy or whoever aren’t stealing our photos and selling them as stock photo’s to unsuspecting buyers.

 

The truth is, we don’t.

 

The two instances that they have been caught fraudulently selling others images as their own is most likely the tip of the iceberg in what is out there illegally.

 

Can we do anything about it? We certainly need to be vigilant and be alert, but unless we are a high end photographer who would watermark their photo’s anyway, there is probably little we need to worry about.

 

The real issue is if we buy a Getty image and find out later they didn’t have the royalty free rights to the photo. We may find ourselves involved in an expensive and time consuming legal battle we are ill prepared for or can not afford.

 

When Getty Images bought Istockphoto, they paid $50m and that included all photos on their database. The assumption was that Getty own the contributors photos and that is what they’d like to imply, but the truth is, they don’t own contributors photo’s at all, they just own the rights to sell them for a commission.

 

Without doubt Getty are very aggressive in the photo markets they dominate. They have 200 million images available, are forming partnerships with many companies that own smaller competitors, opening their markets up to Asian centers that are basically untapped to this american giant.

 

With nearly 2000 employees around the world, clearly their thirst for dominance has landed them is some serious hot water. The case of Mrs Highsmith is a perfect example of that. Will they get away with this for less than a billion dollars? Time will tell.

 

Interesting times.

 

Recently I was met by a traditional sign writer that found it very hard to hide his contempt for me, and those like me, that practice the ‘digital new age’ concept of his traditional trade.

I hasten to add that no one is more in awe of our traditional sign guys and girls, whether it be in the brush, airbrushed or pastel applications, than me.

But I was more than a little amused when he labelled ‘my type’ as wannabe’s and impostors.

Strong words that I found rather confronting.

I’m the first to admit that there are plenty of my Digital colleagues out there way better than me. Just as there are plenty of Traditional sign people who are better than our digital colleagues as well.

Clearly, some traditional signies have embraced the digital age and use both forms to ply their trade. Some, though, have not.

As a wholesale print supplier, most of my own regular clients are traditional screen printers or old school sign painters that either have no intention of going digital, or don’t understand the software to make the machine sing. Some of my clients willingly admit that they are technologically challenged, some just have no interest in the art form that is the digital realm.

Whilst most have vinyl cutters, the growth of the digital print industry has clearly overrun them and some are not happy.

Then you get the shops that buy a machine because they can afford it, but find after a few months it is just too hard or the industry was more competitive than they had first anticipated.

I was talking to several reps recently and they all told me the same thing – a fair percentage of units purchased will be back on the market within 12 to 18 months.

As an example; several years ago I was doing small print jobs for a computer cut sign company out west. It was nothing stunning in terms of turnover, but my client developed a niche business in the farming industry and used me to produce the prints quickly, and his clients were none-the-wiser.

All went well until he rang me one day, thanking me for my support, telling me he was going to buy his own machine.

I was a bit concerned as, unless he wasn’t telling me something, the business I did for him was not going to be enough to support a machine on its own.

He dismissed my concerns and asked who I’d suggest he approach to buy a printer. He wanted the same setup as me, so everything would be the same. I suggested the company I purchased from.

I heard back later that he rang that company, and his order was for ‘everything that Shane had’. To his credit, the sales rep looked at his business, his turnover and his position, and advised him that he wouldn’t have enough business to warrant buying a machine. The sales rep actually declined to sell him one.

The sign guy, not to be deterred, went to an opposition supplier and purchased one from them. Interestingly, that supplier has since gone bankrupt.

To make matters worse, the sales person stitched him up good and proper by supplying all his ancillary materials on the same 5 year lease as his machine. This effectively increased his monthly lease payments by a significant amount.

Eight months later, I get a call asking if I would takeover the lease of the printer he’d purchased. As I had two already I declined. He then admitted he was about to go bankrupt. He realised having his own printer was a bigger burden on his cash flow, than if he just purchased what he needed when he needed it, and made a mark-up on each sale. It was an expensive lesson to learn. He was very upset that I didn’t try and talk him out of the idea originally. I reminded him of our conversation, and suggested I was not his keeper. He couldn’t, and shouldn’t, blame me.

But I digress.

After my rather confronting conversation with my new traditional sign painter friend, I did actually have a reality check some weeks later. I understood the lesson the traditional sign writer was trying to teach me.

You see, I am a mad keen photographer. Not weddings or anything like that, but landscape and animal photography mainly.

Having had my own dark room years ago, I’m more a traditional photographer. I like to think my best shots are through the lens without software manipulation.

It totally frustrates me to see photos that are heavily photo shopped for instance, winning awards for photographic excellence. It drives me to distraction. It is clearly not a photographic talent, but a Photoshop talent. There is a difference.

In my humble opinion, a good ‘traditional’ through-the-lens photo is infinitely better than an ‘average’ photo that has been enhanced electronically.

But like my new friend, the traditional sign writer said, these digital new age people are impostors. In this instance they are photographers that rely of software enhancement when it comes to ‘real’ photography.

It was only after this, my own experience, did I truly understand my ‘traditional’ colleagues pain.

Lesson learned.