No wonder they say "photojournalism in our age, is dead"
cos even the newspapers don't wanna pay nor acknowledge the photographers!
Sigh.
cos even the newspapers don't wanna pay nor acknowledge the photographers!
Sigh.
Another Problem YOG Thread :)
- Thread starter Jed
- Start date
And yes, this is in the correct forum, I think
Okay, there's a pretty active thread about the state of food provided to volunteers at the YOG.
A lot of people are up in arms over the poor quality of food, some people are defending it.
At any rate my main point is slightly different (hence the new thread).
Within that thread there is a link to the online Straits Times, which shows a sample image.
Is no one bothered about the first thing that jumped out of me (admittedly helped by their kind capitalization)?
The caption reads:
"The meal in a box which was posted by a volunteer on his Facebook page. The caterer said it has taken action to improve the portions and variety of food served. -- PHOTO: FACEBOOK"
The byline is... very probably inappropriate unless Facebook has bought the image rights. The image might have been lifted from Facebook, but that doesn't mean the photo is either the property of Facebook nor should they be recognised as the author of the photo which the byline implies.
Second, did ST obtain permission to reproduce that image? From Facebook? From the original photographer? Given the byline's content, there's an implication that the photograph's author might not even know his image has been used...
I find it most troubling, as a photographer and photojournalist.
While I agree with you that it was wrong for ST to lift that photo off someone's FB photo page, I'm not sure what can be done. What would you suggest in this case?
I am similarly disturbed by you after this was highlighted, and I think it's not the first time it's happening, but what can we do about it?
But in the new age of the internet, it is virtually impossible to prevent lifting off of one's photographic work from either FB or any internet website.
In fact right after discussion on this thread, both myself and my SereneXMM had three of our photos on one of our trips lifted right off CS thread and posted to FB and no these have been leeched to one of the Vietnamese website!
I can understand how indignant it makes one feel about this infringement of copyright.
excerpt from Facebook..
=================================
Date of Last Revision: April 22, 2010.
Statement of Rights and Responsibilities
This Statement of Rights and Responsibilities ("Statement") derives from the Facebook Principles, and governs our relationship with users and others who interact with Facebook. By using or accessing Facebook, you agree to this Statement.
...
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it...
=================================
Date of Last Revision: April 22, 2010.
Statement of Rights and Responsibilities
This Statement of Rights and Responsibilities ("Statement") derives from the Facebook Principles, and governs our relationship with users and others who interact with Facebook. By using or accessing Facebook, you agree to this Statement.
...
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it...
Hello Reportage.
Yes we did watermark our photos.
But apparently we didn't place the watermark in the centre of our pictures but rather at the edge of the border.
So the leecher conveniently just cropped off the watermarks.
Here you can see post #853 in this thread:
Photos from 8D7N Hanoi Halong Bay Sapa trip
After this experience I have learned my lesson and will be using a much smaller resolution photo with more obvious copyright watermark over strategic parts of the photo.
Currently I am merely embedding small signature of mine at multiple parts of my pictures.
These can only be seen upon enlarging the photos.
But it won't deter leechers.
Maybe a larger watermark would work better, though it is still not fool proof.
Haha... But certainly I am no professional but just a hobbyist.
And my photos are really nothing t shout about.
Normal snapshos only.
But it is quite an experience for us, this episode... Haha...
This is the nature of journalism. It does not only happen in Singapore. I have seen this happen not just with ST, but also other news companies and from overseas.
well after reading thru the Hanoi thread....i would say its a coup.
photographing Ms Vietnam before she was famous and your photos being chosen out of so many to be leeched.
Both SereneXMM and I myself we should be honoured to have our photos used, right?
Hahaha... yah lah... not being professional photographers, I think it is of no consequence.
Especially if we are talking about a foreign (Vietnamese) website.
Even in Singapore, the media already so 'no-government', what more a foreign medium with perhaps more lax control?
After reading all above, from today onwards I will move the watermark from outside of the photo to inside of the photo; increase the size of the watermark inside the photo and reduce the size of the photo posted. Never know what people will use the photo for.
.
.
This is an unhelpful comment really, because you are suggesting that photographs have to be watermarked otherwise it's the photographer's own fault for having his stuff leeched; it's not.
There is no requirement in the vast majority of countries around the world for copyright to be asserted, it exists upon creation of the work.
Not a lot. Copyright legislation is designed to be compensatory rather than punitive. In general the best you can hope for in small situations is for them to stop using your work, and/or bill them for the usage. Unless the usage is major, they could just refuse and short of taking legal action you wouldn't be able to do much about it.
The issue is being aware of what you're entitled to, as much as anything else.
I'm not sure if the situation still exists in Singapore copyright legislation but moral rights are something every photographer should be aware of, and that's the primary infringement here. Specifically in this instance, the right to be identified as the author, and the right to object to false attribution of a work.
Yeah, I think most of us in CS are aware when we read about IP and we are careful not to take someone else's photo. Yet it is indeed disturbing that a major newspaper like ST would do something like this. Not sure if nothing really can be done about it.
Wondering if someone should write to ST for clarifications (sorry, this one I gotta taichi out - at the moment, don't really have the time to do it). I think there was another incident where someone's FB picture was taken and posted to a Chinese newspaper if I remember correctly. Can't remember if there was a conclusion to that also. Or we're just happy our photos are used for newspaper. Hmm.
Last edited:
Similar threads
