Copyright Infringement
Although the Losing Georgia Project has concluded, I feel obligated that readers should be aware on an issue that has recently occurred involving work related to the Project. A free local magazine, B Scene, took it upon themselves to publish copyrighted photographs that I had taken in winter of 2006, during the documentation of the county school system, without my strict written consent. Obviously this is a problem.
The irony to all this is that the magazine inquired about a popular article I had written back in December via e-mail. They wanted to republish the article, but I did not give them permission and told them I would respond only after I had a chance to review their publication. Not only until a few days ago had I finally picked up their publication at the local Border’s book store.
Come to my surprise there were three photographs of mine printed alongside an article about the school system. The article was not mine, yet the photographs were. Suddenly, and very abruptly, I was not happy. I immediately called the publisher, Larry Weaver, where the phone rang until an answering machine picked up where I left my message of concern.
Weaver returned my call a few moments later inquiring about my message. An argument broke out over the origin of the photographs, Weaver first claiming they were stock photographs that were purchased, then they were provided by the Chamber of Commerce and lastly resorting to the Google search adage. All of which were completely wrong.
None of the photographs from the Losing Georgia Project have ever been sold to any stock company, given to the Chamber of Commerce or the school system, and only one of the three photographs can be found in a Google image search, which oddly enough links to the article that was asked to be republished and has a copyright notice.
In a third phone call that included Weaver and an associate who first inquired about my article, both claimed that the images could be found on Google (which had already been refuted) using a keyword search of “Douglas County Schools”, that the school system’s website were hosting the images, then could not name the original source where the photographs were downloaded, had lost their e-mails and that the article in question was found on ArticleCity.com.
Once again these claims are all false. The Douglas County School System is not hosting my images nor uses them on their website as claimed, considering the fact I have never been asked by the system for usage of the photographs. Secondly ArticleCity.com does not retain any articles referring to Douglas County, my article or even the West Georgia region for that matter.
In this wild goose chase I have resent the original e-mail conversation to the magazine which, believe it or not, originated from the contact page on this website and referred to my article I had written. Weaver has agreed to print a retraction in the magazine’s next issue which should come out in March.
As for the photographs, they were stolen from Losing Georgia’s flickr account – as this is the only place all three photographs were published online for archival purposes. All three images retained a copyright notice with my name in the EXIF data. As a precaution all photographs on flickr have been closed out from public viewing for the time being. I regret that this action had to occur, but stealing intellectual property is an entirely different matter.
If these photographs or any other works related to the Losing Georgia Project are published without my explicit consent, then legal ramifications could ensue. I have contacted an attorney and will take legal action if necessary. I will not tolerate those who steal my artistry and claim it to be theirs under any circumstances.
To all local photographers using flickr, you might want to check the various free publications out there just as a precaution.
Tags: Copyright Infringement
I use http://www.webshots.com for a photo portfolio. They allow pretty much any size picture and the free account allows you to upload 1,500 photos and 150 videos. You can upgrade to upload more pictures. I don’t think it’s too expensive. When the pictures are displayed on the website, they’re displayed using shockwave flash, so they can’t be copied. They can be downloaded, but the file is a special file that can only be used with their software and it can’t be printed, only placed on the computer desktop. And the hi-res version of the photo is only seen by those who have a paid account–for those with a free account, the photo looks a little fuzzy and pixelated.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:12 amOne of the reasons why I chose flickr was because of the geo-location tagging ability, allowing people to see where the photos were taken in the county - realizing that yes there is still some parts out there that are untouched. My high resolution photographs will no longer be available for viewing.
And one more point to the story, stock photography companies do not allow you to upload pictures of government buildings or institutions, regardless of federal, state, or local entity. In this case the pictures of the schools would have been in violation of the stock company’s terms of agreement. Once again this shows that the publisher was in the wrong to begin with.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:29 amAndrew, I’m not an attorney but at my company we routinely deal with photography, stock photography, photographers and usage rights. As you may be aware, whether they found your images through a Google image search or not has no bearing on the fact that they infringed on your copyright. They had no basis from which they could rightfully claim usage as they did not receive your permission to use your work.
If you have the ability to consult an attorney experienced in copyright law there’s no doubt in my mind he/she would tell you you’d have a case. Question is if the results would be worth the expense, but the “B Scene” should be made to cease and desist one way or another. I hope this is resolved and you are compensated without further headaches.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:11 pmUPDATE: B Scene magazine has published their March/April issue with the retraction and has replaced the 3 images they stole from me with their own. I’m glad this fiasco is over.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:26 pm