Author Topic: DKNY got caught using images without a license (Read 4464 times)

Sadstock · « **on:** February 25, 2013, 23:26 »

Ooops

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/humans-of-new-york-dkny-photos-hony_n_2759752.html?ref=topbar

Love there defense. It was an internal use only full-sized mock-up that they sent to the store in Thailand to show how the unrelated actually licensed images were to be displayed.

Xanox · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2013, 00:53 »

i agree he should have dealt on this privately, now he will get his 25000$ but i'm afraid he will be blacklisted by many fashion customers in the future.

refusing 15000 for some large format prints in a store selling clothes ?
i dont get it.

he must be really thinking his street stuff are masterpieces ... tsk tsk tsk !
they could have made it with cheap Thinkstock photos or even using public domain stuff pilfered on the web.

Xanox · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2013, 01:00 »

ahhh and of course somebody told him he was being underpriced :

"A friend in the industry told me that $50 per photo was not nearly enough to receive from a company with hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. So I asked for more money. They said 'no.'"

yes an no
if we talk of assignments, yes, 50$/photo is a scam.

but if we talk about stock, 50$ is more than ok if you ring an agency and ask to buy a bulk of 2-300 images for an indoor "collage".

both parties should have known better.
besides, it's not surprised they only budgeted 10-15K$ for something like that, we're not talking of massive advertising campaigns, it's just a fricking indoor collage for F .. sake, customers will probably not even look at it, actually it could be a distraction from buying clothes in my opinion.

Pilens · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2013, 02:36 »

Xanox, I feel your reasoning is not the point. This is about a supposedly well-respected company that "got caught using images without a license." Wether or not the photographer was greedy asking more than the offered $15000 is a different discussion. The deal was off and the company used his images nevertheless. Fortunately, they got caught and now just look at their lame excuse.

I really give this photographer credit for asking compensation/penalty in charity and NOT to line his bank account. That doesn't sound greedy at all, does it?

shotupdave · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2013, 03:49 »

I wonder what DKNY caught a another company making a "mock-up" with their designs. We would not be even talking anywhere near 100K in damages

fotografer · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2013, 03:50 »

I think that it was right to make an example of them by making them pay decent money. Might teach other people to be more careful with our images.

MarcvsTvllivs · « **Reply #6 on:** February 26, 2013, 06:01 »

Quote from: Xanox on February 26, 2013, 00:53

i agree he should have dealt on this privately, now he will get his 25000$ but i'm afraid he will be blacklisted by many fashion customers in the future.

refusing 15000 for some large format prints in a store selling clothes ?
i dont get it.

he must be really thinking his street stuff are masterpieces ... tsk tsk tsk !
they could have made it with cheap Thinkstock photos or even using public domain stuff pilfered on the web.

Maybe you don't know HONY -- but it's kind of a big deal. Personal taste aside (I think his work is remarkable, culturally if not always technically), his is one of the most popular Tumbler blogs.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** February 26, 2013, 06:36 »

Does that sort of use count as 'editorial'?

gostwyck · « **Reply #8 on:** February 26, 2013, 06:41 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 26, 2013, 06:36

Does that sort of use count as 'editorial'?

Are DKNY in the 'news' business nowadays? I thought they sold clothes.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** February 26, 2013, 06:46 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 26, 2013, 06:41

Quote from: ShadySue on February 26, 2013, 06:36
Does that sort of use count as 'editorial'?

Are DKNY in the 'news' business nowadays? I thought they sold clothes.

'News' is only a small subset of 'editorial'. I was just thinking I'd hate to think there was a photo of me in that sort of context in any of the shops/brands I actively boycott, and wondered about releases.

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** February 26, 2013, 06:47 »

Quote from: Xanox on February 26, 2013, 00:53

i agree he should have dealt on this privately, now he will get his 25000$ but i'm afraid he will be blacklisted by many fashion customers in the future.

I see nothing in the story to suggest he'd care.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #11 on:** February 26, 2013, 06:49 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 26, 2013, 06:41

Quote from: ShadySue on February 26, 2013, 06:36
Does that sort of use count as 'editorial'?

Are DKNY in the 'news' business nowadays? I thought they sold clothes.

DKNY can decide whether they consider the usage will expose them to an unacceptable risk of legal action by the child's parents. Presumably (unless it really was just an internal mock-up) they decided that the location - halfway across the world - and the fact that most people wouldn't dream of suing just because their picture appeared somewhere as an incidental part of a photo of something else, meant that the risk was not signfificant.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: DKNY got caught using images without a license (Read 4464 times)

Sadstock

Xanox

Xanox

Pilens

shotupdave

fotografer

MarcvsTvllivs

ShadySue

gostwyck

ShadySue

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors