This story on Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-dennett/cute-funny-sexy-cognitive-science_b_3692072.html

Uses this picture for sale on Featurepics (and perhaps elsewhere):

http://www.featurepics.com/online/Chocolate-Cake-Picture-243227.aspx

Huffpost credits "Google."

Does google now sell microstock?

fred

and this is the NORM for Huff Post and friends .. i'm seeing this sh-i-t since many years over there and in other AOL sites.

no one cares, and if you point it out in the comments people will even tell you that google images is fully legal and it's fair use and bla bla bla.

in the best scenario if you write to their editors they dont even reply and the image suddenly disappears or is replaced with some public domain cr-ap from wikipedia.

so these guys don't pay bloggers for the articles and dont pay photographers for images.
who exactly is getting paid at the Huff Post apart their execs and their sycophants ?

if billionaire corporations like AOL dont pay authors, who will ??

Year ago I saw interesting discussion on Facebook. Sixteen years blonde was accused by local cooking website. She stoled their images and used them in her blog. Her tragicomical defence was like: "You idiots I haven't stolen anything. Have you ever heard of site called google.com? It's full of images and they are all free."

How does crediting Google make any sense in anybody's mind? That's like quoting Facebook for things individuals say on Facebook.

Somebody needs to inform HuffPost that it is NOT OKAY!!! to steal images from anywhere. And that crediting Google doesn't cut it.

If I were that photog, I'd be consulting an intellectual property rights attorney about now.

I thought they bought most of their images from Alamy - and usually for a descent price of $29

I thought they bought most of their images from Alamy - and usually for a descent price of $29

I noticed that a few people (a couple at least) noted no HP sales last month.
So it's pointing to a deliberate more, not just carelessness.

Ron I get your point but...
If they credit google they get the images from google, is beyond of me understand, if they bought the files  from another site because they don't credit it. The worst thing is that now the meta-data are stripped and in example in UK these are orphan images. So in the worst case, before they don't pay to publish the images, and then with the meta-data stripped gift them to the world.

Ron I get your point but...
If they credit google they get the images from google, is beyond of me understand, if they bought the files  from another site because they don't credit it. The worst thing is that now the meta-data are stripped and in example in UK these are orphan images. So in the worst case, before they don't pay to publish the images, and then with the meta-data stripped gift them to the world.

I believe that several agencies strip metadata or replace ours with theirs, but I can't remember if there was a list anywhere.

How do you all know its a stolen image? Maybe its just a miscredit from the new intern? Why not ask questions first and then decide if it was stolen and accuse them?

Not saying they didnt steal it, nor saying they did either. I just think some here are jumping to conclusions.

Mistake from the new intern is possible, but you'd expect their work to be supervised. Of course, Yu-know who doesn't know what his staff has or hasn't done, so maybe that's endemic in business nowadays.

The intern may have sourced the image on Google then gone and bought it from a legitimate source, but then credited Getty? That seems almost but not-quite-as impossible as iStock's claim that the new exclusive rate cut was just a cut and paste error.
Anyway, if the intern sourced the image via a Getty search and bought the photo from DT, s/he should have read the Credit Line Requirements
"All images used within editorial context or related must be accompanied by a visible credit line. You are required to include a copyright notice and author/agency credit next to each image used within editorial purposes. The credit line format is specified on the Download page."
Though as I have often said, that's a rule which is seldom read or followed.

The best thing to do (IMO) would be to take it up with the photographer, who is in the best postion to judge if it is likely that the file was bought legitimately, just wrongly credited. He knows if the file is available elsewhere (I didn't check to see if it was DT exclusive, which I think is still possible (?)) and whether it has sold over the last wee while.
In any case, HuffPost don't need to reply to anyone other than the tog or DT, or their legal representatives. Also, if it happened to be legitimately bought, the agency won't be pleased if people go round hassling bona fide buyers.

I checked out HuffPost UK, and almost all their front page images are credited Getty, AP, PA and a few others.
Of course, we don't know (and I'm NOT speculating) whether they actually bought the pics there. As I've said many times, whenever I sell pics to a particular UK newspaper via Alamy, it appears in other sides around the world, often with my name and Alamy on it as shown in the newspaper which does credit properly. They are definitely not purchased from Alamy.
So a credit on its own means nothing.

I'm not worried. If it turns out to have been a "glitch" or some untested intern, then let HuffPost answer and say that. No harm done. (I haven't gone on Twitter or FB to holler about it, just quietly to HP.)

But if perhaps, as it appears, the image wasn't actually purchased from (at least indirectly) and credited to the copyright holder, then some sort of blow-back is in order.

I'll be glad to apologize to HP if it turns out they didn't steal the shot.

OK, I just looked up the tog via the second link on dreamstime.
I didn't look up the first link, to the photo on Featurepics, a website I've never knowingly visited before.
Am I blind, stupid, or is there no photographer credited on the photo page, and no obivous link to the photographer port on Featurepics, in case anyone wanted to see what else was on his port?
There is no requirement on Featurepics for a credit for editorial. Then:
"11.3 No use trace
All parties acknowledge that FeaturePics cannot possibly trace or enforce any reliable checking methods to prevent unauthorized use of any images downloaded."

There is a link underneath the Facebook button "Creator: rjs"

Thank you  I'll go with stupid  , as I actually saw the facebook button and even clicked it to see what would happen!

In my message to HP Legal, I didn't accuse them of deliberate wrongdoing, just pointed out that "Google" isn't a proper attribution, and asked the obvious questions.  I'll post if I get an answer.

I encourage others to do the same. 

And I blame Google too. Do a search for just about anything and you will find TONS of unwatermarked images with no copyright info.

you can only blame the RF licence for that.

it would be fairly easy to track down RM infringers but with RF it's impossible for the photographers especially if the same image sold dozens or hundreds of times.

And while i am at it, i blame the agencies for stripping our copyright data. I dont necessarily have to know everyone that bought my images, but everyone who sees my images on the internet should know they belong to me and they need to purchase a license.

Totally agree, but whereas something like HP should know about metadata, I doubt if many bloggers etc have a clue. Nevertheless, if the metadata is there, it can only be a help. (deliberate, rather than ignorant, thieves will easily get rid of it, should they choose)

No i blame google for not implementing a program that rectifies the problem, instead of adding one that further promotes stealing. They have the money and technology. And while i am at it, i blame the agencies for stripping our copyright data. I dont necessarily have to know everyone that bought my images, but everyone who sees my images on the internet should know they belong to me and they need to purchase a license.

the problem is systemic and starterd from the very early stages of the WWW.

why browsers included the option to save images with one click ?

instead they dont give you a way to save/steal youtube videos unless you install some addons.

neither to save flash games or flash files.

it's always images and text and with google images stealing images became 100% mainstream and easier like never before.

nobody in the web industry is showing the slightest remorse, if the next version of IE/Firefox/Chrome disables the "save image as" function there would be riots in the street.

Blaming Google is a nice easy target (cheap shot) but there are at least 30 search engines and they will all find photos. Then the horrid social media sites that seem to be based on "borrowing" information and others work. Pintrest is at the top of that list but Flickr is just as notorious for stolen works, showing on individuals collections.



It's just as invalid as people saying disable right click will offer protection. Futility.

displaying the image as CSS is a lot better as the browser can't give a "save as" option !

you need some addons to save CSS images but it's only for power users, not for the lamers stealing from google images.

on the other side CSS images arent usually indexed by google images at all but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

An image in a browser is an image.  There is no "displaying an image as CSS".

If someone screendumps the page with the image and crops it, the metadata is lost anyway.

If someone screendumps the page with the image and crops it, the metadata is lost anyway.

i've still the feeling screendumps are for power users, not for random leechers.

actually you don't even need addons, most of the cases just save the whole page in a directory and find the images.

some have server side hotlink protection but c'mon there are many ways to skin a cat.

No reply from HP Legal.  And last time I checked those photos still credited "Google".

I hope more people are questioning this.  But being lawyers, they may simply not reply to anyone not directly involved - i.e. the actual people who own those images.

Post it over on Alamy, they know a lot there about these things and HP as HP buys images from Alamy if I am correct.

Some guy on the Alamy thread seems to be convincing people that it's all fine because the images were used by "Professor Dennett" in his TED talk, so it's an educational use.   What BS.  This is Huffington Post, not a grade school classroom.  HP obviously intends to make money from this piece.

I guess the guy annoyed me with the "boys and girls" and "Professor" thing.  He can have his opinion, of course, and I'm not an expert either.

But there's another poster in that thread who collected money from HP for an unattributed use.

But there's another poster in that thread who collected money from HP for an unattributed use.

Note that she got the payment from HuffPost Canada, but that her US attorney advised there it wasn't worth posting there, partly because it was editorial, and partly because she hadn't registered her images with the USCO (which, IMO, is a rip-off - why should you have to register images? Be like the UK - your copyright is your copyright, which I guess is the case in Canada too [?]).

   I see photos with "Shutterstock" at the bottom of the image all the time on HP. I've always just assumed they had a deal with SS to promote their site by including it as part of the image. (There is no SS watermark on them). But Google is another thing. Here is what I just wrote the HP Legal team. If they answer back, I'll post it here.
-
As a professional photographer, I am disturbed to find so many of your photos credited to "Google". As you know (or should know) Google is merely a search engine. It does not create content, only tells you where to find it. Asking Google to find a photo of something brings up images FOR SALE on sites like Shutterstock and Getty Images. That does not give you the right to steal them. It's illegal, and robs me and thousands others of our livelihood. Its how I support myself and stay off of welfare. Huffpost is my homepage, so I view articles every day; and every time I see an image credited to Google (or Shutterstock, or Getty), its a slap in the face.
Now, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you do pay for them through subscription of one of the stock agencies. If so, then the credit should be listed as either the photographer (best) or agency.
If I am mistaken about the facts of this, I hope someone from the legal department will write back and correct me.

I just got the following email from the HuffPost legal team:


The Huffington Post has received a number of complaints regarding the use of Google-credited photos on this post:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-dennett/cute-funny-sexy-cognitive-science_b_3692072.html
 
The Huffington Post appreciates your concern, and your emails calling this situation to our attention.  The Huffington Post respects the intellectual property rights of others, and acts expeditiously in response to complaints of the unauthorized use of content.  In this case, our research showed that the article in question was created by a third party making use of our blogging platform.  As soon as we were made aware of the use of photos credited to �Google� in the article, we contacted the third party to let them know, and have taken the photos down and replaced them with photos from one of our licensed providers.
 
Please be assured that The Huffington Post takes intellectual property rights very seriously, and we sincerely appreciate having your additional eyes on our pages to help spot the occasional inadvertent error.
 
Please let us know if you have any additional questions regarding this matter, and we will respond as soon as we can.
 
Regards,
 
The Huffington Post Copyright Team

Looks like TED (or someone they hire) creates this blog.  I'm pleased - actually a bit surprised - that HP took responsibility.   It would have been easy to just blow us off and tell us to take it up with TED.