MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Huffpost -- does google now sell stockphotos?  (Read 7390 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 03, 2013, 08:38 »
+1
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


fotorob

  • I am a professional stock photographer

« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2013, 09:33 »
0
It just means they did a Google search, copied the image into their article and now think it is enough to give credit to Google to be on the safe side.

« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2013, 09:52 »
+1
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 ??


« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2013, 10:34 »
+3
This is the sort of thing agencies should be all over, but they just don't seem to care. Huffington Post is built on linking to stuff they didn't create though, so I guess offending yet one more group of creators - and not even bothering to correctly credit who they "borrowed" the image from isn't much of a surprise.

Really shoddy behavior on their part.

« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2013, 10:45 »
0
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."

EmberMike

« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2013, 10:46 »
+6
Really bummed to see this from HuffPost. I actually liked their site. Too bad they crap all over creatives like this. They definitely lost me as a reader.

« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2013, 10:51 »
+4
How does crediting Google make any sense in anybody's mind? That's like quoting Facebook for things individuals say on Facebook.

« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2013, 11:43 »
+3
Here's the photographer (Richard Seeney) that The Huffington Post stole from for the sake of a dollar or two.

« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2013, 12:21 »
+2
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.

« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2013, 12:33 »
+6
This stinks.

Go to their "Contact" page, click on "Legal", and ask them about attribution of these and other photos.  I just did.


« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2013, 12:39 »
0
I thought they bought most of their images from Alamy - and usually for a descent price of $29

« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2013, 12:48 »
+2
This stinks.

Go to their "Contact" page, click on "Legal", and ask them about attribution of these and other photos.  I just did.

Thanks, Stockastic. I'll do the same.


« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2013, 12:56 »
+3
Borrowing freely from the posts here, this is what I just emailed to the HuffPost legal dept:

*****
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." But... Google does not sell commercial images. Lately, it's more in the business of stealing them. So apparently HuffPost has now joined in the stealing.

Richard Seeney is the photographer that The Huffington Post stole from for the sake of saving a dollar or two. He should have been paid AND credited for the image that HuffPost stole and falsely credited to "Google."

Your legal team needs to tell the editorial dept. that it is NOT OKAY to steal images, and certainly not to compound the crime by failing to give credit to the copyright owner.

******

Here's the link if anybody else wants to do this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contact/

ShadySue

« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2013, 13:49 »
0
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

« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2013, 14:15 »
-2
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.

« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2013, 14:39 »
0
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

« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2013, 14:42 »
-2
Just a theory what could have happened.

New intern, gets the task of finding the right image for the article. Searches using Google, finds the image, is taken to a site, purchases the image, and then credits Google as thats where she found it.

ShadySue

« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2013, 14:43 »
0
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.

Ron

« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2013, 14:46 »
+1
Its not an orphan image, that has been made very clear in that new bill. An orphan image is completely something else.

ShadySue

« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2013, 14:52 »
+1
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.

« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2013, 15:31 »
+3
I just think some here are jumping to conclusions.

Right now they've got 'I stole this image' written three times within the article.

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2013, 15:46 »
0
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.

« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2013, 15:51 »
+4
And I blame Google too. Do a search for just about anything and you will find TONS of unwatermarked images with no copyright info. And some images are fairly large sizes. Because people use those large sizes (not knowing any better) in their blogs, online newsletters, etc. and google indexes those images. Someone could have legitimately paid for the images, but they aren't responsible for Google indexing the images, that's on Google.

I know because one of my best sellers appears in a google search, at a fairly large size, watermark free. Because some inexperienced nitwit "intern" posted it in their blog. Now it's there for all to steal. I don't see how I can report it as a copyright violation when there isn't a watermark, which means someone paid for it.

It is all very discouraging. :(

« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2013, 15:53 »
+3
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
43 Replies
16703 Views
Last post June 05, 2018, 12:47
by dorin
11 Replies
5423 Views
Last post March 20, 2011, 04:10
by jm
32 Replies
13781 Views
Last post February 23, 2013, 00:00
by Stacey336
2 Replies
2267 Views
Last post February 07, 2017, 16:55
by Sean Locke Photography
5 Replies
1955 Views
Last post September 22, 2017, 05:12
by obj owl

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results