Very Funny Photography Story

scudzilla

Hey, i'm a lurker on this forum, love photography and like reading the advice you guys sometimes give out.

I've just come across this story, basically a photographer has taken a pic of UFC Fighter Dan Hardy and has tagged it on Facebook. A company then takes the image, photoshops it a bit and sells the bandana that they have photoshopped on, enter very pissed off photographer :D:D

Here's the link

http://martinmcneil.blogspot.com/2010/04/taking-on-mafia.html

Diabhal_Glas

Being a huge MMA fan its really strange to see the two mixed into one article, hope he gets some compensation but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Cheers for sharing

Fenster

I don't see the funny here - this is all serious business.

scudzilla

Fenster wrote: »

I don't see the funny here - this is all serious business.

Lighten up, i meant that it was funny how he had the website backtracking and panicking. I guess i'd better explain my every meaning in future to the doom and gloom merchants :rolleyes::rolleyes:

melekalikimaka

scudzilla wrote: »

Lighten up, i meant that it was funny how he had the website backtracking and panicking. I guess i'd better explain my every meaning in future to the doom and gloom merchants :rolleyes::rolleyes:

ah well i get the funny side , but this ain't the place to be making light of copyright theft and pig ignorance of copyright laws.

I hope he gets what he's owed and its publicised enough to deter future thieves. I've gotten my work stolen also, and was neigh happy

walshkvn

I do like the guys style of writing ... good story teller.

sineadw

whooaaaahhh.. wait up... he posted the thing on his facebook page?? And he's worrying about copyright?! I know this is a different issue, but still!

padocon

Good luck to that photographer I hope he gets what he wants. Does this happen allot without the photographer ever knowing?

alexlyons

Interesting. He's not the sole copyright owner though, facebook also own the copyright as it's on there site. He's still owed compensation, and the claim by TFM that dan may have a few is rubbish, Mat wasn't using it for commercial gain, but now that it was used he's owed compensation.

sheesh

alexlyons wrote: »

Interesting. He's not the sole copyright owner though, facebook also own the copyright as it's on there site. He's still owed compensation, and the claim by TFM that dan may have a few is rubbish, Mat wasn't using it for commercial gain, but now that it was used he's owed compensation.

Facebook have usage rights the photographer owns the copyright. Facebook claim that they need the rights as they present the image on their site so they need to have a right to use it.

Fionn

i'm puzzled about one thing! does this Dan guy own the clothing company? because if he did or has some interest you'd think he'd have posed with the thing on him instead of allowing a hachet PS job on him, as you can see the resolution on the website image is different between the bandanna and his upper face!!
i think putting up a high res photograph on facebook or any other networking site has the risks of this happening and of course the resulting problems associated with the copyright issues.

sineadw

sheesh wrote: »

Facebook have usage rights the photographer owns the copyright. Facebook claim that they need the rights as they present the image on their site so they need to have a right to use it.

Nope, they can use your image for commercial purposes within the site also.

Ghost Train

Interesting story. Don't think the facebook terms come into it though, since the original photographer retains copyright of the image and facebook aren't the ones who are using the image to sell something

Should photographers avoid facebook because of its terms of service... would pix.ie or flickr or boards provide any extra protection? Would facebook, with an account attached to your real name provide you with a stronger link to your true identity.

sineadw

Ghost Train wrote: »

Interesting story. Don't think the facebook terms come into it though, since the original photographer retains copyright of the image and facebook aren't the ones who are using the image to sell something

Should photographers avoid facebook because of its terms of service... would pix.ie or flickr or boards provide any extra protection? Would facebook, with an account attached to your real name provide you with a stronger link to your true identity.

I know this isn't to do with facebook using the image. I just find it odd that someone who is aware of and worried about commercial usage of his images would give those rights away to facebook.

I stopped posting images there a while back, apart from personal phone pictures. Pix.ie and flickr don't use your images commercially.

Edit: And anyway, have you seen the horrible compression Facebook puts on shots? Its really not a place to showcase quality work.

Roy Rogers

The impression I got from his comment about the photo on facebook is that it's not a proper 'shot' as such; just a snap from some after-party.

He probably wasn't bothered about using it professionally, but instead just sharing it with friends or others who were at the party.

I'm sure pro photographers take snaps too

Ghost Train

sineadw wrote: »

I know this isn't to do with facebook using the image. I just find it odd that someone who is aware of and worried about commercial usage of his images would give those rights away to facebook.

I stopped posting images there a while back, apart from personal phone pictures. Pix.ie and flickr don't use your images commercially.

Edit: And anyway, have you seen the horrible compression Facebook puts on shots? Its really not a place to showcase quality work.

I get what you mean, not a fan of facebook myself really, just checking there and it seems they did add the "commercial use" terms but then went back to the more usual terms of service when people complained.