Whether it comes to my writing or my photography, protecting my copyright has always been of paramount importance. Whether I do any work for hire, or whether my photos or writings are of my own personal nature, I should never have to worry that my stuff is going to get used without any sort of compensation or acknowledgment.
I don’t compromise on this.
Example. After I wrote my second record collector’s guide, Warman’s American Records 2d Edition, a year later the same publisher produced an Elvis Presley collector’s guide. As I read through the guide, I happened to notice some very familiar language. It was actually language I wrote regarding collecting Elvis’ 78 RPM recordings. It even referenced a section of my book – but was taken out of context so that it actually referenced a non-existent section in the new book. I wrote the publisher and said, “What’s going on here, you can’t do this without at least letting me know or giving me a reprint fee or something.” He said, “Look at your contract that you signed. We can do this whether you want to or not.” It’s the reason I chose not to write a third record collector’s guide for the company.
Example. When I worked for Goldmine, it was customary to take pictures of rare records so that the images could run alongside the article. I happened to notice, however, that any time I went to a record convention or a record show, and was asked to take pictures by Goldmine as part of my article, the photos ran with a copyright of “(c) Goldmine Magazine / Chuck Miller.” This was interesting. Suddenly my pictures were part of Goldmine’s photo archive, for them to use forever and ever as often as they wanted. And they did use them over and over. They’re probably STILL using them.
Example. Two years ago, when Jamario Moon went from being a minor-league veteran to a rookie sensation in the NBA, Turner Sports did a profile on Moon, using photographs from his minor league career. One of the photographs was a low-resolution shot of Moon, in his Albany Patroons gear, slamming home a dunk. I recognized the photo as one of mine – I was the Patroons’ team photographer for three years. I also recognized that whoever integrated the picture into the video clip took the time to blur out my watermarked copyright information on the picture. I contacted Turner Sports, they argued fair use, I argued back that fair use doesn’t mean you blur out my copyright. They sent a check and apologized.
Now granted, all my work is out on the Internet as it is, and all someone has to do is right-click on an image and download it to their hard drive. I can’t stop that. My photos on flickr have certain restrictions as part of the Creative Commons license, and it’s hoped that those who use the pictures from flickr will honor that license.
But the reason my copyright information is watermarked on my pictures, the reason I list on my blog that my photos are “Photo By Chuck Miller,” is because if someone DOES want to use my imagery or work, they can contact me and we can arrange an equitable deal. Money, photo credit, whatever. The picture online is a low-resolution 72 dpi copy; perhaps the user might appreciate a 300 dpi print-ready copy. Just ask first.
I say this because of this YouTube video clip.
Apparently a day or two after John Strickland passed away, this video tribute clip was put together. At least six photos of mine were grabbed from online sources, including the defunct albanypats.com homepage. Most likely, somebody just put “John Strickland” into a Google image search and up came the pics. You can see the several photos of mine in the video clip. They all have my name in the watermark.
When a friend of mine linked to this video on Facebook, I made a comment that I thought the video was nice, but it would have also been nice had someone at least contacted me regarding the use of these pictures.
That got me this response back from someone else in the thread.
“Chuck….I don’t know you but I know your a piece of dirt. Are you serious? I hope you choke on a chicken bone…ASS”
Apparently this person seemed to have an issue regarding me saying ANYTHING regarding the use of the photographs. To him, there was no problem that someone used my photographs to make their own tribute video.
And to emphasize the point, he hoped I would choke on a chicken bone.
Real classy. And dude, use the proper homonym – it’s “you’re a piece of dirt.” Man. English as a first language…
Okay, this is where I have to take a stand.
I didn’t have a problem with the photos being used. I had a problem with not being contacted. If the person used photos from the NBA or Getty Images or any other wire service, that person would have the video taken off YouTube as part of a copyright infringement violation.
The fact that the pictures still had my copyright watermark on them is small solace – at least the person making the video didn’t try to crop out the copyright info. And I’ll say this – it’s a decent video tribute to John Strickland.
But again, this is where the frustration kicks in. The minute I pressed the shutter button on my camera, the picture that was taken is copyrighted by me. I can decide how I want to distribute the picture or how I want it displayed or cropped or delineated. If I choose to put the pictures in a YouTube video, I’ll do that. If I want to post them on my blog, I’ll do that.
But the last thing I want to do is see someone else use my stuff – without even the small courtesy of asking me. And I hate that the whole thing is revolving around a tribute video for a great guy like John Strickland – heck, if I had enough time, I would have made a tribute video to Strick out of my photos as well!
But here’s where I want to address this to you.
1. Do you think I’m being totally out of line regarding the use of my photographs? Why or why not?
2. Do you think that the person should have asked permission before using the pictures in the tribute video? Why or why not?
I open the floor up to you, dear readers.
Chuck The Writer 
Simple answers: 1) No. This is your intellectual property.
2) Yes. See the above answer.
LikeLike
Chuck – I’m on your side. I’ve often found entire paragraphs of my stuff lifted. But even if I’d been contacted, I couldn’t have done anything about it. The magazine I write for requires that I sign over all copyrights – something that drives me nuts, especially since they pay me in beads and trinkets. But still…
I know that photographers have it even worse. I’m sure that the people who steal my stuff are at least aware that it’s wrong. They’re familiar with the word “plagiarism” from the one college paper they turned in before quitting to work at Walmart. But there’s a sense of enttitlement out there with photos, like they’re public domain.
Be strong. Stay away from chicken bones and homonyms.
LikeLike
The few times I’ve found out that photogrphs of mine have been used, I’ve contacted the person/company and they immediately removed them with an apology. I was fortuanate – yet, those are only a few that I know of.
The internet makes everything very difficult, and yes it is wrong to use your photographs without permission.
aargh. Thank goodness for karma so that “ASS” remembers his words when HE chokes on a chicken bone.
LikeLike
Chuck,
I enjoy photography but am not a professional and think some of my better shots are pure luck rather than skill. I know that when I put an image online, there is a chance that it could be used by someone else.
A site like Google Images makes this way to easy. Sure, the photos have different levels of permissions attached to them. I’m guessing some never hit the “advanced options” tab and select the appropriate level from the drop down. And, if they do, I would guess that people don’t take the time to understand the differences between ‘for reuse’ and ‘for reuse with restrictions’.
To answer your questions, NO you are not out of line and Yes, they should have contacted you.
Maybe a follow up post explaining the different levels of permissions on a site like Google Images and how the average user just looking for an image is expected to to give credit. Is it a simple “Photo by Chuck Miller” in the caption or does it go beyond that?
LikeLike
I remember having a teacher ask me to give a talk about the Pine Bush back in the 70s when I was saving it. My Pine Bush book had just come out and when I walked into the class the teacher said: “Mr. Rittner, thank you for coming. I made sure to make copies of the Karner blue chapter and passed them out to all the kids to bring home to their parents.” This was about 35 copies. I smiled. What was I going to do, scold her in front of her kids for making all those copies rather than asking the parents to buy a copy of the book? You are right. If she had asked, I would have said sure. It is a case by case decision. But when people just do it, oh well. I always try to cite my sources but sometimes there is an image out there that has been circulated so much that it is almost impossible to figure out who owns it. That’s why you put your copyright or watermark on it, in hopes that this will not happen. Most of the time I do not mind if my photos are used. I think if I saw one published in a book without permission that would be a different story. Generally, I do things to educate people and if it is educating I leave it alone.
LikeLike
As far as I’m concerned, JGR pretty much nailed it.
The other commenters generally reaffirmed and nicely expanded upon those points.
I would only add my thanks for your vigorous protection of what is ultimately every person’s right to protect and direct his own intellectual property.
LikeLike
I appreciate the support from everybody. I really do.
Honestly, I was more taken aback by the person who thought I should just surrender my product to anyone who wants to use them for anything they like. I tell you what – if they took a picture from the Times Union and ran it without accreditation or compensation, you can be assured that the Hearst lawyers would be on them like shoes on feet.
LikeLike
What I think is even worse is that someone is going around Albany selling pictures of Nipper without paying anything towards his maintenance.
Awaiting your call…
LikeLike
Hey Chuck,
I fully agree with your views on this. I also think you are very lucky to have this problem. It means you are creating photos and writing that are of value to others.
I hope I have this problem someday!
Cheers, Dave
LikeLike
I have found the only way to combat this stuff is to specialize in stuff so profoundly boring, like healthcare technology standards and broadband policy, that nobody could POSSIBLY be interested in re-printing anything you write.
LikeLike
Yes. It is yours and they had no reason to talk to you like that. If they had been nice I could see the issue.
LikeLike
@ #10 I think Chuck has tried that when he writes his blog everyday.
LikeLike
Jim –
Aw, you made a funny! Good for you!!
LikeLike