So here’s the situation. In 2012, I wrote a blog post here – and, since I didn’t have a picture of the item I wanted to use in the blog, I looked on flickr for a photo that could be used for the blog. I posted the picture in the blog, making sure to attribute the photographer of the photo and provide a link back to that photographer’s flickr site. If the picture has a Creative Commons attribution to it, then that’s the procedure you use.
That was three years ago.
Last Tuesday, I received a Twitter message from a very upset photographer, asking me what rights I thought I had for stealing his work.
Yikes.
Okay… after a Google search and a flickr search, I went through the photographer’s dozens of albums and files. And there it was. The one image.
There must be something wrong, I thought. This has to be under a Creative Commons license. I wouldn’t have used it otherwise.
It was only then that I noticed – the photo was not under a Creative Commons license. It was, in fact, a photo that was listed in flickr’s guidelines as with a circled “c” – in other words, it was a copyrighted photo and all rights were reserved.
Okay… my mistake. I found the blog post and immediately took the photo down.
I also alerted the photographer of the mistake and told him that the photo had been removed from the blog post.
I thought that would be the end of it.
I was wrong.
It wasn’t that the photo was deleted that caused the problem – it was, in fact, that the photo was used in the first place. And my mistake – in using a photo that wasn’t under a Creative Commons license – could cost me big. He wanted to hear my offer of payment before he considered his options.
Eventually I reached an agreement with the photographer – I made a donation to a charity of his choice, I apologized for my mistake, and promised to be more vigilant about such things in the future. He accepted my apology, and agreed to the charitable donation as a complete settlement of the issue.
So what does this mean?
I say this to all of you, whether you have a blog or a Tumblr or a Pinterest account. We live in a cut-and-paste society, and it’s too easy in this world to simply find an image, right-click and save it on our desktops, or link it to a blog or whatnot. But the truth of the matter is, there are millions of images out there that are free to use. There are millions of images out there that have a Creative Commons license to them, meaning that you could use them under the rules of the copyright holder.
And there are just as millions out there that are flat-out copyrighted. Use of these images on your blog or in an advertising campaign, without asking or receiving permission to use them, can cost you lots of money. It can require you to retain an attorney. It can cause you sleepless nights.
That being said… I’m glad that the photographer and I worked things out. It could have been much worse.
I’ve apologized to the photographer for the mistake, and I apologize to all of you because I made that mistake. Even if the mistake occurred years ago, even if it was a single mistake in over 2,500 blog posts, it’s still a mistake that – in retrospect – I should have used better diligence.
So let’s all move forward from this moment.
Chuck The Writer 
Chuck – I understand your position, however, you provided a attribution to the photographer – and you didn’t earn any money from the post. I SERIOUSLY doubt it could be argued that the Times Union benefitted materially from the post.
Frankly, the Internet is a visual medium and some photographers need to lighten up. What RIGHT do you have to post the picture? THIS IS AMERICA BABY! How the heck where you supposed to know the photo was copyrighted? half the pictures on the Internet would even be posted if we let guys like that run the show.
You didn’t owe that crybaby a dime Chuck. I’m only glad you didn’t post his name so he doesn’t get any free publicity.
POST THEM BABY! STEAL THIS IMAGE!
LikeLike
Jango – the issue is, if there was a problem with the photo, since I’m a community blogger, the TU would have washed their hands of it and left me to pay any fines or damages. That, and I’ve challenged people who have copied my works without permission – but those were corporations like Turner Sports and a Miami television station, who not only used my photos but blurred out the watermarks on them. That’s intent. This was a mistake – but even if it’s a mistake, it’s a learning mistake on my part.
LikeLike
Good word Chuck. Thank you for sharing and reminding all of us. I’ll be more diligent too. Thank you for being a man of integrity. Much appreciated 🙂
LikeLike
Did the photographer actually have paperwork from the copyright office? Anyone can slap a © on a picture or on a music CD saying that their work is copyrighted, but that probably won’t hold up in court without more evidence. Example: today’s post is ©2015 Roz. #StealThisBlog 😀
Apologizing was the right thing to do, but I agree with Jango. You didn’t owe this man any more than that. If this photographer is so protective of his work, he should never post it on the net. Given that you named the guy and posted a link, he should have thanked you. I would have been flattered. Hope he’s reading this.
LikeLike
Copyright is such a tricky wicket. As a matter of safety, I tend to opt for pictures from governmental sites. The US govt sites ALMOST always have items that are not copyrightable.
On the other hand, there was a ruling, and I couldn’t cite it, which suggests that things that photos that aren’t transformative – photo of an album cover that looks exactly like the album cover – may not be protected.
LikeLike
I have the same question as Roz. What does it take to copywrite something? Do you have to have some sort of license, or can you just say it’s copywrited? What was this person’s legal standing in this case?
LikeLike
I’m no lawyer, but I believe anything you create is automatically considered your intellectual property and is automatically protected under law. Going so far as to file a copyright or trademark is really only necessary for businesses. Perhaps an attorney specializing in the field can clarify?
I’ve found myself on the opposite end, Chuck. Since I take so many pictures of beer I’ll see them wind up on people’s beer blogs, online magazines, and other amateur/semi-professional organizations’ websites, facebooks and twitters. 9 times out of 10 I let it slide since it doesn’t appear that they’re laughing all the way to the bank (or even making any money off it at all). The only time I’ve ever had to issue a cease-and-desist was when someone claimed the picture was theirs and it was quite obvious it was mine. I could see how a professional photographer might be irked by this since it’s their livelihood whereas I’m just taking pictures for fun.
LikeLike
Generally speaking, and this does not constitute legal advice, but mere creation of a work is enough to engender copyright protection, a registration is not necessary in order to have copyright in a photograph or book. However, registration can be important if you plan on enforcing that copyright against others because only a registration will allow you to bring a copyright lawsuit in federal court, and only a registration will allow you to pursue certain types of remedies including statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.
LikeLike