LA Times et al.: Do You Have to Suck the Sweat out of my Balls now that I am Dead

LA Times et al.: Do You Have to Suck the Sweat out of my Balls now that I am Dead

We — profes­sional press photo­graphers — do know that what we have been doing for decades as a profession is dying. Along with the daily print — but that’s another matter — I’ve been talking about it in this blog ad nauseam.

Yet the stunt LA Times et al. just pulled leaves me totally without words.

My good friend and colleague Matti Matikainen called me up couple of hours ago and said:” Guess what? LA TimesDaily Mail, Tech Crunch etc. just crabbed my image from the net and printed it. Didn’t ask for permission, did not offer to pay for it, nothing… they just printed it.”

I checked — and yes, there it was: all over the world, probably dozens of sites. Matti’s image from last night, just grabbed from the Iltalehti website. Image itself is nothing particular: it is a basic picture of Mrs. Vester­backa in the presi­dential palace last night. She is the wife of Peter Vester­backa, creator of Angry Birds — and the dress is — shall we say — personal and thematic.

But nobody asked for permission to use this image. I mean nobody. Oh, there was one publication from Norway which contacted Matti earlier today and did ask, but when he said the price (100€) they consi­dered it too expensive and backed out.

The indepen­dence reception in the Presi­dential Palace is very exclusive one — there is c. 30 photo­graphers maybe covering it each 6th December. Half of them freelancers, some agencies, some staffers.

I’m saying this so that you understand: it is not that there were not any pictures available if you’d want to buy and publish them: each and every guest is photo­graphed dozens and dozens of times thru-out the evening. Come on, it’s our biggest national happening of this kind — I guess you could compare it to the Academy Awards in terms of national interest. Every fourth of our citizens watch it on TV live.

All it would have taken from LA Times, Daily Mail, etc. would have been one, tops two phone calls: ” Does anybody have pictures and is willing to sell them?”

They even know the tel numbers, because that’s what the m.o. of business was couple of years back.

That’s what profes­sional photo­graphy is: you sell pictures. Or: that’s what it was.

Why Pay When You Can Get It Free?

But, new game and new rules: why ask and maybe pay — because you can just as well grab and steal it?

Hell, everybody is doing it — let’s join the party!

From aggre­gates such as Huff Post / Mashable etc. you sort of expect nothing. They are leeches and I guess do have some justi­fication of existing (?) in their present form.

But for crying our loud: LA Times? Pulizer Prizes and all… ? Jesus f***g Christ! And all the others who somehow dare to call themselves decent/honorable publica­tions…?

I know we are just photo­graphers — a dying breed -but do you really need to suck the sweat out of our balls when we are dead?

Matti has three kids and his images bring the bread and butter to the table. If something which we produce profes­sio­nally is treated this way… I just don’t have words. Just steal it — because so does everybody. After all we are not human, we are freelance photo­graphers.

I did not check all the links Matti sent me, I was just so totally appalled by this incident. One did catch my attention, though. Under the image it said: “thank you xxx for finding the image and thank you Iltalehti for taking it”.

Appropriate copyright?

Get real, for Christ sake! Iltalehti did not take any images. It was a photo­grapher who did that. His name is Matti. It is his property. His right to license his imagery pays the bills. You stole it.

I wonder if the staff of all these “publica­tions” go to a restaurant, eat and when it comes the time to pay the bill they just say: “I have to thank my friend for recom­mending your restaurant — and thank your cook too…” — and leave without paying, because: what’s the harm, everybody is doing it.

Somebody still think the legacy print has a future?

________________

Epilogue (Morning of 8th Dec., 2011)

I just talked briefly with Matti. He has commented below twice but as the comments are in the most common of languages — i.e. in Finnish, he asked me — in my own words — to write a small summary here:

CNN contacted him last night — asked to use the picture — with no financial compen­sation. Yahoo approached as well, offering to “link to his website” if they got the image — no financial compen­sation.

During the night the social media run it’s course (presently the blog is hit with over 3000 readers/hour)

Even LA Times commented below. The financial aspect of the matter in now taken care of — thanks to Polaris (Picture Agency) and Mr. Markku Vuorela. Thus, NPPA lawyers will cease to push the matter further as it is under control in that respect.

However, the point was never about the money . We both agreed in the phone: it isn’t about the money, it’s about the rules and values the media plays with and reflects back to its readers.

A commentary below put it very well in its last sentence, referring to this kind of practice of newspapers/sites — a commentary as an answer to the conver­sation of Mr Martin Beck of LA TImes and me were having:

Why would any newspaper want to tell the audience: “we are printing stuff that’s worth.. well.. nothing”?

Why indeed?

105 Replies to “LA Times et al.: Do You Have to Suck the Sweat out of my Balls now that I am Dead”

    1. Matti is NOT whining — he is a member of NPPA and if — or as I understand — WHEN they raise the hell about this, it’ll be done in the true american style of lawyers and litigation.

      But: like nobody gives a shit? It is not a matter of some obscure bunch of losers who take pictures and call themselves profes­sional press photo­graphers… It’s much more than that.

      Personal anecdote: I mentioned this to my wife. She is a profes­sional journalist. Her comment: “Did they credit him?” For fucks sake, when did stealing become accep­table — as long as you just mention “this property used to belong to this and this, but we just took it”?

      Yes, I love my wife — very much so — but her comment — coming from the “profes­sional ranks” is sympto­matic. Times like this, when more and more of what we do is immaterial — your basic ABC’s of life should include unders­tanding of IPR management. Especially if you work in a place where grabbing a Pulizer is a more or less an annual thing.

  1. Kiitos Kari kirjoi­tuk­sestasi. On todella hienoa saada tämä asia esiin ensim­mäisenä tällä foorumilla…koska tiedän, että blogiasi arvos­tetaan ja luetaan tosissaan myös muual­lakin kuin vain Suomessa.

    By-the-way kuten sanotaan — CNN otti yhteyttä noin tunti sitten ja hekin halusivat kuvat ihan ilmai­seksi käyttöönsä…ja kuten arvaten ei heistäkään ole enää kuulunut.

    Mutta tosissaan( äskeinen lausekin on totta) asia on hoidossa Amerii­kassa valta­kun­nal­lisen Lehti- ja Tv-kuvaajien organi­saation NPPA:n avustuk­sella.

    Ja tätä tässä kirjoi­tel­lessani tuli meili Yahoosta: he lupasivat laittaa linkin kuvaani jolla pääsee sivulleni, jos annan heille kuvat — ei rahal­lista korvausta.

    1. Joo -

      ihan käsit­tä­mä­töntä. Ja ymmär­täisi, jos kyseessä olisi yksi lehti — mutta kun niitä löytyy jokai­sesta maanosasta useita. Kellekkään tule mieleen, että on olemassa sellainen asia kun IPR (immaterial publishing rights).

      Eli samalla tavalla CNN voisi ottaa YLE:n kuvaa ilman korvausta (ja vice versa) ja työntää sitä ulos tuutistaan. Kiittää sitä kahvin­keittäjä sihteeriä joka bongasi tuon oudon TV-kanavan sieltä pohjois­na­valta…

      Kokonaisuus tässä pelottaa: eletään aikaa, jolloin enemmän ja enemmän siitä mitä tehdään on immate­ri­aa­lista. Ja kuitenkin tiettyjen alojen (kuten meidän) päälle pissataan ihan julki­sesti — ja ihmiset eivät tunnu ymmär­tävän, että siinä on mitään outoa.

      Kuvittele jos Android nappaisi AppleS­to­resta Vester­backan lintu­luo­muksen omalle alustalleen ja sanoisi “kiitti, hei kun teitte tämän”. Jobsin haamu pelmahtais paikalle alta aikayk­sikön ja läjäyt­täisi sellaisen oikeus­jutun ettei ole ennen nähty — Vester­backan putii­kista nyt puhumat­takaan.

      Veikkaan, että tässä esimer­kissä (vakavasti nyt…) jopa meillä kansal­linen uutis­kynnys ylittyisi ja ihmiset kauhis­te­li­sivat, että “mites toi on mahdol­lista…” Mutta: kun kyse on sinun — tai jonkun muun pienen toimijan omaisuu­desta — niin “kai niin voi tehdä, kun kaikki niin tuntuvat tekevän…”

      tsemppiä, kiitos kun kommentoit.

      K

      1. Puhutte pelkkää asiaa, ja kokonai­suutena asian väänty­minen tähän tilaan, missä nykyään ollaan on, ei ainoastaan huoles­tut­tavaa, vaan myös törkeän epäam­mat­ti­maista suurten lehti­ta­lojen taholta. Ikävä kyllä brutaa­liu­dessaan jossain määrin mahdol­lista…

        Kommenttina vastai­suuden varalle: IP- oikeudet (eli IPR) tunnetaan paremmin sanoista Intel­lectual Property Rights, vaikkain tarkoi­tusperä ajaa samaa asiaa. Immate­ri­aa­lioi­keuk­sista puhut­taessa kannattaa aina tarkistaa termistön oikeus, ja nyt valoku­vasta puhut­taessa saatetaan käsitellä immate­ri­aa­lioi­keuksien tekijä­noikeus rikko­musta. Tätä varten ne lakimiehet kokkaavat toivot­ta­vasti NPPA:n kautta…

        1. Kiitos — menee sanat sekaisin aina kun adrena­liini jyllää liian lujaa ja aivot yrittävät ruksuttaa kahdella kielellä… Molempia lienee käytetään, mutta korjaan jatkossa.

          K

      2. Kuvittele jos Android nappaisi AppleS­to­resta Vester­backan lintu­luo­muksen omalle alustalleen ja sanoisi “kiitti, hei kun teitte tämän”.”

        Rovio on laittanut Angry Birdsin Android-version myyntiin Android marketiin. Steve Jobsilla ei ole asian kanssa mitään tekemistä.

  2. I’d ask the same thing as your wife. Not because I wouldn’t understand the theft but because it would make matters even worse: not just rape, but violent-bloody-lips-blackened-eyes-broken-bones-rape. Raskauttava asian­haara.

    1. Hei pojat, eipä kannat­taisi verrata valokuvan luvatonta käyttöä RAISKAAMISEEN ja PAHOINPITELYYN. Onko suhteel­li­suu­den­ta­junne aivan hukassa???!!! Herätkää todel­li­suuteen, jooko.

      1. Agreed. It is unfor­tunate that photos are used without compen­sation or permission but come on. Comparing it to a rape is, well, fucked up. Sorry for the pun.

      2. nyt ei verrattu raiskaukseen, vaan verrattiin molempien raskaut­tavaa asian haaraa.. hieman eri jutuista kysymys.. sisälu­ku­taitoa ihmiset!

      1. unfor­tu­nately not that far away. CNN already laid of a bunch of photo journos because citizen provided pictures are so common they don’t need the pro’s anylonger (??).

        Then you have journos that goes to places that leaves their dSLR behind and just use iphones to take pictures (I’m sorry but a mobile phone device will not in many years yet be as good as a dSLR with changeable lenses and this just sets poor precedent). What next we have teen tweets/FB/sms texts messages delivering news stories to news papers and not profes­sional journa­lists?

        Greatful for NPPA and their work protecting the rights of photo­graphers. Unfor­tu­nately photo theft is consi­dered less of a crime than downloading copyright music is and afraid this is a uphill battle that more and more pro’s will loose out in because you have no real big power houses with deep pockets (as the record label industry does and they are still failing in battling the increasing music theft).

  3. Kari: Joo ei tietenkään lieventävä, mutta veren­hi­moinen mieleni kartoittaa heti ne ilmeiset synnin lisäykset. Ja minä olen toimittaja. :)

    1. If I could download the car…

      Yes.

      But then later — studies would show my downloading of cars would not really affect the car sale industry — something the car industry would do their best to suppress.

      Photo­graphy is a bit different than music and film — if you are referencing the famous Piracy Advert.

      1. but these people obviously have the ability to pay for a single photo. and they apparently have motivation to publish the story that needs the photo.
        were not talking about some lonely individual downloading the photo from iltalehti website (without permission) for personal use only. were talking about a well known magazine stealing from a site without asking for any permission or paying any royalties and then publishing the photo in they’re magazine.
        its almost like downloading a film and re publishing it as your own on the same scale as the original film was published. a bit more serious crime.
        they’re denying all credit from the real author and making money in the progress.

  4. Valoku­vaajat ovat nykyajan metsu­reita.

    Metsurit ovat nykyään ihan tarpeet­tomia. Metsä­koneet kaatavat puut ja samalla tekevät rumat urat metsään. Kukaan ei välitä metsään jäävästä sotkusta, kunhan puut kaadetaan kustan­nus­te­hok­kaasti.

      1. Ikävä tosiasia on, että kameroita on tsiljoona enemmän tänä vuonna kuin sanotaan vaikkapa viisi vuotta sitten. Kuvia otetaan huimia määriä joka sekunti. Vaikka tälläkin palstalla naures­kellaan ajatuk­selle, että kuka tahansa voi kuvata, niin niin se vain on. Ei sille voi mitään. Toki ammat­ti­lainen osaa ottaa kuvia huolel­li­semmin ja niin edelleen mutta todel­lisuus ajaa ammat­ti­taidon ohi. Siihen on pakko sopeutua. Itse olen lopet­tanut (surkean, myönnetään) kuvaa­misen, koska en koe luovani enää mitään, mitä ei olisi tehty jo. Kotinäpsyjä vaan.

      2. Kuka tahansa voi kuvata, se on totta. Laatus­pekt­rikin tasoittuu, koska jonkin tason itseop­pi­neisuus on helppo nakki ja useam­milla on jo varaa laaduk­kaaseen laitteistoon.

        Mutta sitten tullaankin siihen, että minne kukakin pääsee kuvaamaan. Itsenäi­syys­päivän vastaanotto ei sattu­neista syistä ole ihan avoimilla ovilla toimiva tilaisuus pressil­lekään, joten jos siellä saat kuvata tai tehdä juttuja, niin siinä asemassa voit määri­tellä hintasi ihan rohkeasti korkeam­maksi kuin “no ottakaa sitten, mutta jos edes antai­sitte krediitit mulle, jos olisitte niin kilttejä”.

        Kuka vaan osaa kuvata” -argumentti on vähän samaa lajia kuin että inter­netin myötä “kuka tahansa voi olla toimittaja”. Siinä on totuuden siemen, mutta pressojen, minis­terien ja toimi­tus­joh­tajien haastat­te­le­mi­senkin hoitavat vielä ne ns. ihan oikeat toimit­tajat.

        Besides, näistä asioista on vielä olemassa lait, joita pystytään valvo­maankin. Valoku­vaa­jalla on tässä tapauk­sessa täysi oikeus odottaa, että hänen luomastaan tuotteesta maksetaan hänen määrit­te­le­mänsä (tai viime kädessä oikeuden määrit­telemä, jos niikseen tulee) korvaus. Kukin voi kuvitella omalle kohdalleen tilanteen, jossa työnantaja pyytää selvit­tämään tausta­tiedot vaikkapa asiakas­yri­tyk­sestä ja kirjoit­tamaan niistä raportin -> teet työtä käskettyä, laitat raportin pomolle -> tämä jättää maksa­matta palkkaasi, koska ei nyt vaan tuntunut siltä, että pitäisi maksaa. Immate­ri­aa­li­sella työlläkin on oikeu­tensa.

  5. Image: A screen grab of an image of Teija Vester­backa on Iltaheti.fi. Credit: Matti Matikainen

    Tällainen muutos jutun alla ja kuvan alla suluissa Matti Matikainen

    Toivot­ta­vasti maksavat myös kuvasta kohtuul­lisen korvauksen

  6. Samalla kun valitat immate­ri­aa­lioi­keuksiin liitty­västä sikai­lusta, niin tuo toki myös esille se, että Peter Vester­backa ei ollut koko firmassa töissä kun Rovio teki ja julkaisi Angry Birdsin.

    1. Sehän vain korostaa sitä, kuinka suuri osa Vester­backan markki­noin­nilla on ollut tuotteen menes­tykseen. Tuote itsessään tekee vain osan menes­tyk­sestään.

    2. Tuotakoon esille myös se ettei peli ollut mikään sattuma, vaan pitkään toimineen pelioh­jel­mis­to­firman ihan suunni­teltu tuote oheis­tuo­te­lan­see­rauk­sineen, markki­noin­teineen jne. Jotenkin tästä on saatu sellainen mielikuva että peli syntyi tyhjästä, poikien puuhas­te­lusta.

      1. Se on helppoa sanoa että “se on vaan peli” :) Kukaan ei tajua miten paljon pelibisnes vaatii työtä, luovuutta ja markki­nointia ja miten monia on jotka eivät menesty.

  7. I’m no lawyer, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but this is legally black and white. They stole your pictures -> there are pretty serious copyright laws in the U.S. -> you are probably due some pretty solid “Licensing” fees. Take as many screenshots as you can and invoice them for every day they stole the work. As pissed as this makes you, this actually happens to them on a daily basis (i.e. huffpo, etc as mentioned above).

    1. Yes, I don’t see much use in just talking about this kind of viola­tions. We have to talk, of course, so that everybody will know that stealing other peoples work is wrong. The first thing to do is sending an invoice to the violator immediately. And then, if payment does not arrive, start collecting the dept. Intel­lectual property is protected by law in western countries, including USA. And hey, if no permission was asked before using the image, the owner of the rights can set the price higher.

  8. Käsit­tä­mä­töntä toimintaa arvos­te­tuilta medioilta. Julkinen ryöstö keskellä päivää kertoo paitsi röyhkey­destä, myös vakiin­tu­massa olevista toimin­ta­ta­voista, joihin lääkkeenä toimii ainoastaan vahva juridiikka ja näyttävät oikeus­jutut.

    Noin 85% verkossa käytet­tä­vistä kuvista on laitto­masti käytössä. Käsit­tääkseni esimer­kiksi kuvapan­keilla yhtä lailla kuin yksit­täi­sillä valoku­vaa­jil­lakin olisi intressi ryhtyä saman­suun­taisiin toimiin kuin ohjel­misto- ja musiik­ki­bis­nek­sessä on käynn­nis­tetty varas­ta­misen ehkäi­se­miksi ja estämi­seksi.

    Tuloksia odotel­lessa kannattaa tutustua suoma­laiseen yritykseen nimeltä Kiosked (www.kiosked.com). Sen liike­toi­min­ta­mallin kautta yksit­täi­sillä valoku­vaa­jil­lakin on mahdol­lisuus saada ansait­se­mansa korvaus tekemästään työstä.

      1. @anynumous bastard.

        Luku (80–85%) verkossa käytössä olevien laittomien kuvien määrästä pullahti esiin, kun Getty hankki omistuk­seensa PicScout-nimisen yhtiön. Monet kuvaajat varmaankin tuntevat yrityksen ja arvos­tavat sen osaamista. Lukua ei siis revitty hatusta eikä hanurista.

    1. Vaikka Kioskedin idea on kaunis ja jalo, se on vain kaunis ja jalo, tekno­logia ja itsekes­keisyys on vastassa ja tulee aina olemaan. Mun mielestä ollaan tietyssä suhteessa immate­ri­aa­lioi­keuksien tuotteis­ta­misen kanssa todella, todella hakusessa. Siinä, missä vuonna nakki ja kivi, kun paikka­kunnan valoku­va­ka­merat pystyi laskemaan sormilla, oli syy, miksi maksettiin, miksi sitä arvos­tettiin ja miksi se oli hienoa. Tänä päivänä kun huomat­tavan suurella osalla ihmisistä on jonkin­lainen kamera alitui­sesti mukana ja freelance­reitä enemmän kuin koskaan, on jotenkin kummal­lista ajatella, että tietenkin siitä vanhasta kakusta saa saman­ko­koisen palasen kuin aina ennenkin. Onhan se tietenkin tekijöiden oma asia, halua­vatko he nähdä valoku­vauksen palveluna, josta veloittaa, mitä se OIKEASTI maksaa, vai rahas­tella yhdestä paikkaa sen, mitä siitä voi rahastaa.

  9. We — and in particular our photo department — take copyright issues very seriously, so we were dismayed to see that this mistake had been made on our site. Please note that as soon as we had been alerted about the problem, we took immediate steps to correct it. We have made arran­ge­ments with Mr. Matikainen’s agency to pay him for the use of the photo.

    Thanks for pointing out our failure to uphold our own standards.

    –Martin Beck, Los Angeles Times

    1. Martin -

      thank you for taking the time to comment.

      And it’s a shame LA Times gets singled out in this — when there were dozens of other sites doing the same. It’s just that the standards a media like yours sets get applied as the common practice globally — now and in the years to come.

      I assume that your workflow is more or less similar as we have here in the North Pole in a standard newspaper website. That is: photo dept. has nothing to do with single images like this used on the site. They get chosen and downloaded by some young, inexpe­rienced, underpaid, scared-for-his/her-job, stressed, pushed for time, etc. trainee who is lucky to have at least some job in the media (at least that would be the case in Finland…) — who really does not think further than “nice story, where do I grab an image to get along a.s.a.p?” before he/she just clicks away and grabs the first thing he/she can find on the screen.

      That person should not be there.

      You understand my point, I am sure.

      Our industry is in dire straits — as we know — and stunts like this are not the best way to increase the confi­dence of the reading public into our integrity as reliable and honest operators. At this time when we really would need that — i.e. to convince people that what we do is worth paying money for.

      If our m.o. is based on stealing, disho­nesty and not respecting other profes­sionals, how can we expect the paying public to have any faith in us?

      If our m.o. is based on stealing, disho­nesty and not respecting other profes­sionals, how can we expect the paying public to have any faith in us?

      In a way (and maybe to take the sting out of LA Times a bit…) there is sort of irony that “Hollywood Reporter” did the same. It is a publication not known to us here in the North Pole — but if I understand correctly (just talked to a friend of mine in Hollywood who pointed it out) — it is the biggest profes­sional trade publication of the enter­tainment industry over there. And it focuses very strongly on issues such as — surprise, surprise — piracy.

      I at least perso­nally see some sad irony in that…

      1. If our m.o. is based on stealing, disho­nesty and not respecting other profes­sionals, how can we expect the paying public to have any faith in us?”

        Very well put. Journalism was, is and is will be something most people want and need, and not only because it’s crucial to democracy and modern society, but because it’s just so interesting and enter­taining. Still, at least here in Finland (or North Pole like Kari said) people wonder why do journa­lists need to be paid for their work, and why the hell are some of them even studying in the university?

        I find it very, very sad. At the same time, though, I know in many ways it’s our own fault. If the audience learns we as profes­sionals don’t respect and value each other, our skills and knowledge, why should they?

        If the audience learns we as profes­sionals don’t respect and value each other, our skills and knowledge, why should they?

        We all know the printed newspaper is going to disappear sooner or later (Kari would say sooner), but we also know pictures are still needed and stories are too. Last night I installed the Flipboard app to my iPhone and there it was again: one of the main categories of stories is “photo­graphy”, so clearly the app makers think it’s something that matters to people. And it does.

        What we, the media, need is some serious integrity. Not only inside the newsrooms but across the field. I know some might say it’s bad for the business to praise the work of my compe­titors, but hell, people like Magnus Wennman (a staff photo­grapher with a website, how cool and rare is that?) and Maija Tammi (with whom I had the honor to study with) raise the level of respect towards the whole profession. That helps me, too. If the public respects photo­jour­nalism, they respect my profession. It’s that simple. If I don’t respect my fellow journa­lists, it will make a change and that’s what I’m most afraid of right now.

        Think about it: You walk to an Apple store to buy headp­hones for your iPod, but clerk makes it very clear they wouldn’t want pay for the acces­sories they have in their own store, because they don’t think the stuff is worth any money. How does that affect the image of the store itself? Why do they even bother having useless stuff in their shelves? Why would any newspaper want to tell the audience: “we are printing stuff that’s worth.. well.. nothing”.

        Why would any newspaper want to tell the audience: “we are printing stuff that’s worth.. well.. nothing”.

  10. Peter V maksais varmaan miellellään ne muutamat sataset … jäbä oli niin tyyty­väinen huomioon että melkein tuli ruudun läpi tv-haastat­te­lussa teatterin jatkoilla.

  11. You wouldn’t download a car.

    Kysymykseni onkin, jollekkin asiasta enemmän tietä­välle. Jos lehti ostaa kuvan Matilta, niin onko se siltä lehdeltä yhtään mitään pois? Kai niihinkin pätevät kaiken­maa­ilman hankin­ta­vä­hen­nykset tai vastaavat.

    Ja vaikka eivät saisikaan vähen­nyksiä, niin luulisi, että sadan euron hyvitys on aika helvetin olematon menokulu verrattuna menekkiin. Sata euroa lienee k.o. valoku­vaa­jalle kuitenkin iso raha.

  12. 1) Johan: It’s not that 100 euros is a lot of money to the photo­grapher. But 100 euros multiplied by dozens of outlets is.
    2) The Hollywood Reporter also ran the photo on their site, giving Matti credit. I’m wondering if they paid to use it. The HR is the Wall Street Journal of the American enter­tainment industry. It’s an industry paper/site…not an enter­tainment site. They write about the business of Hollywood and the issues they face. A lot of what gets written about is how Hollywood is losing billions to online piracy. If they didn’t pay to use Matti’s photo, well, that’s beyond shameful and not a little hypoc­ri­tical.

  13. As a picture “consumer” it would however be nice that when something is spreading in the net, it wouldn’t be stifled by licensing schemes thought up in the dinosaur age. And no, I’m not referring to “everything should be free”, but to the fact that actually contacting the image author or owner should not be necessary for licensing it for reuse — all the licensing hassle will cause an unaccep­table delay in the publication.

    If there’s a cultu­rally tickling Angry bird dress seen in the wild, it should be reported now, not on next week when the lawyers have held three meetings. And yes, a picture is quite relevant to a reporting like that.

    I’m guessing that the mentioned publica­tions would’ve happily paid for the picture, if there was a working infra­structure for using images like that legally and commercially. It’s not always about stealing and being mean.

    1. It’s true that freelance photo­graphers should have image banks where customers could download pictures for commercial use. Many have that kind of a system, but not even a majority, I think.

      BUT. There is a working infra­structure: contact the photo­grapher and ask for the permission to use the image. It usually involves the need for a monetary transaction.

      Every editorial photo­grapher I know get assign­ments by phone and email daily if not many times per day, so I guess there are very few profes­sionals that read their emails and text messages more often than photo­graphers. You can try it yourself: send an email or call any profes­sional Finnish photo­jour­nalist and ask if you can BUY their photo­graph for a publication. I can guarantee you’ll get the image before “next week”.

      Of course it’s a whole different story if you need the picture for free. You can try that too: send an email to your local repair shop and ask if they could send someone to repair your fridge for free and see, if you get an answer.

      1. Yes, we all get that “I don’t have budget for images… but I WILL mention your name”.

        Duh??

        Yes, we do read our email like constantly — it is our profes­sional lifeline so to speak as you say. And our cellphone is on 24/7.

        Nowadays, when I get those emails, I politely refer them to the website of a fellow profes­sional: (I actually asked Tony for permission to translate that into Finnish, but he has not answered yet): http://tonysleep.co.uk/node/687

        Worth reading and contemplating upon.

      2. Is there an app for that? Seriously. There should be at least with these kinds of events as the Itsenäi­syys­päivän vastaanotto. Freelancer takes photo, uploads it directly from the camera to some repository and paper buys it with some nifty micro­payment or something. I don’t think Scoopshoot has taken of yet?

    2. Profes­sional photo­graphers sell their shots fit a living. To buy a picture, you don’t need a lawyer, you just need a credit card. Or, if the cultu­rally tickling is that important for you, but you don’t want to spend the money, you can be there at the occasion and shoot tour own pictures. Or find someone who does it for free.

      Just don’t try to find lame excuses why stealing is ok.

      P.S.: Swift reply from L.A. Times, how the others pay up as well.

  14. Yö on ihmeel­listä aikaa, kuten kaikki varmaan huoma­sitte mitä sosiaa­linen media saa aikaan -todel­lista vipinää- , jopa L.A times vastaa tätä kautta. Kari blogillasi on todella merki­tystä -oikeasti — on todella hienoa että kerroit tarinani blogissasi ja sain näin asian kuuluviin kauttasi. Blogisi on paras paikka oikeille asioille kuten kaikki huomaatte. Itse en bloggaile tai ole Faceboo­kissa, mutta nyt täytyy harkita uudestaan. Ilman tätä kirjoi­tusta tilanne voisi olla osin aivan jotain muuta. Minun kannalta asia on nyt hyvässä hoidossa, kuvatoi­misto Polariksen avustuk­sella- kiitos siitä Markku Vuore­lalle. NPPA:n lakimiehet lopet­tivat nyt asian hoita­misen Ameri­kassa.
    Kari iso kiitos

    1. Huomenta -

      (älä nyt minua kiitä, minä vaan auon päätäni…). Jep, niin sanotusti vähän pamahti, olet ehkä katsonut noita numeroita tuossa blogin sivussa…

      Hyvä, että asia on hoidossa ja saat asian­mu­kaisen korvauksen kuvista. Mutta kuten molemmat hyvin tiedämme — olemme siitä puhuneet — kyse on periaat­teista joilla media, jopa yhteis­kun­tamme toimii. Suuria sanoja suustani, mutta kun se on niin.

      En rupea enempää tähän saarnaaman aiheesta — luit varmasti vastaukseni Martin Beckille LA Timesiin. Siinä on kitey­tettynä mitä asiasta ajattelen. Aivan kuten oli tilanne noin vuosi sitten kun nostin itse esille HS:n käyttäy­ty­misen vähän vastaa­van­lai­sessa tapauk­sessa, ei tässäkään ole kysymys rahasta, vaan tekemisen säännöistä ja moraa­lista. LA Times, NYT, WP, Guardian, jopa HS… nämä kaikki luovat ne säännöt/käytännöt joilla alamme/media — ja yhteis­kunta — toimii.

      1. …ei tässäkään ole kysymys rahasta, vaan tekemisen säännöistä ja moraa­lista…”

        Mitä jeesus­telua tämä on? Rahas­tahan tässä on kysymys: pointtisi on koko ajan olllut, että moraa­li­sesti oikean­lai­seksi toiminnan tekee se, että kuvien käytöstä maksetaan; tekemisen oikeat säännöt ovat ne, että kuvista pitää saada rahaa.

  15. Kannattaa photos­ho­pissa lisätä sellainen seminäkyvä vesileima kuviin joita pitää kotisi­vuillaan. Jos ne napataan paikasta johon on saanut ne myytyä niin keissi on silloin tämän paikan ja napanneen osapuolen välinen asia. Karu maailma mutta asia ratkeaa heti kun jotkut fiksut insinöörit kehit­tävät systeemin jolla vain maksanut taho saa ehjän kuvan itselleen.

    Ja tuollai­sissa tilan­teissa ei kannata mennä nukkumaan kun pressi herää atlantin takana kun täällä simah­detaan. Voi vastailla puhelimeen jne.

  16. I wonder if Iltasa­nomat has proper copyright printed under the image. I mean maybe the LA Times would have got Matti as the photo­grapher, if Iltalehti would have tagged the photo appropriately on their site.

  17. Some big newspapers — get themselves caught stealing 100$. I understand so-called artists like Timbaland stealing samples from real artists because it fits their “playa/hustla” — image, but squeaky-clean newspapers? Now it’s just going to cost them more in compen­sa­tions, lawyer fees, extra PR

  18. Great post and important matter! It’s definitely not (only) about money in this case and any media or newspaper who stole the image should be ashamed. It feels LA Times can get away with way too little on this one, if they simply resolve the situation by paying a fee (which is very low indeed!) afterwards. I do not think this truly remedies or covers the issue and the damage that was done (also to their own imago), but I guess it is accep­table.

  19. Maybe if the media took a bit more interest in the war veterens and people who actually lived through the war instead of dresses then indepen­dence day could actually be called a remem­be­rence day. I work in a hospital and talked with many people there who lived through the war who said they dont care who has the best dress & finland only cares about celebs and those who had the manner­hemin cross awards. sure havd a huge party for celebs and dresses but would it not be suited more for new years eve rather than a day we should be thanking the real people who gave Finland indepen­dance?

    1. Well Michi…

      27th of April is Veteran’s day in Finland. The people who actually gave Finland Indepen­dence was the Finnish senate (decla­ration of Indepen­dence), the parliament (approving the decla­ration) and ultimately Lenin (recog­nizing Finland’s indepen­dence). I acknow­ledge that there are 40000 veterans from the previous war still with us, and their ultimate sacrifice helped us keep our indepen­dence, but it is a logis­tical impos­si­bility to invite all of them to this particular event.

      The President invites whoever she pleases, and surely Rovio is a signi­ficant modern contri­butor to Finnish culture.

      Anyways, the matter really discussed in this forum would be just as relevant to the photo­grapher, if the stolen photo, was taken of a Mannerheim Cross bearer.

  20. Matti,
    Sue the bastards for everything they’ve got. We’re talking US here, they sue each other for absurd amounts of money over absurdly trivial issues.
    I know it’s not about the money, and that you’ve decided to donate everything to charity (thumbs up for that alone already!), but those ignorant stupid idiots shouldn’t think that they can get away with everything.
    No one gets to steal, not even them.

  21. While I’m certainly no longer a “profes­sional” photo­grapher in the true sense of the word — I don’t make my primary income from it — it disgusts me how photogs are treated online. Lately, I’ve seen it spread to the real world, too.

    There was a plane forced down due to mecha­nical failure a few weeks ago near where I live. I was visiting family, about a half mile from the landing site, and heard about it from a friend — of course, I grabbed my kit and took off to document it.

    I got some very good photo­graphs of the plane, the damage on the wings from it going through a fence, and of the emergency response. It was below freezing, and I was the only photo­grapher on the scene.

    There was only about 15 minutes to shoot before it got dark, and when I was done, I drove directly to the office of our local newspaper. The assistant editor was there, and he reviewed my photos, agreed they were suitable for use in the headline article the next morning, and offered to give me credit for them.

    I refused. I don’t need “credit” from a local newspaper — I can’t imagine what benefit that would provide. Apparently, though, that was their expec­tation. I was informed that they had no budget whatsoever for buying photos, ever.

    The next day, they ran the story with a dark, noisy shot from a first responder’s iPhone on the cover of their paper.

    I just don’t get it. I know everyone today is a “photo­grapher”, but has the market for photo­graphy really completely evapo­rated?

    1. I don’t get it when a newspaper says they have no budget for photo­graphs.
      Even the free newspaper Metro in Finland can pay up to 100€ for a photo to a photo­grapher, which i assume would have let them use the photo for free!
      Why would LA-Times then have a “no budget” for a photo they really want, that’s just ridiculous!

      It can’t be that hard to pick up the phone and call the photo­grapher and just ask it they can use the photo he/she has taken. I bet it would take 2–3 minutes to get permission to use it and just write the photo­graphers name under the picture.

  22. It reminds me of the time when I used to put all my photos on a self-hosted photo gallery. A few people whom I worked with occasio­nally looked at them. I then left the company to work elsewhere.

    Imagine my surprise when I bought a magazine to find one of my photos used in an adver­ti­sement for my former employer? I could definitely prove it was my photo — and indeed did — and you know what my former employer said when I cornered them about this?

    Well, if it’s on the internet then it must be free”

    The photo didn’t have any water­marks or a big © symbol — I naively believed that the photos were strictly for personal enjoyment for friends and family. When I asked about compen­sation and what I’d have liked they told me, “Well — we’ll pay you £75. And that’s only because you’re a former employee”.

    I swear that if it wasn’t so blooming expensive to employ lawyers I would have dragged them through the courts and have ensured that everybody knew what they were up to. The stupidest thing about this was that they were an ISP and web host. They should know a lot better than “well, if it’s on the internet then it must be free”.

    Thank­fully I’ve since worked for far better employers in the same industry who understand what copyright and IP means.

  23. Are you sure that the picture is actually copyrighted? In many European countries, a work needs to express signi­ficant creativity in order to be copyrigh­table. In the USA, less creativity is required, but even there, according to the US Supreme Court, “the sine qua non of copyright[ability] is origi­nality” and it “means only that the work was indepen­dently created by the author … and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.” (Feist Publica­tions, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 345, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 1287, 113 L.Ed.2d 358, 1991.) It is often very difficult to tell, if a photo­graph is copyrigh­table. See, eg, Leigh v. Warner Brothers, Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 1214, (11 Cir. 2000).

    Tekijä­noikeus edellyttää luovuutta, itsenäi­syyttä ja omape­räi­syyttä. Eikö tuo kuva ole varsin saman­lainen kuin muutkin samassa tilan­teessa otetut jonotus­kuvat? Näkyykö siinä kuvaajan persoo­nal­lisuus jollain tavalla? On ihan mahdol­lista ettei tekijä­noikeus lainkaan koske tuota valokuvaa.

    Tekijä­noi­keuslain 49 a §:ssä on lisäksi säädetty valoku­vaajan oikeu­desta, joka ei edellytä luovuutta: valoku­vaa­jalla on yksin­omainen oikeus määrätä valoku­vasta vaikkei siinä olisi mitään itsenäistä ja omape­räistä, mutta tämä oikeus ei ole kansain­vä­linen eikä rajoita esimer­kiksi amerik­ka­laisen media­talon oikeutta käyttää verkosta löytä­määnsä kuvaa.

    Niin, on varmasti epäreilua ja moraa­li­tonta käyttää toisen kuvia ilman lupaa, mutta välttä­mättä se ei ole laitonta eikä oikeuta korvauksiin.

    En mitenkään halua vähätellä yleisesti ottaen valoku­vaajien oikeuksia kuviinsa tai valoku­vaajan oikeutta saada korvaus ja tunnus­tusta työstään, mutta on myös tunnus­tettava, ettei ihan mikä tahansa kuva ehkä ole tekijä­noi­keuden suojaama. Valoku­vaajan mahdol­lisuus ansaita sellai­sil­lakin kuvilla pitää perustua johonkin muuhun kuin tekijä­noi­keuteen, esimer­kiksi siihen, että työnantaja haluaa lähettää valoku­vaajan paikalle ottamaan kuvia ja maksaa siitä palkkaa.

  24. It all boils down to copyright. And it really seems to be (BIG) publishers of TV-shows, music and films are very very hung up on it. They fight the people on several fronts, for example the Pirate Bay and other file sharing facili­tators. What I fail to understand is HOW pictures are in any way different? Oh I know. It is again the BIG (here a media company) against the small (single photo­grapher). So really: copyright is owned by the big, the small have no right? Right?

    ps. A month or two ago I spotted an image on an image sharing site on the internet and recog­nised it by the style to be one of a Danish artist I like. What really irked me was that there was NO credit to her. Maybe all images should start including the artist’s or photographer’s name IN the image? People seem to forget it so easily.

  25. Nauret­tavaa vikise­mistä. Iltalehti on yleisölle avoin netti­jul­kaisu, jolloin lain mukaan kaikki kyseessä olevat kuvat, ja jopa teksti­si­sältö ovat julki­sessa levityk­sessä ja kaikille avoin.

    Tietä­mät­tö­myyteen et voi lakipe­räi­sissä asioissa ikinä vedota, sillä se ei päde. Jos kuva ei olisi ollut netissä tätä ennen, tai se olisi ollut yksityis-sivus­tolla, eli sivus­tolla jonne pääse­miseen yleensä tarvitaan salasanaa, tai muuta vastaavaa, olisi asia aivan toisin.

    Eli typeryy­des­sänne olette antaneet kuvan vapaaseen netti­le­vi­tykseen sitä tiedos­ta­matta, ja nyt yritätte hakea hyvityksiä sen jälkeen. Ei tule onnis­tumaan, aivan sama millaiseen leikki­liittoon sitä kuuluu, lakia ne eivät pysty vääntämään, ei suuretkaan.

    Trans­lated from above into english;

    Laughable whining. Iltalehti (finnish tabloid-like paper) is a public internet site, and therefore under law all pictures on said site, as well as the text content are of public domain according to laws of both our country, as well as the U.S.

    Ignorance is not an excuse, when it comes to the matters of law. If the picture had not been released publicly on the internet prior to this, or it had been only acces­sible on private sites, such as sites that require a password or subsc­ription to access, the matter would be clearly different.

    So, to sum it up (TL;DR) they have, in their idiocy, given the picture away to a public internet site, where from LA Times picked the picture up (which was now public domain), and now they are attempting to get payments for this. Won’t work out, no matter what kind of union they’re part of, as unions can’t bend the law to their will, no matter what their size is.

    1. >Laughable whining. Iltalehti (finnish tabloid-like paper) is a public internet site, and therefore under law all pictures on said site, as well as the text content are of public domain according to laws of both our country, as well as the U.S.

      This is absolutely and completely incorrect, at least with respect to the U.S., and I suspect also in Finland (because of the ubiquity of IP treaties).

      Publishing” an image, even for free, does NOT release the image into the public domain. In fact it’s challenging to ever release something into the public domain, even inten­tio­nally.

      Publishing” an image, even for free, does NOT release the image into the public domain.

      I tend to think Copyright laws are TOO strong: 75 years after the death of the creator or 100 years after creation are WAY too long. But they are what they are, and spreading ignorance about the law is never a good thing.

  26. Eikö työnantaja maksanut Matille kuvien ottami­sesta? Oliko kuva jotenkin itsenäinen ja omape­räinen? Ihan erityy­linen kuin muut kätte­ly­kuvat? Rajoit­taako tekijä­noi­keuslain 49 a pykälän mainitsema valoku­vaajan yksin­omainen oikeus määrätä valoku­vasta, vaikka siinä ei olisi mitään itsenäistä tai omape­räistä myös vaikkapa ulkomaisia mediayh­tiöitä?

  27. Minä osaan leipoa kakkua ja pullaa, miljoonat osaavat, mutta ei niitä silti saa kaupasta varastaa. Tiedoksi, että niillä miljoonan kameran omista­jalla on yhtä lailla oikeus omiin kuviinsa. Ei yksityis­hen­ki­löi­denkään netti­si­vuilta saa kuvia ottaa julkiseen käyttöön.

  28. In Finland actually ( without beeing a lawer), if you want to publish a photo of someone, you must have a written permission from the person. Quite agreable, do you think?
    Without the permission one can publish news-photo­graphs, which are not copyrighted.

    Perhaps using some watermark- program would have been practical also. Like printing the photo­graphers name in the picture?

    1. Jouni, in general, you don’t need a permission to publish a photo in Finland even if there is a recog­nizable person. For example, you may take a photo in a public place and publish it for journa­listic or artistic reasons. However, you need a permission for commercial purposes like adver­ti­se­ments. And, you shouldn’t even take a picture without consent in domestic areas (at somebody’s home) or in defamatory context.

  29. Todella kiehtovaa. Mielestäni tätä ei voi verrata mitenkään laittomaan lataa­miseen netistä.
    Kysees­sähän on toiselta kopioi­minen myytä­väksi. Jos lataan tuon kuvan koneelleni ja laitan sen tausta­ku­vaksi, se kai olisi Ok ?
    No kuitenkin… Oikeus on ilmei­sesti tapah­tunut, ja Yleäkin kiinnostaa. Ilmoi­titteko itse jutusta Yleis­ra­dioon ?

    http://yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2011/12/suomalaisen_kuvia_kaytetty_royhkeasti_luvatta_maailmalla_3089384.html

  30. Daily Mail used the photo too:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2071128/Wife-Rovio-boss-turns-palace-wearing-Angry-Birds-dress.html

    Today, it seems to be credited to Matti. Yesterday it wasn’t. Did they pay Matti for it?

    I tried to ask Daily Mail about it, but interes­tingly they didn’t publish my comment on the article. All I said was “A question to Daily Mail: Did you pay the photo­graphers who took these pictures and whose livelihood depends on it?” That was followed by a link to this blog.

    Glad to hear LA Times is now doing the right thing!

    1. I’d like to stress one simple thing that I hope everyone find easy to understand:

      Using a photo for commercial purposes is very, very different from a situation where someone copies a photo from internet to their hard drive just to enjoy it or to use it as a wallpaper etc.

      Getting profit from someone else’s work without paying is just wrong. People producing goods that can be digitally repro­duced are of course very vulne­rable, but the ability to do something is not much of a justi­fication.

      Getting profit from someone else’s work without paying is just wrong. People producing goods that can be digitally repro­duced are of course very vulne­rable, but the ability to do something is not much of a justi­fication.

      1. I’m no journalist but I spent over five years working in inter­na­tional media and still work on the fringe. I often gets looks of confusion from colleagues and friends when I tell them to be careful of copyright. If I am preparing a presen­tation I like to ensure that I used rights free, Creative Commons or paid licence media. On the rare occasions that I present in public I always ensure I have all my bases covered.

        If I can do this for simple business presen­ta­tions (not even mentioning media events or PR) then I am sure that a major news publication should do so. Especially as so many of these media companies are the same ones campaigning against piracy and copyright theft by the public? If you can’t justify the amount of money the owner of the media asks then don’t use it!

  31. Here’s the thing. I work for a company that licenses imagery. Our photo­graphers’ work is our bread and butter, without them we would have nothing to sell. Publica­tions, websites and blogs using our photo­graphers’ work and then saying “well we gave credit to the photographer”…well, that’s unaccep­table. Many, many of these comments seem to imply that “giving credit” is enough.

    When I issue a paycheck, I expect to be paid for the work. Printing my name as the person who created the check isn’t going to pay my rent or for any of my financial obliga­tions. Payroll is my profession, and I deserve fair compen­sation for my work.

    No more does anyone in our sales department expect to be paid in kudos for bringing in new business.

    And I would be willing to bet that no one who is commenting on this blog who is not a musician, photo­grapher or writer expects to be paid in “well done” and “thanks for your work”, and “look at this great report Carl did”. You expect to be paid in money which you can exchange for things that you need and buy from other people who also expect to be paid in money.

    So while it isn’t about the EUR 100 that Matti was speci­fically requesting for the printing of his work, it is ALSO about money, even though the principle is what’s being discussed in this blog.

    Even if you have a blog which you allow others to read for free, you would want the option to allow it to be printed elsewhere “for credit” or for money. You want to control the fruits of your work.

    I don’t know what else to say, but to me the idea of stealing intel­lectual property and then claiming that “EUR 100 isn’t that much money” or saying “well, didn’t they credit the photo­grapher?” is dismissive of the issue that photo­graphy is Matti’s career and the work he does to support his family, just like I do payroll and others are baristas, stock­brokers, teachers or anyone else does any job. It’s not making $5 an hour or $1 million a year that’s the point. The point is that we all expect compen­sation for our work, and it’s not unrea­so­nable for Matti to, also, even if “all” he does is “take pictures”.

    1. Rita -

      you expressed it very clearly and hopefully people take the time to read what you said and absorb it.

      These are huge principles we are discussing here… and it is extremely alarming to see how some people do not see the theft of intellectual/immaterial as a crime.

      Like justi­fying killing somebody with “well, it was only a kid/racial minority/whatever, so it really doesn’t matter, there will be more…” Maybe that is too strong an example — I hope nobody gets offended — but I feel very strongly about this.

      But then again: I am also very relieved and happy to see some of the commentary (such as yours) expressing true unders­tanding and concern on the matter on the level of principles governing our actions, the m.o of our chosen field (media) and those of our society. Thank you for commenting.

  32. The business model of freelance photo­graphy is changing.

    Great photo­graphers like Matti Matikainen will always be needed, respected, and paid, but he needs to get paid by the organization hosting the party, not the old model of (hopefully) selling photos.

    The more of his photos that go viral, the more he will be in demand. The more he is in demand, the more he will get paid by promoters to attend events. It IS possible to do your art and get paid — you just gotta get paid by the people with the money.

    Matti could also look on the lighter side — the publicity he is getting from having his image stolen by the LA TImes is worth way more than whatever he invested in that one night of shooting!!

    I am a freelance video­grapher myself, so I really share the concerns you are bringing up here and appreciate it.

    1. Be careful what you wish for. What you’ll get is selec­tively edited, jaundiced, self serving guff that advances the paying client’s interests. That is not journalism (which believe it or not is capable of serving readers’ interests). It’s what us old-timers call “bullshit”. .. well let’s just forget any hope of democracy if that gains any traction.

      That is not journalism (which believe it or not is capable of serving readers’ interests). It’s what us old-timers call “bullshit”. .. well let’s just forget any hope of democracy if that gains any traction.

      1. I should have said “any more traction”. The tail has been wagging the dog so hard and for so long it has nearly beaten it to death already. Integrity and trust are sine qua non (look out the window to see the consequences of sacri­ficing them for the sake of profit).

        Integrity and trust are sine qua non (look out the window to see the consequences of sacri­ficing them for the sake of profit).

  33. What’s the lesson of the story ? Make a company, steal someones work, make profit, compensate the original author with peanuts (if he/she asking kindly with a bunch of lawyers) and everybody is happy ?

    It is a bit weird indeed since if i’d download (stole) something for my private pleasure let’s say mp3, movies, whatever, and get caught their company lawyers will even take my old dirty trousers plus that i’d be paying the compen­sa­tions for the rest of my life… or end up in jail…

  34. That’s funny that everywhere you find people who are worried about piratism and illegal copies when you talk about music and films. Nobody seems to be interested the same thing with photos.

  35. You say it’s not about the money, but it always is, if it wasn’t this blog post would not be. If the picture was of something else, let’s say President Halonen tripping and pouring a drink on her dress, or some guest doing the “Mr. Bean” on Halonen, and it was to be caught on camera, ill promise you that the picture/s would have a price tag, and it would be high.

    In this case, the picture is of an evening dress of low-taste, worn by meaningless person. Why would this picture be worth something? This piece of news is in the same category as those wannabe-celeb blogs, or in Finland it’s called seiska, hell even they pay for good footage.

    My point is simply, good footage equals a good price.

    1. I don’t see your logic here, if this photo is so worthless why some many newspapers feel the urge to publish it without taking the time to ask (and eventually negociate if the first price is to high) ?

      If it’s worthless, you don’t need to publish it right now, without delay.

      I’m not photo­grapher, or journalist or something like that, i was working in computer programming and now i’m studying to become some kind of librarian in school in France (mix between librarian and teacher, i don’t know the word in english or even if a name exists :) ). So my only link to this is just the infor­mation treatment if you want to find link,
      (i don’t even play angry birds ^^)

  36. Appaling to say the least, In India particu­larly most publishers seem to assume if its on the interenet its free to publish, early last year CNN has published an image of mine which was flicked off facebook (with a credit line saying that) I emailed them to take the image off which they did promptly but their whole attitude was dissa­pointing. As a freelance photo­grapher it is almost mandatory for webbased publishing for getting work & having a portfolio up, publica­tions abuse this.

  37. Pitäi­si­köhän runoi­li­joi­denkin ruinata fyrkkaa joka hemmetin lainauk­sesta, joka on niiden kirjasta julkaistu. Lähteen maininta on tähän asti riittänyt.

    1. Lainauk­sesta ei. Mutta jos koko runon jossain julkaiset niin sitten kyllä niiden pitäisi saada rahaa, samoin jos painat koko kirjan. Miksi ihmeessä musiik­kiyhtiöt ja elokuva-ala ruinaa aina kun joku lataa kaverilta biisin tai leffan? Mikä ero tähän verrattuna?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *