Above you see my photograph of Ludmilla Petrushevskaya that is found on Wikimedia Commons used by the Miami Herald in a December 22, 2009 story by Lori Kozlowski that was recycled from the Los Angeles Times. Nowhere on the article is the work attributed to me.
Now, I’ve written before about my own views regarding attribution and there are really only three categories where it does not bother me if someone does not give me the credit for my own hard work:
- I am asked;
- An artist is using the work, and attribution would interfere with their creative vision; and
- For a non-commercial entity’s use.
All others should give credit where credit is due, and particularly a member of the mainstream media that has advertisements plastered all around it.
For those of us who work in the Creative Commons–I retired from it in 2009–one of the few benefits is credit for our hard work. The Herald robbed me of that small satisfaction in this case, and I imagine I’m not the only one.
Boo, hiss, Miami Herald, for taking the hard work of others without giving them the credit. It violates the copyright terms that are clearly spelled out where you found the image.
If you would like to see my other photos of Petrushevskaya, one of Russia’s foremost literary authors, click here.
Wikipedia photos to be deleted
NYC Wedding March – September 26, 2010
Joaquin Phoenix is a poser
Flushing Meadow Corona Park skate park
East Village Park and Williamsburg Bridge photos
100 People I Photographed for the Creative Commons
Pakistan flood devastation statistics
Cordoba House / Ground Zero mosque protest photos
The void in my blogging (and some photos)
Rihanna video with Eminem about Chris Brown?
See, this is what I was talking to you about in December, David. I’ve found my photographs used online in at least two places without attribution. On the 18th, in fact, I walked to Hoboken, and noticed a new Clearview Cinema right next to the viaduct. Hanging on the viaduct right across from the theater’s entrance was large “Hoboken” banner of photos associated with that town, and I was stunned to see that the one in the top center of City Hall was the one I took in 2007. (I’ve since taken a better-lit one that I’ve replaced in the Hoboken article.) Clearview actually called me today Friday to tell me that they’re going to add a credit to the banner (it’ll take about a week), and send me a couple of free passes. This is fine, and it’s good because Clearview is now the largest organization using my pics that I can put down on a resume or list of works, but it’s disappointing that an organization like that is not more legally circumspect. You’d expect the average Joe to maybe not know that not everything on Wikimedia is free, but you’d expect corporations to be better at double-checking such stuff, by looking at the license on the page and whatnot.
Twitter: davidshankbone
says:
Even when it’s “free” there are still stipulations for our work’s use. But you are totally in the right, Luigi, and I’m glad you pursue these issues. I don’t recommend CC artists follow my lead nor do I advocate people adopt my perspective. This post is as far as I go, which is public shaming. You’re a very talented photographer, and when you upgrade your camera you’ll likely eclipse my own work.
That said, the mainstream media like the Miami Herald has no excuse, is well aware of copyright requirements, and also robs people like me and you of a little bit of pride in the hard work we do. That does bother me. But I won’t do much more than try to publicly shame them, and not really for me, but for people like you and Glenn Francis and all the other people who take time out of their day, are bold enough to approach these people, put work into the photo, upload it and just would like to see it acknowledged. Feel free to leave a comment on the article, and have other CC photogs do so as well.
The Mariah Carey use in Time Out, however, was a completely different story and if you want to see the most famous example of why they did not need to credit me, click here to read about the Obama Hope poster Shepard Fairy legal issue that ended in his favor – he was within his rights. Sure, credit would have been awesome, but I knew when I created this work that an artist can make derivatives of my work (and even copyrighted work) in that article. What disappointed me with Time Out was that they never responded to my e-mails expressing excitement about it – sigh.
I honestly didn’t follow your work on Wikipedia that closely that I knew of any “reputation” you had developed. I remember the Kerry Washington disgreement in which you and I first “met”, and how I conceded that one to you because mine, despite having a nicer facial expression, was admittedly out of focus (it was a disposable camera I was using before I got my digital camera, and it wasn’t even me who took it, but a passerby I asked to snap of me and her).
I think it’s possible to fight for one’s photo in an article in instances where it’s so unambiguously clear that one’s photo is better, without developing a bad “reputation”, as long as you demonstrate a pattern for objectivity and the occasional concession. After the October Big Apple Con, I added my pics to a lot of articles, including ones with bad photos that I unhesitatingly replaced. But I didn’t just go on a spree of replacing other pics with my own, and there were four situations in which I wasn’t sure if mine were the preferable ones, so I contacted other people for a consensus discussion in which I solicited people’s opinions on those four. I found their comments fascinating.
David, I’m sorry to see this viz the Herald. At the same time I’m glad they used the photo–I thought your photos of the event came out really well and I’ve been recommending them whenever anyone asks for Petrushevskaya photos. (I don’t know how often my recommendation has been taken up.)
I wonder if there’s some confusion about having your site be labeled “Creative Commons”–not that it should be confusing to a professional newspaper-person, but they might think it means you disclaim copyright or something.
Anyway: Thank you again for the photos. And, yes, boo to the Herald.
Keith
Twitter: davidshankbone
says:
Thanks for the note Keith. I believe the only license that doesn’t require attribution is Public Domain. Otherwise, if you look at the different tiers of Creative Commons licenses, the minimum requirement for them all is attribution. I actually allow the widest amount of uses for my work, including commercial and the photos may be altered.
Last week I was contacted by a German television game show where they told me they’d like to use a photo, but couldn’t realistically attribute me on-screen and I was perfectly fine with that. Ultimately, the satisfaction I derive from the three years of work I put into collecting them all is that they are used, and the only realistic way to see that is with attribution. But it’s of minor import. Once I know someone is using it, then I get the satisfaction and I don’t need to see my name if asked.
But if the New York Times can credit my Jim Carroll photo, the Miami Herald has no excuse; however, if the Herald had asked, I would have been happy to allow them to use it without credit and even advertised the story on my blog.
Thanks for recommending the Petrushevskaya images – she deserves more publicity.
I don’t think ‘public shaming’ is enough because there’s no way to know if anyone even saw this piece. I think you owe it to yourself to contact them.