LOL!! Dude. That fish wrap stole your Rubber Ducky pic? I have no idea why, but that’s just funny. Not funny enough to not drop a hot suit on them unless a big check wasn’t in the mail, but funny.

I appreciate that the community helps to track down license violations! It is very sad that a newspaper is as shabby like that and not ask if they could use your picture. I’m quite sure you would have given them permission to use it if they had asked… not for free perhaps

I assume you saw the SMH story last week featuring dozens of example of stolen photographs… Story here Hypocrites!

I really hope they are going to be making a massive apology and paying you for using it.

Sad,don’t they have good enough photographers working for them that they have to steal. Great shot,love the mums action,the child does not look that fuss about it.

The crux of the issue is
a. The people in their organisation who find these images and do not do the due diligence of securing the appropriate license;
b. Their managers who do not do the due diligence to ensure that the appropriate licenses and/or consents have been secured;
c. The editors who have overlooked the entire process.

This isn’t to suggest that this is excusable – far from it. I wonder where the buck is going to stop on this one when the editor comes under fire. Someone is going to get a slap on the wrist tomorrow morning in the office (if the phone hasn’t stopped ringing already).

Paying for it is only half of the issue. The SMH needs to realize what they did was wrong and issue some sort of major apology + do some serious internal staff educating.

My guess would be that your photo possibly inspired the whole article Trey. That’s one of the things that sets your photos apart from so many others – there’s always a special story in what you capture.

two words,- “sue them”

Well that sucks! go get-em Trey!

They should know better!

I posted a topic to the SIC forums back on Wed Sep 26, 2012 titled “Creative Commons, copyright and tracking your photos” and got no response. None! Nadda! I’ve recently re-posted it to the new SIC community on Google+ since I think I may get a response this time given the current outrage over the issue.

You know what…I think I’ll paste the original post here also.

——

Sorry if all this has been addressed before but I did do a search and could find nothing to address my questions which are;

1. When does Trey “tag” or copyright his pictures with his identifying information before he uploads them?

I
have watched a number of his “workflow” videos and I never see this
procedure actually addressed. I’ve heard him talk about it but…
2. How does one, or you Trey, track your photos once they are in the wild?

Assuming
Trey’s stuff is “tagged”, I’ve downloaded a number of Trey’s shots from
Facebook, Smugmug, and here and I can’t find any metadata or creative
commons or copyright information identifying anyone or organization in
the photos.
3. Given my reason for question number two, how does one check for owner information in photos taken from the net?

4. I’m aware of a couple of methods to track work on the web but how do Trey and Stuck in Customs do it?

5.
While I’m not a prolific photographer I would like to make sure I’m
recognized if one of my works happens to get noticed. Is there a
documented step by step method espoused by Trey to address this main
issue?

I view myself as somewhat of a Trey Ratcliff
devotee and would like to get these answers from a source I view as
knowledgeable and that I respect.

Thanks,

Tony

——

Tony,

I responded to your Google+ post. I had sent you an email earlier, but I suppose it didn’t make it – sorry about that!

The newspapers and such don’t want to pay for photos anymore. I have had 2 different local papers contact me about using my photos and when I mention that I want to be compensated, they say no thanks. They rather prowl the internet and find something that they can use for free.
I hope you nail these guys……

@lukesic:disqus make sure you invite Tony to the new community on G+ !

Yes, we will see… I’ve yet to hear anything yet.

I doubt it, since all the other photos in the article are properly credited, probably via an online form. My photo is questioningly bereft of data.

Perhaps a reader of the newspaper didn’t download your image and uploaded it to them?

These guys did exactly this to me via a twitter account that I run for a NSW RFS brigade, due to the context of it I’m not really that fussed however it shows there is either a lack of knowledge or blatant disregard for copyright on behalf of the paper. This is the article: http://m.smh.com.au/environment/weather/homes-under-threat-near-bungendore-jugiong-20130108-2cecs.html and the original tweet: https://twitter.com/BungendoreRFS/status/288452688188940288. You can see they used the photo and the tweet essentially as a caption and wrote source: Bungendore RFS – would have been nice to have known they’d taken it!

Trey come back to Austin!

I am outraged at the injustice of this on behalf of all artists, struggling or successful. I think though, they picked the wrong artist to steal from. Trey, you have immense social media clout and I hope the backlash from this teaches them a thing or two. I’ll be following this story and hope to see an apology from them in the end.

I wrote a letter to the editor regarding the herald’s “we’re being screwed” article and the fact they used one of my pics-uncredited, in the same issue as the article. It didn’t get published.

Update: Another article ran just a few mins ago:

“Perhaps they have placed a handwritten apology in the pouch of a kangaroo and it jumped in the wrong direction, for I have yet to receive it (or any digital facsimile thereof),” said Ratcliff.
http://mumbrella.com.au/smh-accused-of-breaching-photographers-copyright-135644

So true,the least they could of done is approach you and not pinch off you.

shame shame..kick his a** seabass!

This is the kind of BS that political types use to justify SOPA laws. Similar to school shootings and gun laws, it’s so blatant, it leaves you scratching your head.

I meant to add that following Morel’s trumping of Getty Images and several newspapers last week, I would have thought the Herald would be more sensitive to such usage – http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2013/01/getty-images-loses-major-case-brought-by-photographer-daniel-morel/

Fair enough. That’s not apparent in the photo of the paper.

Harlan Ellison – way to go!!!

You don’t need a model release if the subjects aren’t clearly recognizable. Pretty sure the backs of their heads don’t do enough to prove who they are.
While I have no idea what the rules are about photos at Darling Harbour, it appears to be public land and I doubt the legality of such a restriction. Not to mention, I’d have a hard time arguing that Trey was “shooting commercially” in this case.

As a photographer, you should be smart enough not to take this as an appropriate behavior by the SMH.

MattyB,

The image is used here and sold as a print with the artist’s permission. I won’t address the implications around your comments about Trey’s photographic skills and the merits of such, but copyright law and Creative Commons concessions are very specific and clear about these issues.

That’s correct on the model releases. The person(s) in the photo must be clearly recognizable and a focal point of the image.

Also correct on the public space comment. Lots of “managing authorities” of spaces like this, particularly in urban areas, try to take advantage of their right to ban tripods (for example) to bar commercial shooting. Of course, there’s a difference in this case between private and/or municipal regulation and legality.

While there can be a grey area concerning editorial use, in this day and age the practical application (and it can be argued the original intent of the distinction) has more to do with removing barriers to the paper publishing pictures they obtain through contracted freelancers or employed photographers – not just grabbing any image anywhere and placing it in a paper. I’m not personally familiar enough with international law to know if the freedom of the press (often invoked in editorial use) provided via the Constitution has a counterpart in Australia.

Again, not anything you weren’t speaking to in your comment – just adding some detail.