Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
This question is out of my newness, but is of concern to me*.
If a news site such as CNN or ABC News publishes a picture to their web site, is it legally (or even ethically) OK to repost that same image on this site without at least crediting the source? In a recent posting, I delayed the posting of a couple of pictures until I had the permissions of the owners. Even then, I gave them the appropriate credit acknowledgement.
*The reason it is a concern for me is that last year, EWeek took a picture I had posted on Flickr and published it in their print magazine without permission or compensation. It left a very sore taste in my mouth.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (14)
- reply
ryanat 08:48 on September 21st, 2007
Great question. There is definitely some ambiguity on the matter...our policy is that a photo should never be used without credit. This is obviously very hard to enforce but we try our best. Our best practice is not to use a photo without the permission of the owner. Whenever we use a photo from flickr we always have written permission from the owner.
I hope that clarifies things a bit.
at 16:05 on June 17th, 2008
I have a question with regard to image crediting...
How do you put credits for images into your story, especially where you have several attached? Or can you somehow put credits for an image directly into some aspect of the image itself as it's stored in the system, without regard to whatever story it may or may not be attached to?
I wonder this 'cause I've used several images from Keck and NASA (which are allowed to be used for research or journalistic intent w/o royalties or specific permissions, so long as they're credited), and I'd prefer to use their preferred credit lines. But I don't know how/where to put them... I can't see an option for "image credits." Right now they're simply attached to my stories and say "by MGmirkin." They're not mine. They're Keck's / NASA's, and I'd prefer that it list credits below the images rather than my screen name, in case anyone should accuse me of stealing or not crediting the images (not my intent).
It seems like there should be some place for the uploading user to go to edit image details / credentials and do something like check/uncheck "mine" or "someone else's." If yours, give the option to release publicly, or specify usage terms. If someone else's, give various options for "obtained permission," "public domain," etc.
Thanks for any assistance in this matter,
~Michael
at 12:46 on September 26th, 2007
Sorry for a slight change of topic Ryan, but I have a question regarding the content of photos displayed on top in stories on NP.
A while back I attempted to post pictures of the birth defects caused in the children of Iraq by DU munition wastes. I was given a good talking to from an Editor about what was acceptable and NP not wanting to shock members and drive away viewers with such graphic photos. The pictures were subsequently removed by the Editorial Staff.
Though I may not have agreed in principle, since it was NP policy I complied.
A couple of weeks ago I posted a story titled "The Face of War", and editorial that contained a link to very graphic pictures of those killed and wounded by the Iraq War. Kaitlin acknowledged the story and thanked me for putting the photos on a link rather than top of story.
Yesterday for the whole day graphic pictures of two young Iranian gay men dead after being lynched were top of a story by gryphon and were there for all to see.
Why is it acceptable to show grissly photos of the depradations of the Iranians, and yet it is unnacceptable to show the depradations of USA'ns, Canadians, Brits and Israeli's?
Is this editorial inequity based on politics?
- reply
ryanat 12:56 on September 26th, 2007
Hi Moonwolf,
The matter is one which is obviously subjective in nature but by no means political.
Personally, I see a difference between the photograph of a deformed child and a photograph of a hanging but that is not the point. Rest assured that political context is an irrelevant factor in this regard.
at 13:46 on September 26th, 2007
That's good!
Subjective in nature how? With whom? What "subjective" criteria?
You may find one more offensive than another personally, but what about other members and viewers as so clearly described by Kaitlin?
If the intent of not publishing my graphic photos as stated by Kaitlin was to not shock and disgust people and drive them away, how were these photos any different? I showed them to a number of people who found themcompletely unnacceptable. If this is then a matter of "taste", I found those photos completely tasteless and abhorent as did many of my friends. Kaitlins point was well taken and I understand her point completely now, but what are the standards?
Strung up corpses are OK to support a story but genetic damage to innocent children isn't? How about war dead and injured then?
I have no problem with an editorial policy if there is one but I cannot find one. Is the process just governed by what individual editors might find offensive personally, on a given day? That being the case impartiality flies out the window and we end up with inequity based on personal feelings?
I am not asking these questions to be a pain. I am asking them as they are important for NP to grapple with, and without knowing them NP contributors could run into more trouble with the Editors.
- reply
ryanat 13:53 on September 26th, 2007
These are fair questions. I explained above how it worked in the past, this does not mean that cannot change and will not change as the editorial structure evolves.
In future please simply contact one of the Staffers if you notice offensive material and we will deal with it.
at 13:59 on September 26th, 2007
Done, and I know you are all dealing with a host of ethical questions and challenges as this growing process unfolds.
Thanks!
at 05:06 on September 27th, 2007
There does appear to be a contradiction at work in NP. Written reports appear to be treated differently to photojournalism. If you think about how photojournalism changed public attitudes towards the Vietnam war then it was because editors {i.e. Time Magazine?} understood that photographs work within their own construct separate from the written word. Shock is a tool of this newer construct. To editorially discriminate between these two forms of media is, in my opinion, a mistake and a step backwards. Your policy would have prevented such photographs from being published at NP - had it, and the internet, been around at the time. Pictures of naplam bombing children are not pleasant..... but it changed a war and journalists did that! Is NP up to the challenge?
at 05:59 on November 10th, 2007
This reply, with the photo, is right on topic!
That image might be famous, and well it should be. The photographer earned the Pulitzer Prize for it.
In this posting (and nothing personal intended, just a point of reference for the discussion)--where is the photograher's name? Where is the credit?
The photographer's name: Nick Ut. He was shooting for AP. Here's the story of that day in Vietnam, along with examples of how to properly credit photograhic work.
As the above war zone account shows, there is a place for proper attribution, and for the story, the context, of any photo. Ut saved that little girl's life--which is also a part of the story.
And here's an interview with Ut, and a photo with the AP logo attached to it.
Although the photo now is well-known, has AP released it into the public domain? I don't know---that's a question for the legal beagles at NP since it was used here.
And it's overall, a good question for any photo or story. Along with these questions: if this material a) has been released into public domain or b) the copyright is no longer enforced, then c) do we know that release for a fact and d) if so, are we still providing credit to the original creator (author, photographer) and the company for which he/she was working, if any?
A side note: unless Ut had a specifically-negotiated contract with AP, he didn't get rich off that photo. Standard AP/Reuters/UP contracts often do not provide residuals or payments from copyright usage to anyone except agency/company who purchased the work.
The AngleAmerican is right: pictures are important. So are the stories. They can work together as a very powerful team.
In these days of faked or digitally-altered photos, a photo especially needs attribution and context.
at 04:59 on October 3rd, 2007
I either use my photos or pictures from Flickr. In the latter case, I select only those pictures with a Creative Commons license allowing me to share them, and I fully credit the photographer (with links to the picture, the photographer's Flickr page and the license.) I add that the permission in no way implies that the photgrapher endorses me or the use of the work.
- reply
ryanat 12:54 on October 3rd, 2007
That's the way to do it! Your work is a tremendous example of both scholarship and originality.
at 18:16 on November 9th, 2007
Yeah, it can be tempting to use photos without permission when they'd really fit the story, but it sends a message of unprofessionalism to the reader and disrespect to the copyright holder. Not to mention damaging ones own credibility and reputation.
at 09:22 on November 29th, 2008
To find out what you can and cannot do go to
http://www.Plagiarism.com
at 22:10 on December 31st, 2008
No,
Just because one magazine prints a picture doesn't mean you can then print that picture in another magazine. Web publishing must still follow the same copyright laws. You must have permission to use a photo even if you give credit unless the photo has already been added to a global license that no longer requires you to obtain permissions for commercial use (this site makes money off the traffic the picture generates = commercial use).