This story on Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-dennett/cute-funny-sexy-cognitive-science_b_3692072.html

Uses this picture for sale on Featurepics (and perhaps elsewhere):

http://www.featurepics.com/online/Chocolate-Cake-Picture-243227.aspx

Huffpost credits "Google."

Does google now sell microstock?

fred

and this is the NORM for Huff Post and friends .. i'm seeing this sh-i-t since many years over there and in other AOL sites.

no one cares, and if you point it out in the comments people will even tell you that google images is fully legal and it's fair use and bla bla bla.

in the best scenario if you write to their editors they dont even reply and the image suddenly disappears or is replaced with some public domain cr-ap from wikipedia.

so these guys don't pay bloggers for the articles and dont pay photographers for images.
who exactly is getting paid at the Huff Post apart their execs and their sycophants ?

if billionaire corporations like AOL dont pay authors, who will ??

Year ago I saw interesting discussion on Facebook. Sixteen years blonde was accused by local cooking website. She stoled their images and used them in her blog. Her tragicomical defence was like: "You idiots I haven't stolen anything. Have you ever heard of site called google.com? It's full of images and they are all free."

How does crediting Google make any sense in anybody's mind? That's like quoting Facebook for things individuals say on Facebook.

Somebody needs to inform HuffPost that it is NOT OKAY!!! to steal images from anywhere. And that crediting Google doesn't cut it.

If I were that photog, I'd be consulting an intellectual property rights attorney about now.

I thought they bought most of their images from Alamy - and usually for a descent price of $29

I thought they bought most of their images from Alamy - and usually for a descent price of $29

I noticed that a few people (a couple at least) noted no HP sales last month.
So it's pointing to a deliberate more, not just carelessness.

Ron I get your point but...
If they credit google they get the images from google, is beyond of me understand, if they bought the files  from another site because they don't credit it. The worst thing is that now the meta-data are stripped and in example in UK these are orphan images. So in the worst case, before they don't pay to publish the images, and then with the meta-data stripped gift them to the world.

Ron I get your point but...
If they credit google they get the images from google, is beyond of me understand, if they bought the files  from another site because they don't credit it. The worst thing is that now the meta-data are stripped and in example in UK these are orphan images. So in the worst case, before they don't pay to publish the images, and then with the meta-data stripped gift them to the world.

I believe that several agencies strip metadata or replace ours with theirs, but I can't remember if there was a list anywhere.

How do you all know its a stolen image? Maybe its just a miscredit from the new intern? Why not ask questions first and then decide if it was stolen and accuse them?

Not saying they didnt steal it, nor saying they did either. I just think some here are jumping to conclusions.

Mistake from the new intern is possible, but you'd expect their work to be supervised. Of course, Yu-know who doesn't know what his staff has or hasn't done, so maybe that's endemic in business nowadays.

The intern may have sourced the image on Google then gone and bought it from a legitimate source, but then credited Getty? That seems almost but not-quite-as impossible as iStock's claim that the new exclusive rate cut was just a cut and paste error.
Anyway, if the intern sourced the image via a Getty search and bought the photo from DT, s/he should have read the Credit Line Requirements
"All images used within editorial context or related must be accompanied by a visible credit line. You are required to include a copyright notice and author/agency credit next to each image used within editorial purposes. The credit line format is specified on the Download page."
Though as I have often said, that's a rule which is seldom read or followed.

The best thing to do (IMO) would be to take it up with the photographer, who is in the best postion to judge if it is likely that the file was bought legitimately, just wrongly credited. He knows if the file is available elsewhere (I didn't check to see if it was DT exclusive, which I think is still possible (?)) and whether it has sold over the last wee while.
In any case, HuffPost don't need to reply to anyone other than the tog or DT, or their legal representatives. Also, if it happened to be legitimately bought, the agency won't be pleased if people go round hassling bona fide buyers.

I checked out HuffPost UK, and almost all their front page images are credited Getty, AP, PA and a few others.
Of course, we don't know (and I'm NOT speculating) whether they actually bought the pics there. As I've said many times, whenever I sell pics to a particular UK newspaper via Alamy, it appears in other sides around the world, often with my name and Alamy on it as shown in the newspaper which does credit properly. They are definitely not purchased from Alamy.
So a credit on its own means nothing.

I'm not worried. If it turns out to have been a "glitch" or some untested intern, then let HuffPost answer and say that. No harm done. (I haven't gone on Twitter or FB to holler about it, just quietly to HP.)

But if perhaps, as it appears, the image wasn't actually purchased from (at least indirectly) and credited to the copyright holder, then some sort of blow-back is in order.

I'll be glad to apologize to HP if it turns out they didn't steal the shot.