Author Topic: Huffpost -- does google now sell stockphotos? (Read 14856 times)

stockastic · « **Reply #50 on:** August 06, 2013, 12:31 »

I guess the guy annoyed me with the "boys and girls" and "Professor" thing. He can have his opinion, of course, and I'm not an expert either.

But there's another poster in that thread who collected money from HP for an unattributed use.

Ron · « **Reply #51 on:** August 06, 2013, 12:37 »

Wim is a good guy, he one of the few normal and respectful posters. He is Dutch by the way, not that it matters. But he normally posts comments with sense and truth.

ShadySue · « **Reply #52 on:** August 06, 2013, 12:51 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 06, 2013, 12:31

But there's another poster in that thread who collected money from HP for an unattributed use.

Note that she got the payment from HuffPost Canada, but that her US attorney advised there it wasn't worth posting there, partly because it was editorial, and partly because she hadn't registered her images with the USCO (which, IMO, is a rip-off - why should you have to register images? Be like the UK - your copyright is your copyright, which I guess is the case in Canada too [?]).

marthamarks · « **Reply #53 on:** August 06, 2013, 14:15 »

I read through the Alamy thread and followed a link to this Clckr.com page:

http://www.clker.com/clipart-chocolate-cake-slice.html

Note that here this image is credited to "Sarita" not to the actual copyright-owning photographer (a man, I can't remember his name).

Do people like "Sarita" think they can just post anything they get their hands on and claim it as their own?

jamiehooper · « **Reply #54 on:** August 06, 2013, 14:19 »

I see photos with "Shutterstock" at the bottom of the image all the time on HP. I've always just assumed they had a deal with SS to promote their site by including it as part of the image. (There is no SS watermark on them). But Google is another thing. Here is what I just wrote the HP Legal team. If they answer back, I'll post it here.
-
As a professional photographer, I am disturbed to find so many of your photos credited to "Google". As you know (or should know) Google is merely a search engine. It does not create content, only tells you where to find it. Asking Google to find a photo of something brings up images FOR SALE on sites like Shutterstock and Getty Images. That does not give you the right to steal them. It's illegal, and robs me and thousands others of our livelihood. Its how I support myself and stay off of welfare. Huffpost is my homepage, so I view articles every day; and every time I see an image credited to Google (or Shutterstock, or Getty), its a slap in the face.
Now, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you do pay for them through subscription of one of the stock agencies. If so, then the credit should be listed as either the photographer (best) or agency.
If I am mistaken about the facts of this, I hope someone from the legal department will write back and correct me.

marthamarks · « **Reply #55 on:** August 06, 2013, 14:43 »

Good letter, Jamie. Please let us know if you get a response back from HP.

So far, I've had no reply to my "bad cop" letter over the weekend. But, reply or not, it's worth writing. A lot of us need to weigh in on this.

marthamarks · « **Reply #56 on:** August 07, 2013, 12:20 »

I just got the following email from the HuffPost legal team:

The Huffington Post has received a number of complaints regarding the use of Google-credited photos on this post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-dennett/cute-funny-sexy-cognitive-science_b_3692072.html

The Huffington Post appreciates your concern, and your emails calling this situation to our attention. The Huffington Post respects the intellectual property rights of others, and acts expeditiously in response to complaints of the unauthorized use of content. In this case, our research showed that the article in question was created by a third party making use of our blogging platform. As soon as we were made aware of the use of photos credited to “Google” in the article, we contacted the third party to let them know, and have taken the photos down and replaced them with photos from one of our licensed providers.

Please be assured that The Huffington Post takes intellectual property rights very seriously, and we sincerely appreciate having your additional eyes on our pages to help spot the occasional inadvertent error.

Please let us know if you have any additional questions regarding this matter, and we will respond as soon as we can.

Regards,

The Huffington Post Copyright Team

Ron · « **Reply #57 on:** August 07, 2013, 12:28 »

Well, that basically comes down to my intern explanations which were considered to be wrong and voted down several times. There are always two sides to a story.

stockastic · « **Reply #58 on:** August 07, 2013, 12:51 »

Looks like TED (or someone they hire) creates this blog. I'm pleased - actually a bit surprised - that HP took responsibility. It would have been easy to just blow us off and tell us to take it up with TED.

Xanox · « **Reply #59 on:** August 07, 2013, 14:26 »

so they claim to have a full blown Copyright Team ??

that's laughable, before the AOL sellout most of their cr-ap was made of stolen images, stolen videos, and lots of articles made up to 80% from "quotes" taken from NYT and other mainstream papers.

as for TED, AOL was very clear and even arrogant about their policy of not paying bloggers, so what do they expect if they don't pay a dime ?