Posted on 02/14/2011 3:29:33 PM PST by Brown Deer
TUCSON -- A photo of the youngest victim in the January 8th shooting is at the center of an ever-growing controversy. For many of you, the picture of Christina-Taylor Green, sparked heartfelt emotion of this horrible tragedy.
The photo given to News 4 the night of the shooting by Christina's parents was originally taken by Tucson Photographer Jon Wolf. He is now threatening to sue KVOA News 4 and other members of the media saying the use of the photo violates his copyright.
(Excerpt) Read more at kvoa.com ...
I actually wasn’t talking about this case specifically, but in general. I think the concept is the same. News media, whether print or television, must sell itself. It has to distinguish itself in the eyes of consumers, to differentiate, and they do that by being as sensational as they can. This in particular is not a sensational image (again I was speaking generally) but it is true that the more spectacular the image, the more it sells that media.
And, I do apologize...the way I wrote it originally was unclear.
I had the same experience. It’s crazy.
Well said. I am an amateur at it but pretty good nonetheless. My nephew is a professional and has written books. My cousin in France also is professional level but has no studio yet due to 4 children the youngest 2. Her work is fabulous. She has seen her work lifted and has been able to prove it. She has to protect her work, you yours and me mine. You feel comfortable giving advance permission to use your work by those who have used your service. I was more than annoyed when someone asked for some photos I took of their establishment, asked if they could use them and I said yes..but what they did was show them to someone else who shot the same scenes in nearly the same way..I had to check to make sure someone was not getting credit for my work in a publication.
It is a funny thing how people make light of photo theft.
The balance of this photographer’s “payment” for snapping this poor girl’s picture should be a good swift kick in the ASS!
This photographer is being a jerk. He took the picture as a nice little work-for-hire portrait to go in a wallet. It wasn't like he took a photo of the exploding Hindenburg.
What he should have done is donate (relinquish?) the copyright and ask....nicely...if he they could simply name him as the photographer.
This is BAD publicity and he'll be lucky to keep his business.
I did a Google search and found the photographer's blog. He has written an apology:
Regarding Christina Green's portrait...For those who have been following the coverage of the story of Christina Green's portrait, the following was released to media outlets today.
My actions regarding this matter have been misunderstood and sadly mischaracterized. My intent from the beginning always has been to use the proceeds from my creative work to make a charitable donation in Christina Green’s memory. I sought and received the Green family’s approval to do so. At no time did I intend to profit personally from this tragedy.
As a result of the mischaracterizations in the news coverage and the resulting community outcry, and in the hope of saving the Green family from further association with this matter, I have chosen to halt filing legal action in the hopes of reaching negotiated settlements with those that have used this image. I will turn the proceeds collected to date over to a charity in Christina’s honor. I truly and deeply regret the additional distress this matter has placed on the Green family, and I apologize for that. - Jon Wolf
The photographer is being a jerk, though.
There are times when money isn't worth it. I happened to take a photo of a baseball coach one time. It ended up being his last game, as he died of a heart attack that summer. The school put up a plaque at the ball park and had an engraving of the photo done as part of it. Recently, a friend of mine passed away from a brain tumor. His family had used my services several times before. A few weeks before he passed away, his wife called and asked me to take photos of him with his family and grandchildren, a last photo that he wanted in his casket with him. I just can't imagine charging someone for doing that.
I may end up passing on some money, but people who use me generally won't use another photographer. I don't have customers. I have friends I do business with.
be careful, you might get sued for copying his blog. ;-)
© Jon Wolf, M.Photog.,Cr.
“.....Did the Greens pay him to take the photo?
Doesn’t that make it theirs to do with as they please?.....”
No. I’m a part time photographer. I retain ownership of every image I shoot. If I sell you prints you own the prints, but not the right to reproduce them. This is common practice.
However, this guy is a jerk!! Talk about petty, mean, nasty, greedy, guile, he has it all.
Let’s see:
An individual who attempts to protect his copyright in a product he created is a “jerk”, but the media corporations which appropriated his property, slapped THEIR copyrights on his work, and broadcast it around the world in the course of operating their franchises are “just doing business” and can safely brush off his claims when he seeks compensation from them?
Fine. You deserve to be ripped off in the same manner, whenever these entities “just do business” at your expense. For example, when the “Too Big To Fail” banksters vandalize the land records system in the name of “efficiency” in processing mortgages, and the title to your home becomes clouded as a result: suck it up, buddy. Don’t be a jerk and complain about it. Just roll with the flow, grin and bear it.
Under the circumstances, yes. I can agree with going after the media, but the family? You support that? Not me, I have more class, thanks.
It would depend on the contract, of course.
As for this photographer, unless he wins a huge award he should probably start looking for a new day job. The negative publicity will keep customers away for quite a while.
In my opinion, you should have copyright for all works where you have controlled either through ownership, public rights, or contract of services all subjects of the photo. In other words you have paid the subjects to be in the photo.
When I, as a private individual come in to your store and pay you for the photo, I have reimbursed you for the wear, tear and rent of the equipment you used and for your artistry. The photo should be mine.
If you don't agree, then you can leave your SLR where the sun don't shine. And by that of course, I mean your dark room ;-)
couples never read the fine print of wedding photographers.
They own the commercial exploitation of the couples pictures.
Ask him. What I might feel is right for my efforts and time etc may not be what he might charge or feel is right.
I agree. And an earlier post reflects that view. I also said I think it is rather a sad thing this in the public arena and causing this family such distress.
My other issue, quite apart from how we all feel for the family, is the notion that photos and work done in professional studios are somehow not as important for copyright needs as say are books, movies etc...Photographers have every right to copyright their work and to require permission prior to copying and distribution.
The family released the picture of their child to be shown in TV and it was picked up by print media. The photographer did not grant permission for the redistribution of his work. It would have been the kinder thing on his part, under these circumstances, to do as you suggested and simply ask that when the photo is printed in the papers or magazine that he be give credit for the photo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.