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 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.
I know what you mean. We had a problem with our wedding photographer. We ended up paying him $600 for all of the negatives. I’ve never used a professional photographer since.
True, and people who want photographs taken have the right to protect their own image (and images of their families). The easiest way to handle this is to take your own pictures, and keep control of those images. They may not look as good, but it's easier to avoid uncomfortable situations.
Just as an aside to the original topic, I took a look at our local paper today with regard to photos. There were some with some stories that were taken by the local paper photographer. Then on the sports page there was an action picture along with the story and under the action picture it said Associated Press which means that not only the article was written by someone from the AP and the picture was taken by someone from the AP. There was another action photo on the sports page and the name of the photographer was beneath the photo in the article. So my hunch is that that the photo of the little girl might have said Associated Press beneath the photo and that is what has the dander of the actual photographer in arms..just a hunch and without going back to look at articles I can’t say that with certainty only suggest that as a cause for this uproar.
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.