The Wall Street Journal lifted my image!
I'm a little annoyed right now. I just found that the Wall Street Journal took an image from this site (LeggNet.com) for use on their own "Deal Journal" blog. What's the problem? Well, it states on the bottom of every page here:
Reproduction or redistribution in any form without prior written permission is strictly prohibited.
They never contacted me for permission. Had they done so, they would have been directed to purchase the image on iStockphoto.com. I see this behavior from small blogs from time to time, but the Wall Street Journal? C'mon already!
I have sent them an email. Let's see how (or if) they respond.
UPDATE: I have been contacted by the author of the blog post on WSJ.com. She has taken down the image and apologized for its unauthorized use. We had a pleasant email exchange and I am confident that she won't make this mistake (using copyrighted photos on Flickr) again.
16 Comments:
Have you contacted iStock to see if they licensed the image? I see that you have 58 sales on image. It's possible that they purchased it through iStock and simply haven't referenced iStock in the photo credit.
Thanks Dan. That was my first impression, until I noticed that the image they used still has the GLOCK logo on it. The iStock version has the logo removed.
Ah-gotcha. Good catch.
Rich, out of curiosity, how did you discover its use?
That really sucks. I hope they do the right thing and pay you for it.
I would be interested to know how you found out about it.
Also, I think it is great that they took it down, but they are getting off pretty easy. They used your image and aren't square until they pay for it.
I found it through Technorati's 'Authority' feature, which shows blogs that link to your site. I also have Google alerts set up which I'm sure would also have caught it.
@leggnet Heidi Moore *directly linked* to the image???!?!? stealing your bandwidth as well? What the.....
Sounds like someone needs to go back and learn about some basics of copyright law and ethics.
This is starting to become a much too frequent event.
@BWJones No, they didn't hotlink directly to the image. Else it would have been too tempting to switch out the shot.
It was probably some marketing/web jockey who needed a photo. I can't imagine the WSJ condoning such behavior. But then again...
Man, if it was hotlinked, I would have swapped the image for sure. That would have been so much fun.
BTW, got here via PhotographyVoter. Nice site. :)
Got here via PhotographyVoter as well.
One of my pictures was once used my an online paper but they had the decency to ask first. You'd think big leaguers like WSJ would know better.
At least they responded and were civil about it.
Hi Rich,
It's nice that they removed the picture, and that you had a good email exchange.
It's kinda of a tricky situation. on one hand - no harm no foul. on the other, this is sadly becoming something more and more frequent.
Please keep updating if you decide to take more action.
- udi
You should have charged for the usage. It would have sent a message on behalf of all imagemakers.
The use and take it down if you are caught (innocently or not) doesn't help.
Funny... notice the WJS.com and Wall Street Journal google ad at the top.
Nice! Let's hit it.. and make some money for Rich :-)
That's unbelievable, coming from the Wall Street Journal! I hope you get them to pay you for it and a good apology! Cindy
Post a Comment
<< Home