Posted by James Doyle on January 7, 2014 at 7:01 PM
Hi Guys and Gals,
I have a topic I would like to throw out there and see what everyone feels about this practice.
Ok so I visited someone’s website and was looking at their images on the website. Many were very good but I know that the person that owns the website didn’t take most of the images e.g. they are not his/her photos. There is no reference to who the copyright owner is or no reference who was the photographer anywhere on the website.
Now, I understand that there might be some arrangement with the owner of the images to allow the use of the images but shouldn’t the website owner point that out in their copy.
Personally, I think this is deception by omission given that the website is about the photographer and his/her body of work. Having other people’s images on their website without a clear distinction that many of the photos weren’t taken by the photographer showing the work seems to be rather deceptive.
What is your take on this?
Posted by Brian Gatlin on January 7, 2014 at 7:04 PM
Very deceptive, and lacking the permission of the actual photographer, illegal too.
Posted by Keith Bauer on January 7, 2014 at 10:42 PM
Without knowing more details about what is represented it is a bit hard to say. If in fact there is some perception left to the viewer that the images belong to the owner of the website without explicit acknowledgment that they don't, then I agree it is deceptive at a minimum if not theft and/or copyright infringement.
Karma usually has a way of catching up with such folks.
Posted by James Doyle on January 8, 2014 at 3:26 AM
Thanks for the replies and thoughts.
Just to be clear I am sure the website owner has permission to use the images but given that they are a nature photography business and have their own images combined with other peoples images with no copyright watermarks or captions to say which is theirs and which ones belong to someone else I think most visitors to the website might assume they were all the website owners images.
Posted by Brian Gatlin on January 8, 2014 at 8:09 AM
if for example, they are advertising photography workshops, then I think it would be reasonable to have photos from not just the workshop leader but from past participants (assuming permission was granted by the other photographers). on the other hand if the website is intended to specifically present/promote one person's photography, then it would certainly be deceptive.
It's a bit hard to say without all of the relevant information, but based on what you've said I don't see a problem with it. If this is a business that is primarily devoted to licensing images for commercial use, etc., then I don't believe it is necessary to identify who took the photos.
I would assume, in fact, that the contract between the website owner and the photographers specifically allows the marketing of photos without attribution, and that some of the photographers may actually prefer it that way. I recall hearing a story a couple years ago about a photographer who lost a major contract for exclusive licensing rights because the prospective buyer found a similar image by the same photographer on a stock website. Certainly, it's harder to compete against yourself if your "lesser" images are marketed on a stock website without attribution.
Discussion
6 repliesI have a topic I would like to throw out there and see what everyone feels about this practice.
Ok so I visited someone’s website and was looking at their images on the website. Many were very good but I know that the person that owns the website didn’t take most of the images e.g. they are not his/her photos. There is no reference to who the copyright owner is or no reference who was the photographer anywhere on the website.
Now, I understand that there might be some arrangement with the owner of the images to allow the use of the images but shouldn’t the website owner point that out in their copy.
Personally, I think this is deception by omission given that the website is about the photographer and his/her body of work. Having other people’s images on their website without a clear distinction that many of the photos weren’t taken by the photographer showing the work seems to be rather deceptive.
What is your take on this?
Just to be clear I am sure the website owner has permission to use the images but given that they are a nature photography business and have their own images combined with other peoples images with no copyright watermarks or captions to say which is theirs and which ones belong to someone else I think most visitors to the website might assume they were all the website owners images.
I would assume, in fact, that the contract between the website owner and the photographers specifically allows the marketing of photos without attribution, and that some of the photographers may actually prefer it that way. I recall hearing a story a couple years ago about a photographer who lost a major contract for exclusive licensing rights because the prospective buyer found a similar image by the same photographer on a stock website. Certainly, it's harder to compete against yourself if your "lesser" images are marketed on a stock website without attribution.