Stock Photography and Design Thieves
In an article this month on CNET Stephen Shankland reports that Icelandic photographer, Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir, has found her photos published on Flickr put up for sale on iStockphoto a second time. That in itself makes us worry about the culture of pilfering that seems to have become entrenched within the social media culture of sharing. To some people sharing and stealing are a shade of grey they’re all too willing to exploit.
Over the last two or three years I’ve noticed a further trend - as happened to this photographer - that people are stealing designs and photography and putting them into their own portfolios. Or placing them for sale. Recently Elliot Jay Stocks found his web design assets in someone else’s professional design portfolio. What’s very concerning is that this has somehow become a semi-acceptable norm. To me its theft and fraud. To another its a ticket into a job or a sale.
Which leads me to my question for the day. How many photographers don’t find their pilfered work on iStockphoto and other sites? How much stock photography is out there being used without the real owner’s permission and, for that matter, where does our client stand if they’ve purchased stock photos for their website only to discover in two years time that the real owner has not given permission. In fact the owner may seek recompense - at least on moral grounds - from the client’s business regardless of some pithy license issued by a site like iStockphoto.
And following that line of thought it identifies one of the dangers of user generated content. Who validates the authenticity of information or goods? One could use several other stolen images on iStockphoto simply to authenticate to them they are really a photographer and to set up an account. Beyond that the world would be their sales oyster. And as the temptation grows then more people seem to be inclined to use technology to exploit these vulnerabilities.
So to get to a bit of a point I think what I’m asking is whether people will eventually make purchasing stock photography too dangerous or ethically grey to consider for commercial designs. Maybe not this year but sooner rather than later. How do we know we’re not buying Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir’s original photography from an illegal source? And why is it becoming more common that these thieves are putting their own name on the work?
One major question that needs to be addressed is the fact there isn’t really a down side to the theft. Do they go to gaol? No. A bit of online humiliation is about all you can conceivably put across the web. Yes one shouldn’t put things on the web they don’t want to lose - that’s a given. But our designs? Photographs? Are we being told to only submit text now? This aspect of the social sharing culture craps me off.
And we thought Web 2.0 wouldn’t have a price?
