Jimmy Leach & Plagiarism at the Independent
Here’s an interesting tale (via Bob Beschizza) about the Independent in the UK blatantly stealing a photograph from Peter Zabulis.
The story goes that the UK publication Independent wanted some fast and dirty (but quality) photographs of the cold snap happening in their part of the world. In-house photographers are snuggled under bunny rugs with cups of steaming cocoa and the Associated Press resources are all snowed in. Jimmy Leach the Editorial Director for Digital at The Independent probably realised at that point the public most likely had some better shots on Flickr anyway… so that was the first bad idea.
The second bad idea was that he did a search of Flickr chose to incorporate an API output of quality photographs from the Flickr stream without discrimination between creative commons and restricted licenses – in Jimmy’s professional bobbin he asserts that anything on Flickr is available to grab, for free, with no moral rights or copyright. In other words, once Peter Zabulis confronted the Independent about illegally grabbing his photograph and failing to attribute or recompense – the paper told him to sod off.
OK now tell me this – how do you become the Editorial Director for Digital without understanding basic copyright distinction ideas about fair use and the legality of accepting terms of service when using a third party API to source content? If I were running that paper he’d have his desk packed up in a little box today. Know your trade Jimmy or fuck off and draw comics.
I know that sounds harsh and overly judgemental but this is becoming a growing problem with the web industries. In the race to the bottom its become easier to go to Flickr or Google Images for that easy free grab of a picture – when the Independent should always be paying photo-journalists to perform the job. In my own experience as a web designer I’ve had growing pressure on low budget work to plunder Flickr for free images, often justified because stock photos cost a few bucks and free is cheaper than paying what something is worth… but here’s the rub with creative commons images off Flickr…
Do you really know it’s their image to give you the right to use? Are you sure? Where do you stand if you get permission from somebody to use a photograph but its not their picture in the first place?
And even if someone has creative commons rights attached to Flickr photos that doesn’t mean they give unbounded rights to anyone to use that image for anything they please claiming it to be their own. For that matter, have a run through a bunch of Flickr creative commons images and tell me those people really thought using the photo of their 3 year old was open slather. No, reasonably speaking we all know the difference between what’s ours and somebody else’s.
In the case of Peter Zabulis versus Jimmy Leach of the Independent… all rights to the picture were reserved so there wasn’t even a creative commons excuse. It was just theft and with a sod off thrown in to add to the humiliation. If you’re an artist you probably equate that to being raped… somehow… some way… somewhere. So its legally and ethically repugnant that a media professional would have that attitude in 2010.
The cheap Flickr image may well cost you an arm and a leg when you get sued for breach of copyright. In the Independent’s case, if this is an ongoing digital policy to use Flickr photography then they may well face a class action at a later date. Has anyone scoured their website for the real owners of the photography they’re putting into articles?
To the Independent: Pay the guy for the picture. Thieving exploitative cheap assholes (of course that’s just my opinion).
Update: 19 January, 2009
This issue has been resolved and the Independent is now paying Peter Zabulis for the use of that photograph. However, my commentary and opinion still stands.
January 18th, 2010 at 9:11 am
It was in a widget -they were running a gallery of AP and Reuters snow images at the same time, so it wasn’t being cheap, more a misguided attempt to incorporate user pictures in some way. Shoddy lack of research there, Steve.
January 18th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Well anonymous… what can I say? If they grabbed pictures off Flickr then they actually were being cheap – Flickr isn’t their user pictures. Irrelevant of whether the widget was also running Routers and AP photographs at the same time… they still grabbed a free photo or so from Flickr… then told this guy to hook it when he asked for attribution and money.
So I’d have to disagree. Think what you may about my research… it was my writing you really took issue with (clearly stated as opinion). However, I would question your identity (anonymous could be any trot from the Independent, for example)…
Are you saying oops! we don’t have to pay Mr Zabulis cos it was an accident? That someone mistook Flickr for the Independent’s users? That rights reserved equals creative commons equals relinquishing all rights?
Seriously… you missed the point of this article.
But have a nice day Jimmy. Sorry, anonymous. While reading this article did you not follow the link to Peter’s page about this on Flickr? I kind of assumed (dumb me) that people might glean it was an API issue. Also, many people who read this site are web developers – we pretty much understand how an API works.
January 18th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Or the short answer…
Flickr isn’t the Independent’s user photography store.
Do your research, back at ya.
BTW the buck stops at Jimmy Leach… not the widget. And you did get the tongue-in-cheek sarcasm of the bunny rug paragraph?
January 18th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Or are you saying that the tool searching for Flickr photography didn’t differentiate between creative commons and restricted licensing… so Jimmy Leach is absolved of sin and need not attribute or recompense the hapless Flickr photographer? I’d be surprised if the Independent didn’t know their widget was pulling Flickr images into their page. After all, they’re professionals right?
Mmm if your car runs over a baby do you think you’re responsible? Or is it the tool’s fault?
Seriously, come back anonymous… this is an interesting conversation to get into. Credit, this is a blog with my opinions rather than a researched newspaper… but tell us what fundamental errors exist in the logic of the article… I’m very curious to hear why organisations grab free online images because I’ve been under similar pressure on web related contracts in the past.
If we grab AP photos our arse is grass, as they say.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:23 am
Hellooooo… user pictures from the Independent = Flickr API output?
I’m still not buying it. Tell me what dip-shit thinks those two equate to the same thing?
I reassert my claim – a newspaper using Flickr photography is cheap. Paying a photographer to go take the photo is not cheap. Paying some photographers and grabbing free Flickr images as well is still bloody cheap.
Pls explain my lack of research… because I did know it was an API issue, having actually read Peter’s page on Flickr linked to in my article.
“Canberra… Canberra… come in Canberra…”
January 18th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Mmm… let me ask this question.
Was there a quality control in place on these pictures from Flickr displayed on the Independent’s website? I mean, did they make sure these were the quality photos or did any picture with a tag for winter or snow get into the frame?
Something in me says that the answer there is that a human quality control mechanism was involved in that API (widget) solution.
Sorry Anonymous, not buying your comment the longer I think about it. I’ll stop commenting to myself now. Enjoy your day
January 18th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Here’s an idea… if the Independent ever wants a pool of actual user photographs they simply need to set up a place for real live users of their actual newspaper to submit them. Then use those friggen photographs. That’s user photographs… just like those wonderful homely pictures on the weather broadcast every day.
Flickr is NOT the Independent’s user photographs in any way shape or form!
January 19th, 2010 at 9:03 am
[...] « Jimmy Leach & Plagiarism at the Independent [...]