Unauthorized use of Laurence Young photo, part 2
Just because something is on the internet does not necessarily mean it is free for the taking.
NYC Medtech, the NYC Medical Technology Forum, lifted a photo of backup payload specialist Laurence Young and used it in the advertising of their Dec. 3, 2013, seen here. They did so without notifying me they were going to use my photo - as others have done in the past.
I sent them a letter for compensation and I also send their website host a copyright infringement letter.
One of the results of this is that I have made all my photos here non-downloadable. Sad.
**********************
I corresponded by email with the person (Natalie Wizel [
[www.nyspnews.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=38759]) that put up the photo, who was just out of college by three months. Wizel tried telling me essentially, no harm, no foul because “The use of this photo was for a non profit making program, no charges were made to the participants, or charges to the attendees. It is a free program in all regards.”
Wrong. Doesn’t matter if it’s nonprofit, stealing a photo is stealing.
Then Wizel tried telling me she received the photo for NYC Medtech from Young, and forwarded me the email – but the photo that Young sent was UNinscribed, and what was taken was INscribed.
She wrote,
“I am unsure how the photo I was sent ended up being inscribed to Flickr. If I was aware of this scenario I would have not used the photo without your consent. The photo was used to describe an event that Laurence Young was speaking at. There was no profit gained from the event, as it was free to attend and to present. Laurence presented us a photo to promote his speech, and I am sorry that there is a confusion with the photo.
“As this seems to be an issue of non intended confusion, how would you like to sort this matter?”
My response,
“I am baffled as to how either downloading or cutting and pasting an image from an email could result in downloading an image from a website - those are two separate processes, and in the latter case, one needs to be on the website to do so.
“I work in a position where I have to be careful where my name is being used. I have a photo inscribed to me by Sen. Bill Nelson. If someone freely downloaded the photo and used it to promote a political event, it could be construed as my supporting Sen. Nelson. In my job, I'm not supposed to have an opinion as to how I feel about a politician, and in fact, could jeopardize my job.
“Didn't someone find it suspicious to use a photo that was inscribed to someone? Didn't someone double check the promotional material? Regardless of the nonprofibility of the event, the use of the photo is still stealing of my image from the website. In my line of work, it doesn't matter of the intent, if I use someone one else's material without checking or getting the OK, I'm the one responsible and in trouble. How long has the person who did the material been working for the company?”
I told her Nat Geo Traveler bought one of my photos for $300, and that I was willing to drop my bill to NYC Medtech from $150 to $75.
Her last response:
“I understand your concern, and that whether intended or not it is still problematic. I am a recent graduate and have been working less than 3 months on this website, it is my mistake that has created this confusion and current situation that we are in. The photo has been taken off the website, and again was only used for Laurence Young's purposes as he ultimately had the same intent when sending his copy of the image to me.”
No mention of compensation. But funny how they responded to me ONLY when I sent an email to their website provider about the copyright violation – I sent them a bill for the image 10 days beforehand.
Unauthorized use of Laurence Young photo, part 2
Just because something is on the internet does not necessarily mean it is free for the taking.
NYC Medtech, the NYC Medical Technology Forum, lifted a photo of backup payload specialist Laurence Young and used it in the advertising of their Dec. 3, 2013, seen here. They did so without notifying me they were going to use my photo - as others have done in the past.
I sent them a letter for compensation and I also send their website host a copyright infringement letter.
One of the results of this is that I have made all my photos here non-downloadable. Sad.
**********************
I corresponded by email with the person (Natalie Wizel [
[www.nyspnews.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=38759]) that put up the photo, who was just out of college by three months. Wizel tried telling me essentially, no harm, no foul because “The use of this photo was for a non profit making program, no charges were made to the participants, or charges to the attendees. It is a free program in all regards.”
Wrong. Doesn’t matter if it’s nonprofit, stealing a photo is stealing.
Then Wizel tried telling me she received the photo for NYC Medtech from Young, and forwarded me the email – but the photo that Young sent was UNinscribed, and what was taken was INscribed.
She wrote,
“I am unsure how the photo I was sent ended up being inscribed to Flickr. If I was aware of this scenario I would have not used the photo without your consent. The photo was used to describe an event that Laurence Young was speaking at. There was no profit gained from the event, as it was free to attend and to present. Laurence presented us a photo to promote his speech, and I am sorry that there is a confusion with the photo.
“As this seems to be an issue of non intended confusion, how would you like to sort this matter?”
My response,
“I am baffled as to how either downloading or cutting and pasting an image from an email could result in downloading an image from a website - those are two separate processes, and in the latter case, one needs to be on the website to do so.
“I work in a position where I have to be careful where my name is being used. I have a photo inscribed to me by Sen. Bill Nelson. If someone freely downloaded the photo and used it to promote a political event, it could be construed as my supporting Sen. Nelson. In my job, I'm not supposed to have an opinion as to how I feel about a politician, and in fact, could jeopardize my job.
“Didn't someone find it suspicious to use a photo that was inscribed to someone? Didn't someone double check the promotional material? Regardless of the nonprofibility of the event, the use of the photo is still stealing of my image from the website. In my line of work, it doesn't matter of the intent, if I use someone one else's material without checking or getting the OK, I'm the one responsible and in trouble. How long has the person who did the material been working for the company?”
I told her Nat Geo Traveler bought one of my photos for $300, and that I was willing to drop my bill to NYC Medtech from $150 to $75.
Her last response:
“I understand your concern, and that whether intended or not it is still problematic. I am a recent graduate and have been working less than 3 months on this website, it is my mistake that has created this confusion and current situation that we are in. The photo has been taken off the website, and again was only used for Laurence Young's purposes as he ultimately had the same intent when sending his copy of the image to me.”
No mention of compensation. But funny how they responded to me ONLY when I sent an email to their website provider about the copyright violation – I sent them a bill for the image 10 days beforehand.