Cyber First ‘Fatima’ photographer unhappy

[rob-nikon]

I’ve just seen this on BBC news:

Photographer 'devastated' by government-backed 'Fatima' dancer advert

The ad was criticised for encouraging "Fatima" to give up on dancing and "reskill" in cyber security.

www.bbc.co.uk

The photographer who took the Cyber First ‘Fatima’ photo isn’t happy it’s been used in this way. It seems they put it on Unsplashed which has allowed it to be used commerically for free. I’m guessing uploading to Unsplashed gives the photographer no control of what their images are used for, hence this has happened.

I guess it’s bit of a wake up call for most of us. Even if you’re happy giving away your photos for free you may not be happy what they are used for in the future. Food for thought as you can’t shut the gate after the horse has bolted. .

it’s not exactly the same but a few years ago I had a photo stolen off flickr. I found out it was being used as a meme for a hunting company based in the US. I contacted them asking for it to be removed. I didn’t want my image of a stag associated with hunting with guns. They had also used the photo without asking me. They did eventually take it down (after giving me a load of abuse as I had audacity to ask for it to be removed! That was after they were wax lyrical about how amazing they thought it was. Probably thinking I’d just say of course you can use if you like it).

 

[cymruchris]

Not everyone reads even the basic terms and conditions, and then gets up in arms when something like this happens. Realistically due to the amount of press coverage, the photographer concerned will be much better known today than they were a week ago, and in all probability will do ok out of the whole situation, but it's a big warning for anyone else that wants to upload all their work all over the place for free. Aside from a few images I share on here - the only place mine go online is Alamy. I don't get a huge number of sales, and the values are fairly low, but it's better than them being stolen, and I acknowledge that people can buy them for any purpose they please.

 

[Graham W]

It's a heavily cropped image there are two dancers sitting back to back.

 

[omens]

The photo was available on stock image site Unsplash, whose licence says pictures can normally be downloaded for free for commercial and non-commercial purposes.

I’d have thought once you’ve uploaded a photo to a site like that, you relinquish any control over it.

I’m not a pro, never will be, and doubt any of my images will ever be good enough to be sold. When you upload images to stock websites, do they allow you to limit the use of your photos eg not by Govt organisations, or for only ethical causes? If not, then was the photographer right to be upset? Or should they have become emotionally detached once the image was uploaded?

 

[LCPete]

Yes I know once you upload to one of those sites you have no control over use but I wouldn’t be happy either for my photo to be used for that but unfortunately I don’t think you can do anything about it

 

[JonathanRyan]

I think it's more of a warning that (as I've said many times) the age of copyright is over. If the UK government sourcing an image for a major ad campaign doesn't feel the need to pay even a dollar for an iStock image then why should anybody else?

Don't upload your pictures to sites that give them away. But other people will. Some of them are pretty decent photographers. Most of them have at least a few excellent images.

Realistically due to the amount of press coverage, the photographer concerned will be much better known today than they were a week ago, and in all probability will do ok out of the whole situation

Rly? No Googling - what's their name and contact details? And....what are they known for other than being prepared to give images away for free?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I really can't see anything here other than the now usual "outrage" by what used to be called "the lunatic fringe" at something totally innocent. In my opinion, it doesn't help that the government minister, who should be explaining why the outrage is unwarranted, has instead run for cover distanced himself from the event. :banghead:

 

[myotis]

It seems they put it on Unsplashed which has allowed it to be used commerically for free. I’m guessing uploading to Unsplashed gives the photographer no control of what their images are used for, hence this has happened.

That is exactly what Unsplash does:

"Unsplash photos are made to be used freely. Our license reflects that.

All photos can be downloaded and used for free
Commercial and non-commercial purposes
No permission needed (though attribution is appreciated!)

What is not permitted
Photos cannot be sold without significant modification.
Compiling photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service."

License | Unsplash

All photos published on Unsplash can be used for free. You can use them for commercial and noncommercial purposes. You do not need to ask permission from or provide credit to the photographer or Unsplash, although it is appreciated when possible.

unsplash.com

However the T&Cs also say

"This means that Photos on the Service come with a very, very broad copyright license under the Unsplash License. This is why we say that they are “Free to Use.” Note that the Unsplash License does not include the right to use:

Trademarks, logos, or brands that appear in Photos

People’s images if they are recognizable in the Photos

Works of art or authorship that appear in Photos"

Terms & Conditions | Unsplash

Unsplash is a photo discovery platform for free to use, high-definition photos. These are our terms of use.

unsplash.com