Andy Post Steals $49 Photo from Getty Images
Minnesota Democrats Exposed blogger, Andy Post, found an interesting way to get around paying Getty Images for a use of a photo they took of Keith Ellison in 2006. He stole if from The Telegraph.
Here is the photo, as Andy Post published it to MDE:
Notice the Telegraph citation? Like Ryan Lyk, Post does a nice job thanking his victims for their photos. But, you may also notice a Getty watermark on that photo. The deal here is that the Telegraph, being a credible news site, licensed that photo from Getty Images. That costs money. Post then stole that licensed photo from the Telegraph.
Post claims the photo is from 2007. That’s not true, although the Telegraph may have licensed the photo for use in a story they ran in 2007. That actually comes from October 12, 2006. How do I know this? Because the photo is still available at Getty’s site for licensing. It was taken at Logan Park in Minneapolis.
In this case, $49 is the cost of being legit.
I’ve asked Post to clarify:
DEVELOPING . . .
January 15th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Fair Use
The gray area of copyright law comes in the form of fair use. If you’re reusing someone else’s material on your blog for the purpose of providing criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching or research, then you may not have to seek permission. Unfortunately, fair use is debatable, so if you’re republishing someone else’s work on your blog, do the safe (and right) thing and ask for permission first then cite the source in your blog post.
http://weblogs.about.com/od/bloggingethics/qt/CopyrightFairUs.htm
January 16th, 2011 at 12:26 am
Erik,
#1, see my comment regarding the same photo theft issue with Ryan Lyk over here.
#2, are you familiar with Getty Images? They’re in the business of making money off photos they spend a lot of money gathering. As I explained in the post, they provide pricing designed for exactly what Andy Post did. It costs $49. If you think they’re on board with your liberal definition of fair use, you’re smoking something interesting.
January 16th, 2011 at 12:38 am
There are lots of reasons to get annoyed with the MDE folks, but this is real petty. Who appointed you the white knight hero protector of Getty Images?
January 16th, 2011 at 1:05 am
Same answer as the previous post, the US government has the same definition as I posted (I bet that is where they got it!)!
17 ยง 107 of the U.S. Code
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
January 16th, 2011 at 1:14 am
I also find it interesting that in a post about stealing money from Getty Images you are in effect doing the same thing, as your blog is currently hosting the very same image. If you have paid for it we would certainly love to see the receipt, which is incredibly relevant in this situation.
January 16th, 2011 at 1:33 am
Interesting point about my use of the image compared to Andy’s. I used the image in context to critique his use of the image. I used it to critique a copyright infriger’s work while Andy Post used it to infringe on Getty Image’s copyright.
January 16th, 2011 at 1:38 am
@Really? (Nick Thornton?) I have a lot of respect for photo journalists. They work hard to document the news. Getty creates a market for them. As I see it, Andy Post was taking money out of the pocket of the photographer who did the grunt work to capture that image of Rep. Ellison back in 2006.
January 16th, 2011 at 1:52 am
Did you just use the ‘if I steal from a thief than it is not stealing’ argument? Or did you use the fair use argument? I might have to call Getty Images to let them know about the image on your site, but that would be pretty low; wouldn’t it, Ed?
January 16th, 2011 at 1:54 am
“… thief than…” I meant ‘then,’. Oops!
January 16th, 2011 at 1:56 am
Yes, that’s exactly what I did. Please do. See how that works out for Andy and me.
January 16th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Yes to what? Yes is not an appropriate answer to an either or question unless you are indicating you are doing all of the above. Very disappointed, Ed.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Do you care to clarify yourself Ed? Still waiting. Please hold yourself to the same standards you hold others to.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Erik, sorry for the confusion. I believe that there is a difference between how I used the image and how Andy Post used it.
Andy stole a photo from The Telegraph, which they appear to have licensed from Getty Images. He was using it as a stock photo, but didn’t feel like paying for it.
I used a screenshot of photo in the context it appeared on Minnesota Democrats Exposed as part of my commentary about Post’s stealing of the photo. I also used a screenshot of the photo from the Getty Images site which shows that they expect web publishers like Andy Post to pay $49 for the use of that image. In my case photo was the subject, instead of being a value added stolen stock photo.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
You have a good blog and I usually like your posts. But you’re so blinded by hatred here that you’ve lost sight of your own hypocrisy. This is hilarious.
January 16th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
@Really?, when you post anonymously and don’t support your opinions, I give your comments the respect they’ve earned.
January 17th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
I have to purchase stuff from Getty here at work all the time. So I know the licensing terms pretty well. What MDE did is a violation and Getty could go after them for it if they wanted. What Ed did by taking a screen shot of the image on the MDE site (to provide context) is not in violation. MDE used the photo as in illustration of their writtent content. Ed used the photo in a story about the photo. Not a problem with Getty licensing at all in that case.
January 24th, 2011 at 8:01 am
[...] Is he better off living a lie than addressing the issue? He is the same guy who held firm on his Getty Images copyright infringement within a previous post. In this case, he deleted a comment pointing out that he stole an entire [...]
August 7th, 2011 at 8:01 am
[...] (whether Brodkorb fully gave up blogging in June of 2009 is debate worthy). That’s before Andy Post, Ryan Lyk, Luke Hellier, or Aaron Cocking wrote for the [...]