February 1, 2011 at 1:52 am #2247zincprincessParticipant
I saw this on Jezebel.com which had a link to the flickr page.
I will have to pay more attention the next time I am cruising through Gap Kids.February 1, 2011 at 2:41 am #38444olavfParticipant
Wow. I hope he sues the crap out of them.February 1, 2011 at 2:42 am #38445nobigdealParticipant
Ooops! Someone may be getting a payday!February 1, 2011 at 4:58 am #38446ravnosticParticipant
I could use the payday, myself. Maybe I ought to start using that f*kr account I started so I could see all yout’s pictures…February 1, 2011 at 12:30 pm #38447ennuipoetParticipant
Ah, Capitalism! This is how this will break down. The Gap with it’s resources will start by claiming the photo in question is NOT the same one used on the clothing, and even if it were, which it isn’t the Gap is not responsible. No, you see, the Gap merely purchased the shirt from the manufacturer and is not responsible for how the manufacture obtained the content, not that the content is the same, because it isn’t. The manufacturer will claim that the content is clearly different, and even if it were, which it isn’t, they are not responsible because they purchased the shirt design from a company in China, and THAT company is really responsible in the event the content is stole, which it isn’t. The design company in China will simply never respond to claims because it is in China and therefore untouchable by American law. Meanwhile the photographer in question will shortly be sued by the car company which will claim that the image of the vehicle itself is copyrighted by the car company and ANY commercial use of that image entitles the car company to the profits from the image and any derivative works. The photographer will win in court, but the legal fees will force the photographer to sell their cameras to pay the lawyers. The lawyers from the Gap, the t-shirt manufacturer and the design company in China will all make incredible amounts of money compiling legal briefs for the corporations about how the photo isn’t the same and even it was, which it isn’t, the companies are not at fault. The only real loser here is the photographer that dared to question the theft of their work and any dumb enough to buy a product that stupid at the Gap.February 1, 2011 at 1:55 pm #38448zincprincessParticipant
Oh, ennuipoet, I hope you wrong. I fear that you are not.
The photographer responded to the comments on Jezebel.
Here is what he said:
Hi. I’m Chris Devers. This is my photo we’re talking about here. I just saw the huge spike in traffic on the photo from Jezebel ? thank you ? and will post a couple of quick points, admitting up front that I’ve only skimmed the comments here:
? I’m not a professional photographer.
? I place my photos under the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license ( [creativecommons.org] ), meaning that I’m happy to share my photos, on three conditions:
1) I want to be credited where my photos are used.
2) I only allow non-commercial use without specific separate permission.
3) I do not permit derivative or modified versions without permission.
? Gap’s use of my photo violates all three of those clauses.
? If they had ASKED for permission, I almost certainly would have said Yes.
? I wrote to the Gap yesterday morning, and got a brief response this evening, saying basically “we’re going to get back to you”. Other than that, I’ve never had any contact with the company about this.
? There are three other versions of the shirt in question. Where did the photos for THOSE come from?
? For that matter, what about the rest of the Gap’s catalog?
? For that matter, what about the catalogs of the rest of the Gap family of companies (Old Navy, Banana Republic, etc)?
I am (clearly) not a lawyer, but I did have the (naive?) assumption that going with a standard Creative Commons license afforded me at least some degree of protection here. I understand that copying happens, and I’m not trying to fight the tide of modernity; I just want to exert what little control I have as an average citizen and, you know, get them to ask permission, first.
? ? ?
Skimming a bit here, that covers some of the main comments I’m seeing.
I probably shouldn’t comment much more than that until I have a clearer sense of how this will unfold.February 1, 2011 at 5:48 pm #38449CauseISaidSoParticipant
ennuipoet, you left out the part where they eventually admit that yes, maybe, it is the same photo but if so, the photographer should clearly be paying them for all the free publicity he’s received due to their obviously-inadvertant-and-clearly-non-infringing use of his photo.February 1, 2011 at 6:00 pm #38450KestranaParticipant
Actually what ennuipoet stated may not be true depending on how Gap does their product development. If they have buyers that exclusively contract with designers in the manufacturing nation (China) then that paragraph is probably the total truth of what would happen if he sued Gap. However, if they have in house design (like JCPenney, Macy’s and Victoria’s Secret does with their private brands) then yes Gap, or more specifically that designer, would bear some responsibility for licensing infringement. However, since laws about works made public on the internet have yet to be tested in court it would be interesting to see what would happen. I’m certain there is no great windfall of cash waiting for this guy, but a couple people in Gap’s back offices will probably get a testy email/slap on the wrist about either not doing it again or altering the image more so that it’s not so obvious.
If they bear any responsibility at all, I bet Gap sends the guy a $50 giftcard as an apology, which is enough to buy half a pair of pants or maybe one glove.February 1, 2011 at 10:43 pm #38451swampaParticipant
The one thing I noticed is that the grills are different. Not sure why they would go to the trouble to fix that but not remove any other details that could be used to identify the original if they did copy it.February 2, 2011 at 3:20 am #38452February 2, 2011 at 3:31 am #38453olavfParticipant
The one thing I noticed is that the grills are different. Not sure why they would go to the trouble to fix that but not remove any other details that could be used to identify the original if they did copy it.
They did a pretty crappy job of photoshopping out the badges. I bet they couldn’t figure out how to remove the reflections of the power lines.February 2, 2011 at 5:49 am #38454CuriousParticipant
i posted a comment telling him to demand a dollar for each use. all inventory not just what they’ve sold.
what good is the internet if you can’t give unsolicited advice to strangers 🙂February 8, 2011 at 8:16 am #38455UranusParticipant
waheyyyy!! How about this then ? A fellow farktographer pointed this out (many thanks!). I don’t know whether to be mad, flattered or amused… 😕
I sent him a message, and I’m curious to see what happens.
I suspect there will be enough complaints from FB users that he’ll have to pull it.
More seriously, I know that a couple of you actually make a living/ derive income from your pics, or at least hope to. In that case it’s your wallet they’re emptying.
I wonder if there’s some way of protecting the images from download in the contest threads….February 8, 2011 at 2:09 pm #38456ravnosticParticipant
The profile seems to be blocked from my view, at least, Uran I take it he stole your goodies?February 8, 2011 at 2:11 pm #38457orionidParticipant
Congratulations, you’ve figured out how right-click-save-as works. Now, perhaps you should figure out how copywrite works. The original photographer has been informed of your transgressions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.