Discussion: Watermarks & Other People's Content

[J. Evins]

Just posting this up for open discussion.

These guys wrote a blog post using Super Street's photographs.

State of Stance:

http://stateofstance.com/2010/12/16/one-sexy-240/

Super Street:

http://www.superstreetonline.com/features/sstp_1009_1991_nissan_240sx_le/index.html

1. They gave credit to Henry / Super Street
2. The Super Street watermarks were removed, and State of Stance watermarks added

Do you think they're overstepping the line or not? Also, for those legally minded individuals here... how would this fly in court?

[J. Evins]

Now, I'm personally pretty horrible with copyright law and consult a friend of mine (a lawyer) when I have a question regarding my own work. The thing is... if you post to FlickR people often link back to your original post and give credit and thats generally accepted as okay. Is this different in your minds or not?

In my opinion, the replacement watermark was probably a bad idea... if the photos were linked from Super Street with the Super Street watermarks, would that be okay?

[Charlie.S]

get your own content for your own blog. that should be the mindset.

[geoffafa]

Gabe is a member of the State of Stance team, I believe there might have been some verbal agreement between them. but I know the owner of the car is well aware of this because, well we are all friends. now as far as the photos having the SoS watermark, that might be a tad out of line but again, i dont think the photographer is trying to claim them as his own.

[J. Evins]

I would think that the permission needs to come from Henry DeKuyper or Source Interlink (his employer, owns Super Street) rather than the car owner. Then again, if the car owner provided someone else's photography then possibly he is the one who would be legally responsible?

I'm not sure. It probably wouldn't even be an issue if they didn't re-watermark them because they didn't give credit so I don't think it was something they're trying to claim as their own, or any malicious activity.

[geoffafa]

Yeah i get you. i think its done with the intention of "this is a State of Stance car" rather than "look at the pics i took of this 240."

[Charlie.S]

This actually happened to me between StanceWorks' feature of Jason Lomnicky's black passat that I shot for stanceworks, and Euromedian.com

Jason submitted my photos to euromedian who then cropped out the StanceWorks logo and my own name. They then went forward with their own write up and gave me NO credit for the photos. I contacted them, they gave me some BS about them not even seeing the feature on StanceWorks. (but somehow saw the watermark and didn't put 2 and 2 together?) Anyways, it resulted in an argument between Danny Kegal (euromedian) and Mike and myself. They eventually agreed to give me credit for the photos, but Mike and I pushed them to take down the story as a whole. It just isn't right.

[J. Evins]

Yeah i get you. i think its done with the intention of "this is a State of Stance car" rather than "look at the pics i took of this 240."

Yeah, I gotcha.

The problem is that Henry is a professional photographer - it is his sole source of income. He works hundreds of jobs a year and that is how he provides for himself. There is a value there that has been stripped when you remove his own watermark and post your own. It is a little more significant than just some random photographs of a random 240SX.

I would think that Henry (and the U.S. legal system) would see it as, "This work is the result of years of experience, thousands of dollars in equipment, and the hard work and effort of a paid professional and the copyright solely belongs to Henry Z. De Kuyper (or his employer, he released the copyright to them for publication purposes)."

[Kielan]

In my own view, your blog should feature photos you got yourself, unless explicitly your blog has been given rights to other photos as well (I am talking contracts and such), and the photographers water marks should remain along with a credit to him/her for the photos. Photography is an art form, you don't see people going around taking art work from people with out permission and putting it in their museum, do you.

[Average_Jerk]

Get your own content



but if youre going to use someone elses shots, give the the credit they deserve. leave watermarks and mention them in the write up

[kartikeya]

I don't see the sharing of content as a problem, so long as credit is given, and watermarks are definitely left alone.

If someone were to link to just the photo State of Stance put up, viewers would never know that it was shot by this Henry guy for Super Street, and not SoS. Watermarks are a way of claiming ownership of the photo. Covering up a watermark with your own is tantamount to claiming ownership.

[NegativeCamber]

bottom line.......removing a watermark and putting your own to take credit for the shots is a bitch move and takes all credibility from your site. fucking wankers.

[Dave_The_BMXER]

Irks me when people remove watermarks.

I'm all for blogs posting other peoples content and I do all the time, but if a watermark is present leave it there and if you know where the photos were originally posted (which can be hard) give credit.

If a photographer does contact you and wants credit throw it up, its not print its the internet.

[Tuck&Poke]

I dont know how it works legally, but the subject of the photos is Gabe's car, and the watermark was not that of the photographer but of Super Street. Photography credit is given, and there's a link to the Super Street site, plus its mentioned that the shoot was for SS. I can also see how removing the watermark would raise some eyebrows. The watermark was probably changed since the content was posted on the SOS website, just like a blog like SW or Canibeat will put their own watermark and write the credit to the photographer instead of putting the photographers watermark so that it is clear where the pictures are posted.

[J. Evins]

StanceWorks and Canibeat do not watermark without the express permission of the photographer (atleast, not recently).

Not only is it wrong, its illegal.

Posting them on your site does not make them yours.