Public Photo Poaching
April 1, 2013 1:16 PM   Subscribe

Following on MartinWisse's earlier post. The US National Science Foundation also maintains an extensive photo library with some amazing high resolution images which are free to use with very reasonable restrictions The photos are contributed by science and support personnel working in the US Antarctic Program. These public archives are amazing resources, but sadly sometimes an unsavory character will mine them and seek to profit from the work of others. Let's hope such actions don't lead to organizations taking their photos offline.
posted by GoshND (8 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: The first half of this post would be fine as a comment in the earlier post; the second half seems kind of like a random "oh and this guy is an unethical jerk" thing that doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a front page post of its own. -- cortex

Unsavory character? That gets my "seal"... of disapproval! Ha ha, just joshin' ya. Happy April Fools, everyone.
posted by Greg Nog at 1:19 PM on April 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Fascinating. Killer Whales are much longer and thinner than I thought. I have always pictured then as more squat.

This is a desktop background goldmine.
posted by zzazazz at 1:28 PM on April 1, 2013

Following on MartinWisse's earlier post.

Which post was that?

... but sadly sometimes an unsavory character will mine them and seek to profit from the work of others.

I'm confused. Is this something you came across, or are there articles and such covering this allegation?
posted by ericb at 1:38 PM on April 1, 2013

I don't know if you can call him a poacher, but it looks like Mr. Unsavory Character is treading a fine line, with some sloppy auto-aggregation work. For example, this image is credited "Picture by Lightroom Photos/NSF," while this very similar image is credited to "Picture by Lightroom Photos/NSF/Robyn Waserman," who is also credited on the USAP site as the actual photographer. Back to the two watermarked penguin images: the first states no property or model release, while the second one says there are releases for the images. But both the images list "Lightroom Photos" as the copyright holder.

The about page talks about how the library includes more than the unsavory character's work:
Aside from my own collection of high quality photojournalism, travel images and landscapes, I also edit a growing archive of general stock images (under the agency name Lightroom Photos) which has thousands of interesting stock images including a large historical and space collection. I also get some contributions from other photographers and can offer publishers competitive deals on large orders. Both RM and RF-M stock images are available to search, license and download on a wide variety of editorial and commercial stock images from around the world.
RM being Rights Managed, and RF-M being Royalty Free-Managed (maybe?). The image pages note:
You can download RF images right here on the site, though to license an image/s from the Jonathan Mitchell or Lightroom Photos Rights Managed photojournalism stock image archive, please email [me]
This tangent seems like something better brought to the attention of the Photo Librarian at USAP, instead of an editorial add-on to a post about some great photos.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:43 PM on April 1, 2013

Can you point out examples of photos on the USF photo library that correlate with those on Jonathan Mitchell's website that he has allegedly claimed credit for? Did he not take those photos ... or, are they misappropriated as claimed in the FPP?
posted by ericb at 1:45 PM on April 1, 2013

Here is MartinWisse's post from earlier today: Open source pictures to liven up any website, about images from The Dutch National Archive (Nationaal Archief).
posted by filthy light thief at 1:45 PM on April 1, 2013

Thanks, filthy light thief.
posted by ericb at 1:47 PM on April 1, 2013

So if I wanted to get a hi-res framed print of one of these to hang on my wall, would that be permitted? How could I get one? The terms of use are a bit ambiguous in that they say that "[n]o one may reproduce the photos for personal or commercial profit" -- but could I pay Shutterfly to make a physical reproduction for my own personal use?
posted by eugenen at 1:56 PM on April 1, 2013

« Older Not So Evergreen   |   I have no idea how these people got their cats... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments