In a rather strange set of events, Queen Guitarist Brian May lashed out at a photographer after she filed a takedown request when the musician posted one of her photos of him on his Instagram without credit.
The issue began when the guitarist posted a picture of himself taken by Barbara Kremer without crediting her. She filed a takedown request with Instagram, which resulted in the post being removed and May’s account being disabled for about an hour while he resolved the issue. May then posted a screenshot of the takedown notice with the following caption:
Personally, I always find it a bit strange when someone like a musician shows either a misunderstanding of copyright or lashes out at someone for protecting it, as music is of course no stranger to this exact issue. I also find May’s response rather childish: purposely mentioning Kremer by name (presumably to drag her through the mud in front of his followers) and saying she’s exploiting him by using his image is both immature and shows a lack of understanding of copyright, something someone in his position should understand well. As for saying she should have messaged him because he normally posts credits, it seems silly to assume that she would know that or that she could even get through to one of the most famous guitarists of all time on social media. Luckily, many are defending her in the comments of the post.
Lead image by Mark Kieve, used under Creative Commons.
[via PetaPixel]
As a musician, music photographer, and business person- I believe that immediately reporting a copyright violation in this situation eliminates any chance of a positive resolution. While Brian's response is childish and immature, sending a polite DM is a much better start to resolve the issue. Reporting a CV should be the last resort, and still is not a win for the photographer. She very likely taken a situation where she could have boosted her reputation and followers a little, and instead got blacklisted by the PR Agent, and maybe other agents/record labels/magazines/venues.
Situations like this encourage artists to force photographers to sign copyright grabs and other rights restrictions that make the industry so much harder.
This is weird. We all know what a brilliant guy Brian May is. Odd he wouldn't understand copyright.
Did she get a release form signed to use his image?
"To the point where If I ever discover that you are at one of our concerts in future, look out, because, logically, I will be tempted to have you thrown out."
So he will throw her out while doing her job or standing there with payed ticket just because he got blocked on Instagram for 45 minutes after he publicly used photo without permission? What is this, kindergarten? Grow up May.
Alex, while we are discussing how best to use an image on a website, can I suggest a small change to your use of Creative Commons images. There are several guides on how best to use such images.
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Best_practices_for_attribution
http://foter.com/blog/how-to-attribute-creative-commons-photos/
https://www.newmediarights.org/guide/how_to/creative_commons/best_practi...
You've got most things right. You've credited the actual photographer (many folk credit Wikipedia or Flickr) and linked through to "where you got it" which is fantastic. Ideally you should include the title of the photo, though sometimes the title of an image on Flickr or Wikimedia Commons isn't particularly well chosen.
But most importantly, you must indicate which of the several Creative Commons licences the image is used under. There are a handful of these. Some exclude commercial usage (-NC) which would prevent it being used here, as this is a commercial website with advertising, not some amateur blog with no adverts. Some prevent the creation of derivative works (-ND). And some insist that any derivative work you create must also be released with the same licence, or a compatible one (-SA). Here the image only requires correct attribution (-BY). There are also several versions of the CC licences with 4.0 the current and Flickr still stuck only offering the option of 2.0. So the full licence here is "Creative Commons BY 2.0" or "CC BY 2.0". You should also link to the licence page
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
All this ensures anyone looking at the photo can instantly tell if the image could be reused by them and if so under what terms. Saying just "Creative Commons" doesn't tell them if they can use it for their purpose. If Mark Kieve's Flickr album is removed if he retires from Flickr, then this web page here contains enough information to allow others to re-use the photo. And you noting exactly which licence also protects you a bit from awkward questions in case Mark decides to change his Flickr page to no longer offer the image CC but only "All rights reserved". Since the CC licence is perpetual, you're safe even if he does that.
Lastly, since you are getting a lead photo for free, then it would be courteous to leave a message on Mark's Flickr page letting him know you've used the photo and say thanks. People release their images under a CC licence because they want them to be used, so getting feedback on this is great.
Now that's even better. lol