Queen Guitarist Lashes Out at Photographer for Reporting Image He Posted Without Credit

Queen Guitarist Lashes Out at Photographer for Reporting Image He Posted Without Credit

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]

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments
86 Comments
Previous comments

No doubt. But if some artist decides to make a comment publicly about the cell phone user getting more likes from a shot of him or her......

The best camera is the camera you have with you when you need it right? LOL

Storm in a tea cup.....in a day or two when the dust settles, a different attitude will emerge from both of them.

I don't have direct contact with Brain May or the photographer...so...what ever i say here is speculative......Happy to leave adults to sort out their differences regardless of who is right or wrong.

I’m a pro photographer and after shooting an up and coming musician a few years ago, we both signed paperwork that neither of us would post the images without crediting the other. Bur after that, she kept on crediting her entire entourage but failing to add me, to photos I shot and edited. I kept reminding her, but it kept on happening. I simply stopped working with her. I do wonder why Barbra K didn’t first ask Brian to add her name, rather than jumping to extremes so soon?

I don't think for May the crux of the matter was having the image taken down.. but rather the time it took for him to get his Instagram account back in good standing so he could use it again.

Maybe he is just getting angrier the more he looks like Sir Isaac Newton

You all need to realise that you're completely missing the point. He isn't complaining about the taking down of the photograph, I bet his account wouldn't have lost much if that photo hadn't been there in the first place, and I sure believe he would have credited her if he had been reminded of his unfortunate oversight (and of course I agree with the fact the it is an error on his part; he even admits it himself!) as he would have gained nothing from not doing it and could have ended up being sued in the process (which he probably wouldn't have risked, as he must have a keen understanding of how copyright works - much better than what the author "childishly" implies anyway - for all he must have had to battle for on legal ground). The one thing he is ranting about is that his account was banned without a single warning shot ! Had he been a photographer, you would have all been whining about how much damage had been done to his publicity by taking down his whole portfolio that way and how the person who didn't even try to get in touch with him had no decency or professional etiquette at all. I've had it with that typically american hypocrisy. Instead of pushing your rights all over the place as you're wont to do with your "let's sue everyone for everything" culture, try being decent people for a change. Not giving the other perspective of that story makes for a very biased article, which is regrettable.

1. She didn't sue him.
2. How is this American hypocrisy? Brian May is English and the photographer appears to be German. Not even sure what nationalities have to do with this anyway.
3. His account being banned was a choice made by Instagram; she simply wanted the photo taken down.
4. No, I don't think photographers would rant if another photographer posted work that wasn't theirs without credit and had their portfolio taken down because of it. That's generally exactly what most photographers would like to see happen when someone steals photos.
5. We don't know that she didn't try to get in touch with him. See my explanation in the comments above.

I think most of his comments were a commentary on general attitudes rather than the specifics of this case. While all your points are accurate, I think we're seeing the same kind of interactions, here, as occurred in the reported incident. As personalities and perspectives clash, someone must take the "high road" in order to stop the devolution in any incident. Neither of them did this. Again, as a photographer, I'm interested in her actions and how they affect her. She chose poorly. I'm basing that summation on the timeline issue as posited by Norman Perkel, above.

In fairness, we can't really conclude very much about the timeline, as we don't know if she tried to reach out to him or what the time intervals were. Second, we can argue she chose poorly in the sense of maximizing profitability as a photographer, but she's not legally or morally obligated to choose that path. She may have just not wanted the exposure on that stage for whatever reason: maybe she didn't think the photo was representative of her work, maybe she doesn't like that much attention, etc. Whatever the reason, it's her right at the end of the day to handle it as she did.

Time prevents me from treating all your suppositions and the numerous alternatives. Suffice to say, I think they both acted poorly. I didn't expect him to act properly (based on his career, not any knowledge of him, individually) but have no such expectations in her case so...I speculate.

I´m a profissional concert photographer and i work for the biggest names in music industry in Portugal and also for some of the biggest music festivals, so my concert images are putting food on my table, i cant afford to have my images used for free.
I see lots of music photographer happy when some band or musician shares is image in facebook or on instagram, and for me that is just stupid, right now Social Media is one of the bigest markets if we ara happy to see the potencial client use our images without paying then we should move to another profession .
Lets face it, wht do bands nead images for, during one year?
Cd cover, most probably they will make the photos with some fashion photographer and it done.
Promotion of the album, they will use the images made for the CD Cover.
Posters for the Tour, probably they will use the same as the CD Cover
so whats left for concert photograthers? the images of the concerts that will be used on social media to try to sell more tickets for the next show, that means that the concert images have some value, they help selling more tickts if whe give those images or free to the bands how do we make a living???? were are we going to sell the images? the bands only need one image
on social media to promote the next show and that image must be payed they dont give away the single for free to try to sell the album do they?

All valid points but, from what others have said, she wasn't shooting commercially.

100% agree Rui-once the infringement occurs the horse has left the barn.

It's refreshing that Instagram acted so quickly, the infringer will think twice before pulling that stunt again, if ever.

I could write a book on the manipulations infringers orchestrate to steal from content providers, it truly wears on a person and you end up being the bad guy if you complain.

What on earth is wrong with sticking to an honest and mutually agreed upon arrangement?

Try walking into a camera store and walking out with a $30,000 worth of photographic gear without paying for it- I guarantee, rough men in uniforms will be paying you a visit.

"Try walking into a camera store and walking out with a $30,000 worth of photographic gear without paying for it- I guarantee, rough men in uniforms will be paying you a visit."
Not if you're careful! :-)

Lol

First let me say that I am in total agreement with you on most of what you have to say here.. However the day I am competing with the quality of someone's mobile phone image to put food on my families plate is the day I hope I have already moved into another profession. Our images are significantly of higher quality, and in such we are not in competition with people in the crowd who are happy to get a snapshot at best.

Looking at the image, it was shot from the crowd. Many on the Instagram post are saying that cameras were not allowed in the crowd (as is common at concerts) Say she did have a dslr/mirrorless with an interchangeable lens, if concert staff had seen that, she probably would have been kicked out. If she was a random person in the crowd who took a photo with her cell phone, how would he know who to credit? Both of them could have acted differently, but I think taking down his account right away is a little excessive.

Dear Instagram, make a better way for an artist to seek credit. Simply asking is futile if the person posting the uncredited photo has a large following. There should be a way that you can upload the image to verify it was yours, then a priority notification to the user that posted it. Less banning, less shaming.

That would be interesting. "User blah has requested that you credit this image to them. You have four hours to agree to this request or dispute the credit." The problem, I think, is that getting credit even a few hours after the fact does little good for the photographer.

How about a suggested fee to the photographer written right in the process. I bet May would have gladly thrown a couple hundred dollars for a fast resolution if it was smoother and became the norm. And yes, I'm being an optimistic idealist.

If you can't source the content provider, then it's a no until/if you broker an agreement.

Is it not common courtesy to send a note first rather than create a firestorm? Respect is a two way street and one can send a note through Instagram to inquire about a photo credit. I think there were mistakes made by both sides which could have been handled better. It appears to me, the photographer may have suffered more damage than Mr. May.

Anyone with a large following like May (over 100K) probably isn't checking all their messages. I agree this was handled poorly.

I looked up this same story on other sites to see how people reacted and an interesting question was raised.

She took this at a concert. If we assume she was just a fan at the concert and not hired by the venue or Brian, does she still have legal copyright claim to the photograph if photography was prohibited at the venue? Could the venue claim rights to the photo? This is something I genuinely don't know.

Yes, she does. Venue policies do not override copyright law.

So all they could do is ask her to leave their property?

Correct.

.

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