I recently wrote an article concerning Fox News using a photograph after being told by the owner of the picture they could not use the picture. As Paul Harvey would say: "Now for the rest of the story."
A few days ago, I wrote an article concerning Fox News asking Lesley Abravanel if they could use a photograph her husband had taken on November 1, 2017 of accused bombing suspect Cesar Sayoc’s van via Twitter. Abravanel replied to FoxNews on Twitter with: “My husband took the picture but won’t allow you guys to use it because you aren’t a reliable source of what’s going on in our country today. Sorry!” Later Abravanel was alerted by friends to Fox News using her husband’s photograph.
Now for the rest of the story. I contacted Abravanel again to ask if she and her husband had given permission to anyone else to use the photograph. Abravanel told me: “…AP asked if they could use the photo prior to Fox. Via Twitter. I wish I would have asked for payment, but alas, let’s just say I served my country and perhaps karma will reward me in the future.” I recently searched AP Images and found Abravanel’s photograph posted on the photo site. So, it appears FoxNews did not use Abravanel’s image from her Twitter account but instead purchased the right to use the picture from AP Images.
As we can see, Abravanel gave permission for AP Images to use her photograph without asking for compensation and AP Images turned around and sold the picture to at least Fox News and I would imagine several other news outlets. AP Images didn’t do anything illegal, but I believe they are doing something wrong when they ask to use someone else’s content for free and then turn around and sell the rights to other news organizations. They seem to be banking on the person who one time in their life has a piece of content that has value, and they don’t provide any information that they will profit off the content provided. I speculate this is not an isolated case and probably occurs frequently, because the owners of the content aren’t aware they can ask for compensation.
When I looked the other day at AP Images, an editorial usage fee for Abravanel’s photograph was $250.
That's super crappy of AP to do. Super crappy. I guess that's to be expected. But come on.
Why is it crappy? Because the photographer didn't ask for compensation?
On one hand, of course, the photographer should maybe have done better overall to ensure the photo was used as intended, etc....and to get some compensation for herself. But at the same time, you'd hope an organization built on great content produced from hardworking photographers would make it a point to fairly compensate people...not to take something for free and turn around and sell it for infinite profit. It's just the right thing to do... But time and time again, companies take things for free that they could easily pay even just a little for in order to make it more fair. I'm just disappointed an organization like AP wouldn't do more.
Listen, the person who took the picture isn’t some seasoned professional photographer who knows all about licensing and copyright. It’s a common Joe with a smartphone who took the picture on a whim - a picture which suddenly became VERY relevant. Try to see it from this perspective.
Thank you for picking up the point that the person who took the photo is not a photographer. They have no idea of their rights or what reasonable compensation would be.
I agree to some degree, but they're a business who has a responsibility to make as much money as possible while remaining inside the boundaries of the law. They didn't "take" the image from anyone. It appears as though they asked for it and was given it.
Totally. But also supposedly she gave permission for her husband's photograph...that's not how it works. And AP also knew it was her husband's photo since her original post on Twitter about the photo was from her husband talking about when he took it and showed her. But regardless, she obviously didn't realize the extent of what she was doing...and AP should just compensate, period. I'm not saying a LOT. But they have a responsibility to do what's right to keep photographers going, too...
What's supper crappy is that the photographer was a partisan hack who was dumb enough to give away her rights without compensation. We no longer have a "free press" in this country, just partisan bickering.
One could argue that the very existence of partisan bickering is proof that we have a free press... perhaps too free, sometimes.
If ever we lose our free press, it won't have a damn thing to do with partisanship.
It'll probably have something to do with the President calling the press the "enemy of the people."
The war on the press is not waged by people like this woman. It's waged by people who think "fake news" is an intelligent thing to say.
If I gave you a car and you turn around and sell it how would that be your fault you sold it?
Because I only allowed you to use it, not to own it.
welp, if i ever get that lucky shot, at least i know where to start my pricing and a precedent to refer them to.
After seeing your images, I'd say $250 would be a steal! :)
This is a classic case of why we have poor reporting. It sells much better than proper reporting.
His first story on this was poorly researched, encouraging people to accuse a news outlet of image theft when clearly there was no wrongdoing. That's one inflammatory story from a non issue, which garnered attention simply because the most important fact was missing. Of course there are no consequences for poor research in journalism, so he got away with it.
But, due to a poorly researched first article, we have a second article with an "update", with the facts that should have been provided in the first place.
But, added to this one, is an inflammatory claim that "AP turned around and sold" the picture to the news outlet. This claim may attract attention, but it's of course a false claim. There will be no consequence for the writer this time either.
Will this give rise to a third article, with an "update" on what AP is, and how it works, or somesuch? Maybe. I wonder how such an article could be spun to evoke artificial negative emotions in readers, and therefore clicks, comments and a fourth article?
So there you have it. Poor initial research led to a big response, and a second article. Poor research in the second article (ie. this one) may achieve the same, and if so it will lead to a third article. If that one is sufficiently inflammatory, it could lead to a fourth. After all, why change a "winning" formula?!
Proper research would not have received anywhere near as much attention in the first place, and would not have warranted subsequent articles. So why would anyone research their "news" stories properly, when their job is first to write stories? Poor research leads to more attention and more stories, which is exactly what we have here.
And that's why we rarely see properly researched news stories. There is a huge incentive to write poorly researched, artificially emotive stories, because those are worth much more each, and they lead to further stories.
And so the poorly researched, artificially emotive stories will continue forever, and they'll continue to sell the ad space for publications, including FStoppers. There's too much incentive to do it, with little or no negative consequences to the writer.
Speaking as someone with editorial background at a news organization: While I don't disagree that this, if written by a news reporter, wouldn't pass muster with a halfway decent editor, I also try keep in mind that Fstopper is more of a blogging/social forum platform than an actual news-media platform.
It's up to the Fstoppers owners to decide whether to implement better QC standards.
Speaking as someone who worked in local government for many years and knew first hand about many issues that were reported in published media, I can say that every journalist I ever saw was *never* 100% accurate, with only one exception.
Proper journalists' articles don't usually contain such glaring errors as we see here, however what this writer has done is still a classic example of what journalists do every day. It is exactly what the "news media" relies on to create and sell content. Hence why I pointed it out here, as it was a blatantly obvious case.
I agree about Fstoppers - I imagine nobody comes here for news because it's not a photography news site. We go to Petapixel and other places for photography related news, because Petapixel and others are more responsible and much more timely with their reporting.
Fstoppers is great for ideas, tutorials, critiques, humour and more off-the-wall links, and good on them for that. My main point is not to criticise Fstoppers (although I'm aware I'm implicitly doing that too), it is to use an Fstoppers article to highlight a wider issue across all "news media".
All fair points, except: "Petapixel and others are more responsible and much more timely with their reporting."
They are slightly better than FS in this regard, true, but they have posted several questionable more-blog-than-news-reporting articles in the past. I occasionally post when I spot them, but it's pretty much tilting at the windmill until the owners decide to make a change, anyhow.
The cynical side of me thinks that they probably won't because news is "boring" (air quotes here), while controversial or questionable opinion articles are more likely to garner engagement, which is good for their marketing analytics. The more engagement they get, the easier they can sell ad space.
I agree with that. I think it is unlikely there is such a thing as a reliable or trustworthy news source on the face of the earth. That includes Petapixel - I'm certainly not singing their praises, even though Petapixel is slightly more responsible with facts than Fstoppers. Which isn't saying much really...
Fstoppers is not a news outlet and its writers are not journalists. It would be a mistake to hold them to the same standards.
Let's face it, the bar is already very low when it comes to journalistic standards. A simple check such as going to Wikipedia to learn if AP really does "turn around and sell the rights" of content to networks like this one shouldn't be beyond anyone. Even to an Fstoppers writer.
But Fstoppers writers are not journalists so why would you hold them to any sort of journalistic standards at all no matter how low those standards are?
Because I think it beats simply making things up and publishing them as fact, no matter who we are. I'd prefer to read the truth. Wouldn't you?
In general, yes, but I don't expect people to tell the truth. This is the internet. People publish wildly inaccurate things as fact all the time—even trained journalists who ought to know better. If you're going to be upset that a glorified photo blog posts inaccurate information, I'm not really sure what to say.
Ultimately, if you care that much, you need to do the fact checking yourself rather than expect others to do it for you. It's just a sad truth about the world we live in and complaining about the state of affairs is not likely to change anything.
The problem is not that people don't tell the truth. The problem is that we've become a society too lazy to seek out the truth for ourselves and who, instead, just believe the words of others at face value. The author in this case is a symptom of the issue, not a cause.
I agree with that.
The author's update is just more speculation. Key facts are still missing. He didn't verify whether Fox bought the pic or whether AP sold it. Just writing a whole "update" article based on more guesses.
I just can't wait for his next episode...<ahem>..."update"...😂
"When I looked the other day at AP Images, an editorial usage fee for Abravanel’s photograph was $250."
Well, AP Images is obviously selling it. If Fox News didn't buy, they're using it in an "odd" manner.
Yep. That was my thinking also. That's why I checked the AP Image site prior to writing the second article.
Simon Patterson there is no intent to develop a series of articles on this subject to generate clicks like you try to imply over and over in your response. I take pride in my articles and try to provide articles that are of interest and value to Fstoppers readers. The best pay for me is to see comments from people saying how much they enjoyed the article. Why? Because I want them to have a moment of joy while they read the article and second because they will come back to read more articles. I do not get joy out of fooling people to click on my articles and never intend for that to happen. Fool them once shame on me, fool them twice and they go elsewhere. One must also realize that the article was never meant to be hard hitting in depth news article but rather a story of someone dealing with a new agency and then a press wire agency. It is a story and not meant to be the equivalent of reporting the Pentagon Papers or the Watergate Break-in. Your disapproval seems more grounded in a distaste for news journalism than a STORY on a photography website. Perhaps you should contact a news organization and write a researched article on the failure of news organizations to research, and verify information from multiple independent sources.
I hope you have read my other articles on Fstoppers and find them to be better written than this one in your opinion.
The opinions voiced here are mine and only mine.
Douglas I don't for a minute think you set out in the first place to write a series of articles that deliberately mislead readers into clicking on the next one.
Of course you want to write articles that people enjoy and come back and read more of, as you state. There's nothing wrong with that, in itself.
So, in both articles, you did just enough research until you had an article that would likely be interesting and clickable, and then you stopped researching and posted your articles with essential facts missing. You probably didn't even know the facts were missing, because you hadn't bothered to research them. To me, that's not you deliberately fooling people, but instead it's more likely just laziness, which just happened to benefit your aims.
My main point is that there is no incentive for you to do otherwise. In fact, you are disincentivised from doing proper fact checking.
If you had interviewed both sides of the story in the first place, like any genuinely fair minded person would, then your initial story would have been much less engaging. That's no incentive!
If you had checked all your factual claims in your second story, such as your claim that AP sold the picture to Fox News, then you would have lost a substantial part of your article - the most juicy part. Why would anyone want to lose the most engaging part of their article?
So you have little incentive to do any different next time. Instead, you have dismissed my points as expecting a standard of investigation equivalent to the Pentagon Papers or Watergate, so you have learned nothing except to continue in the same vein. Which is exactly what I said I expected, as per the incentives I already outlined.
I'd rather see you equally consider both sides' points of view in future stories like this, and do some basic research of your intended factual claims. That's as simple as research for an article gets, really! But, as there is no incentive for you to do this, and a strong incentive for you not to bother, I'm not holding my breath.
Well Simon, I'll just chalk these articles up as something you didn't care for. Never meant to imply that I'm an investigative reporter.
Ah, the "I'm not an investigative reporter so I'm free to just make stuff up and publish it as fact" approach.
I agree, you *are* free to just make stuff up and publish it, and you're right, it's not an approach I care for. Glad we agree on a couple of things, anyway...
You keep stating that I made stuff up and didn't tell the truth, which I did not do. I wrote what I knew at the time and when I learned that Abvaranel had spoken with AP Images I sat and wrote the second article with new information. This article is not in any way implied to be a deep investigative report, which you seem to be demanding for your free usage of Fstoppers. As others have pointed out to you, you are free to do your own investigative report. You can reach out to Abvaranel as I did via Twitter. You can attempt to find someone at Fox News to comment along with finding someone at AP Images. If the quality of reporting is such a concern for you, and I would not call my article a report in the news sense, then take it upon yourself. I'd love to read it. You have written more words in this comment section criticizing my articles than my two articles combined. Again if you are so interested in an investigative report then take it upon yourself and learn the facts yourself. I have done that myself in other areas that have turned into great opportunities for me.
But to continue saying I made stuff up is at best speculation on your part and incorrect speculation at that. I didn't make stuff up. I wrote an article that I thought would be interesting to Fstoppers readers. Then when I learned more about the story I wrote a follow up that cleared up some questions. I have even spent a fair amount of time in the comments section, not trying to defend myself or the article, but rather to give some more insight to the depth of the article. Yet nothing seems to satisfy you. The view must be rather impressive from your high horse.
So let me sum it up in for you. Stop relaying on other people to do all the work for you so that you can simply critique. If you think can do better than do it and not rely on others to live to your standards. No one is stopping you and especially not me. As Theodore Roosevelt said ""It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." So that it is clear to you, I'm not implying I'm some great fighter, but rather you are the critic that can only point out how others stumble. Try being one who does.
Douglas Turney said "You keep stating that I made stuff up and didn't tell the truth, which I did not do".
Douglas Turney said "AP Images turned around and sold the picture to at least Fox News".
That is simply untrue, AP did not sell the picture to Fox News. You made that up.
AP is a not-for-profit news cooperative, owned by its members, one of whom is Fox News. Rupert Murdoch was even on the AP board once. AP doesn't "sell" its content to Fox News, AP shares its content with its owners (and subscribers), of which Fox News is one.
So AP did not sell the picture to Fox News, as you claimed. Selling content to Fox News is not something AP does. You made that up yourself.
" They seem to be banking on the person who one time in their life has a piece of content that has value, and they don’t provide any information that they will profit off the content provided."
Another way to look at this (the non-mercantile way...) is the this user provided AP the means to make a small profit in order to keep the show running and keep an actual, good and honest press outlet in business.
Would have done the same thing.
Yet another story accusing evil Fox News of image theft that turns out to be false.
The fact that the article was written has nothing to do with Fox News. I would have written the same thing concerning any other news organization. But thank you for jumping to conclusion that it was meant to target Fox News.
Not a snowflake, and I'm not butthurt. I don't even watch cable news. Just pointing out that it's yet another article accusing Fox News of using images without permission that turned out to be false.
I've seen a couple of similar articles like this regarding Fox News. They've all turned out to be incorrect. That's all I'm pointing out. https://blog.photoshelter.com/2018/05/he-said-no-fox-news-used-his-image...
If you see where I said anything about you specifically targeting Fox News kudos to you, because I didn't.
The problem is that your method was biased. You interviewed the photographer at least twice, but you give no indication that you reached out to the news outlet for their perspective. Your biased approach was exactly the same in both articles.
The reason for your bias is unclear, but the fact of your bias is indisputable.
I imagine that it's not all that difficult to get a comment from an photographer who is feeling aggrieved. Getting a commend from a news organization is a different story entirely—particularly if you're not even a journalist working for an outlet.
You may be surprised. Either way, there is no indication he even tried.
I probably wouldn't be all that surprised given the fact that I have yet to receive a response from any number of local news outlets to answer a simple question about whether they would protect their source's anonymity if there was a story about a felon convicted of securities fraud using a pseudonym to run one of the city's more successful real estate companies behind a puppet broker who is on their payroll to be the face of the company.
You would think such a story like that and the fact that one of these felons (who lacks a real estate license of any sort) is the one actually negotiating all of the deals on behalf of the licensed real estate agents, engaging in blockbusting, racist fear mongering (eg. telling people that they should sell soon because a mosque is going up and Muslims are going to be moving into their area), and unethical behavior such as disclosing the precise values of competing bids by showing potential buyers signed offer sheets from competing bidders (all of which I mentioned), would at least spark some sort of response from a news outlet. Not a peep back and those were local news outlets that I was reaching out to.
I don't imagine that contacting a national news outlet for comment about whether they stole a photo they used would even be entertained. Then again, I could be totally wrong.
I suppose I can always dream about it being a story on the local news. LOL!
It sounds like a story that would possibly suit an investigative journalist better than a local news outlet, which are generally looking more for the low hanging fruit stories.
Funding for investigating such stories is becoming harder and harder to come by, and the outlets you contacted may have decided that it is not a story worth putting resources into pursuing. Then, it's easier for them to let another outlet put the effort into researching the issues, so they can simply parrot the story on their own network. Most reporting is just parroting another journalist anyway, as it's much easier than doing research.
Exactly!
Douglas Turney didn't research the first article he wrote and Fstoppers published it anyway... Am I off base here or is this how this went down? Bias and preconceived notions do not replace research...
The author is just presenting more unverified assumptions and beliefs. Key facts are missing. It's a waste of time to read this, as it's just more speculation. Did Fox buy the image from AP or not? Did AP sell the image to Fox or not? No facts, just guesses. There's no "rest of the story" here.
I'm neither a journalist nor a pro photographer, but I've know what AP is for a very long time. Apparently the author, the photographer, and the photographer's wife aren't familiar with them. Distributing news, in a variety of media is what they do, and if they turn a profit on a particular piece that's just how business works. I'm just guessing, but they've been around long enough that I'd imagine there's very little legal uncertainty about their distribution of IP to others after securing permission from the IP's copyright owner. Complaining about how they use your work after giving them permission is pretty much the same as complaining about how a contest organizer uses your work after you submitted it and gave them permission to do almost anything.
As with any photo, or other IP, if you're going to tell somebody they can use it the onus is on you to be sure you're not giving more permissions than you intended. You should also know enough about Fair Use to understand that sometimes you won't have any real recourse. Even if the photo had been given to AP with a prohibition against distributing it to Fox (or Breitbart, InfoWars, or other right wing outlets) it's subsequent use by Fox or others may well have been a Fair Use because the photo was newsworthy, and letting AP have it for free eliminated any issues over market value.
Perhaps the photographer would have some recourse if the permission was given by his wife rather than himself, but that might blow back on the wife in the form of a costly lawsuit by AP.
FWIW, almost all of you have seen the Pulitzer prize winning photo from the Kent State shootings. IIRC the photographer offered the photo to AP for free, but AP paid him $250. You can still buy the photo on AP's site. If they charged just a penny each time it was used I'd imagine they've still earned thousands of dollars in gross profit.
Don't you think a large organization like AP who reaches out to a person who has a picture they would like to use and sell shouldn't at least offer a minimum payment? The large organization understands the market and value while the person (who in this case is not a photographer) does not. How many times have we heard a similar story occurring in the past? You mention the $250 for the Kent State shootings, would it be so wrong to offer something similar? I'm not saying that anything illegal was committed. Far from it, but is this how business is performed now? And what about the professional photographers who are trying to sell their photos? What happens to them when these organizations just reach out to individuals who are not aware of the value of their property? It lowers the pay for professional photographers.