A stolen skydiving image on National Geographic site?

[RMK 3]

It's a photography contest (i.e. photos that you have taken, not just own or have in your possession).

I'd guess you own a few books or movies on DVD; doesn't mean you could take a story or film from either and enter it into a contest as your own work.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[Laszloimage 0]

Yes indeed I made that public post on NatGeo site, since the site allows to critique the submitted images.
The comment doesn't always have to be positive either...
I expressed my opinion in a professional manner. I pointed out the fact the image wasn't taken by the person (his name is Parth Patel in this case) who submitted it.
And as RMK said that in his respond to your post the whole point is to upload images on NatGeo's "Your Shot" page is to show "what you can take" with your camera vs. "what you can get or buy" taken by others. Therefore even if this guy somehow has a 100% copy right ownership for those handy cam shots and the TM/I guy absolutely doesn't care who uses the images for what, the point is Parth Patel did NOT take it while he claims that he did.
Outside video or handy cam either way it takes a lot of effort to gain that level of experience in the sport to be able to come up with a descent shot. Unfortunately most people don't have the concept of that based on reading their comments and compliments. Addressing this issue publicly hopefully can educate the public a little bit of the aspects of skydiving photography.
Further more just because someone doesn't know copy right laws (most people actually don't) it doesn't mean it can be ignored. It's just like any other laws...


...and don't mind to be a douchebag to stand up for the skydiving photography community and publicly (but definitely professionally) make comments against impostors!

Laszlo Andacs

[normiss 798]

It's actually very, very easy to get descent shots in skydiving.


Sorry Laszlo! I couldn't resist.

I do think you're correct in defending a photographer's rights to their material.

[Chris-Ottawa 0]

So, you're saying that you want to have 100% of your clients that you've EVER filmed to ask you for authorization for every place they ever post a photo? I sure as hell hope you don't mind quitting skydiving, or can afford an admin assistant because your life just got a whole lot busier with emails, phone calls, fax, letters etc.... Also, I hope you can afford a damn good copyright lawyer because there's probably one or two of your photos on Facebook, Twitter, imgur etc... But just one or two right?

You seriously want that? I HIGHLY doubt that.

Let's look at Mr. Parth Patel's photo a little more objectively. Let's say he doesn't own it, ok, fair enough. What does your comment accomplish? Clearly nothing because:
A) You don't own it so you're just showing him how uptight you (we?) are
B) Your comment was unnecessarily rude/snarky
C) The picture's still there so he clearly doesn't care
D) You make skydivers look like dicks to go along with our already notorious rap sheet.
E) I'm guessing you made another comment on the original photo and that person opted to take it down. Don't you have anything better to do than to browse the web and pick battles for other people's photos?

Do you SERIOUSLY want the flipping trophy to put on your mantle along with the $50 prize (I have no idea what it is, but I'm fairly certain it's not a million dollars, a mansion in the hills, and a Bentley)? Does your pride/ego need a stroke from a shitty Nat Geo contest? Seriously, this is so incredibly petty it's shameful for someone of your caliber to post on this. You don't want anything from this contest and you know it, you only commented to be an ass. Now if this was for a cover photo of an upcoming issue...maybe I'd be making a phone call to Nat Geo, but I certainly wouldn't post online just to prove I'm an ass and make a point.

Could you not have posted recommending that the guy give credit to the photographer instead of himself without being a douche? Check this out:

"Hey man, I'm a professional skydiving photographer and we work really hard to give our customers great pictures. It would be hugely appreciated if you gave credit to the photographer (your tandem master) because he was the one who took this picture. It's a great shot, and credit should be given where it is due. Also, you may want to consider copyright law if you don't have the photographer's permission to use this photo publicly. If we get asked, we're usually happy to allow the publication of our photos with credits. We appreciate your co-operation! Good luck in the contest!"

My point is not who the picture belongs to, it's how you presented yourself and represented skydivers. It was pointless, unnecessary and show's your poor attitude.

Anyways, that's all I was getting across.

"When once you have tasted flight..."

[Zlew 0]

For what it's worth, you seem to be overly bent out of shape on this one.

The comment wasn't overly rude...and the guy is presenting someone's work as his, in a place that may use the photos on their site and in their magazine and pay him for it.

From the site- " Give Your Photos Exposure
Selected photographs will appear on our website and in our magazines!" and "Get Published
See winning Your Shot photos in National Geographic each month."


" If we select Your Content for use in an NG Product that is that is not in the context of, in direct promotion of, or otherwise strongly identified with (beyond mere attribution), the special section or community of the Service to which it was submitted, we will pay you at our established rates..."

And their TOS says the content has to be your own-

"Represent that you are the owner of Your Content, or are making your submission with express consent of the owner, that you have obtained all third party releases and permissions necessary for National Geographic’s use, in accordance with the license you grant in paragraph 5 of Intellectual Property Issues above, of any Your Content that you post, and nothing you post will infringe on the rights of others"



He is acting like he took it, taking the praise for the photo. It isn't about him using it on facebook without permission, it is about him presenting someone's work as his own. I dont think he did any damage to the reputation of skydivers, and I don't think the guy acting like the picture was his deserves any high level of privacy or politeness in getting called out on what he is doing. This guy is fucking up in 10 different ways...I think him getting called out on it is appropriate.

[Chris-Ottawa 0]

You guys are abolutely hilarious. You're acting like these pictures are the next Mona Lisa worth millions.

Reality check...you're not that good and every tandem passenger all over the world thinks that "their" tandem photo is the best. They're all the same, the only reason that a skydiving photo would move forward is because of it's impact, not the lighting, framing etc..

Honestly, we're talking at what? $1000 for first prize in a large contest like this on a good day? You'd spend more than that crying to your lawyer that someone on the internet stole your photo.

In my opinion, if you really wanted to make money, DON'T SAY ANYTHING, wait until Nat Geo publishes it, then you have some leverage.

So, now that we all know you really didn't want anything, my point is proven. These comments were made simply to be a dick and prove a point for a photo that the poster didn't even own, or know who owns it for that matter.

"When once you have tasted flight..."

[Zlew 0]

It's not about Mona Lisa, lawyers, snatching prizes or being "that good".

If you don't feel like submitting something that was created by someone else to a as your own is wrong, I don't think there is anything I can say on here to sway you. If you really feel like what Lazlo said made him a "douche" or somehow damaged the sport, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Chris-Ottawa 0]

Remind me, where did I say that it was perfectly cool to steal other people's work and that there was nothing wrong with the person submitting someone else's photo? A quote from one of my above posts would be perfectly sufficient. Thanks!

"When once you have tasted flight..."

[DSE 5]

Chris-Ottawa

You guys are abolutely hilarious. You're acting like these pictures are the next Mona Lisa worth millions.

Reality check...you're not that good and every tandem passenger all over the world thinks that "their" tandem photo is the best. They're all the same, the only reason that a skydiving photo would move forward is because of it's impact, not the lighting, framing etc..

Honestly, we're talking at what? $1000 for first prize in a large contest like this on a good day? You'd spend more than that crying to your lawyer that someone on the internet stole your photo.

In my opinion, if you really wanted to make money, DON'T SAY ANYTHING, wait until Nat Geo publishes it, then you have some leverage.

So, now that we all know you really didn't want anything, my point is proven. These comments were made simply to be a dick and prove a point for a photo that the poster didn't even own, or know who owns it for that matter.

As pointed out, you seem to be overly bent out of shape here.
-The person submitted a photo as if they took it (a violation of the contest rules)
-It is a very unusual shot.
-Once it was pointed out that the shot violated the site/contest rules, it was removed (whether by the site, or by the submitting person, we don't know).

A full-time, professional photographer (both aerial and commercial) points out to the submittee that his submission is theft of someone else' work. It's challenging for me to understand why you'd take offense at that.
Trophy or not, it's theft. It doesn't matter what the end benefit is or isn't to either party, it's a misrepresentation of artistic asethetic and copyright ownership.

At what point does theft matter (or not?)

[Chris-Ottawa 0]

Again, I haven't once said that it was totally cool that this guy claimed the photo as his own. I'm talking about the approach Laszlo took in notifying him. You guys seem to be focusing on what you "want" to hear in my posts rather than what I'm actually saying.

"When once you have tasted flight..."

[DSE 5]

your words

Quote

The client knows no better, they paid for a cameraman to take their pictures and then they were provided the digital originals for them to take home.

The "client" was also a photographer, one doing a skydive. He knows who owns what. He submitted it in his name, suggesting he took the photo. He didn't claim "I took this photo of someone else" nor did he say "I'm in this photo taken by someone else."

The intimation both through the sort of site this is, the rules of the contest, and the audience it draws, is that the guy took this somewhat unusual photo himself. I don't think that makes Lazlo a bad guy.
Me? I like feeling that skydivers will have my back when my material is stolen (and on more than one occasion, i've learned of my content being used without my permission, from skydiving friends).

Out of curiosity, did you actually read what Lazlo posted on the Geo site before they removed the photo? I didn't find it offensive, so I'd like to better understand which specific words of his post on that site offended or upset you.

I'm not sure there is any nice way to say "you stole this."
And even if there were, why would one want to be nice to a thief?

[Chris-Ottawa 0]

Quote

The client knows no better, they paid for a cameraman to take their pictures and then they were provided the digital originals for them to take home.

You translate this as me saying it was ok to steal someone else's photo? Ummm, Ok... I translate it to "The probably guy figured it was his own photo and had rights to it so he posted it", NOT that he knew he was stealing someone's photo and I condoned that.

Quote

Out of curiosity, did you actually read what Lazlo posted on the Geo site before they removed the photo? I didn't find it offensive, so I'd like to better understand which specific words of his post on that site offended or upset you.

I think you're talking about the original photo (which is now removed and I did NOT have a chance to see). I'm basing my comments on the photo that is still online and had Laszlo's comments. I also assume Laszlo made it his duty on the first photo to comment (with equal amounts of attitude) and the person opted to remove the photo (which I mentioned in a previous post) to avoid any trouble. Maybe Laszlo's first comment was polite, but based on my interactions with him, the comment that is still online in the album and via some other posts online, I highly doubt that.

This is the one I'm talking about: http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photos/2355164/

Quote

I'm not sure there is any nice way to say "you stole this."

I disagree! As previously posted (by me oddly enough):

Quote

"Hey man, I'm a professional skydiving photographer and we work really hard to give our customers great pictures. It would be hugely appreciated if you gave credit to the photographer (your tandem master) because he was the one who took this picture. It's a great shot, and credit should be given where it is due. Also, you may want to consider copyright law if you don't have the photographer's permission to use this photo publicly. If we get asked, we're usually happy to allow the publication of our photos with credits. We appreciate your co-operation! Good luck in the contest!"

Quote

And even if there were, why would one want to be nice to a thief?

Maybe because a little respect/courtesy would be appreciated and the guy might happily take it down by being kindly informed of his mistake...maybe not though, who knows. Or maybe, because there was so much attitude in the post, he opted to be defiant knowing that the odds of anyone actually doing anything are incredibly slim. And he's probably 100% correct.

Circling all the way back to the beginning, I don't think it's ok to steal photos and claim them as your own. I also don't think it's necessary to come on full force and be unnecessarily rude when a polite reminder would have sufficed.

"When once you have tasted flight..."

[DSE 5]

Quote

Circling all the way back to the beginning, I don't think it's ok to steal photos and claim them as your own. I also don't think it's necessary to come on full force and be unnecessarily rude when a polite reminder would have sufficed.

I see your point, and disagree with it. As someone who makes their living _entirely_ through copyrighted works, there is no quarter on my end when dealing with professionals who know what they're doing, and mindfully proceed anyway.
At the same time, I appreciate you clarifying your perspective.

[Laszloimage 0]

While my move was definitely a partisan action, I wasn't rude or unprofessional. Never called any of those guys duchebags or dicks, not even a thief which they would have actually deserved.
As an expert of this specific field of photography I simply and firmly pointed out the facts. Also gave solid explanation about the "why" of those images couldn't be taken as they claimed. I don't think it's a bad thing to do. As you might noticed one of the shots (the one got removed) actually got the attention of the editor, received some nominations. The other one got a fair amount of compliments. Both claimed they took the image while they made only one jump in their lives. If something was misleading about skydiving then those two definitely were.
Yes I was surfing the NatGeo images since one "our" well recognized photographer Brian Buckland was published in the March issue. (yet I really don't need to explain myself why and what for I'm browsing the net )
Matter the fact is I'm going to write the letter about this "skydiver impostor/pretender" issue to National Geographic.
NatGeo is a organization with the goal of educating people about science, culture, and generally about the whole world through the camera lens. But not even National Geographic can be aware of every single details, just like this one about skydiving photography on their site.
They have to rely on the honesty of the photographers when they submit images (all those little questionnaires in the online submitting process). Hopefully my notes will help them to display skydiving images only by those who can actually explain how the images were taken, which will/can provide real educational value to other non skydivers.

RMK and DSE explained the rest. Thank you!

Laszlo