Pulp Stock Fiction

"I know the stock photo industry is based mainly on trust, and I just hope this will continue. But more and more I am hearing of cases where magazines and book publishers are stealing photos and using them for their own purposes," a reader recently wrote.

Will the book publisher or magazine that has pilfered a photographer's photo please step forward?

I've heard this accusation many times, and when a reader sends me such a message, I quickly request, "Please give me documentation on when and where this has happened."

Rarely does the person who sent me the message have documentation that the rumored incident really happened. Those few that even respond, tell of a foreign newspaper that 'stole' a photo, or a book publisher who it turns out honestly believed that the photo belonged to their art department. The most common examples of unauthorized photo use are the plentiful cases of "innocent infringement" by a Boy Scout group, a hospital, a church bulletin, a student organization, who have "borrowed" a photo from the Net.

"...risking its good reputation? I don't think so."

But a national magazine or book publisher risking its good reputation for the price of a photo? I don't think so.

The stories you hear that are supposedly real theft cases, in reality are fiction.

Some publishers read the Copyright Law (mistakenly, in my view) as giving them authority to re-use a photo they previously published. They maintain they own electronic second rights for photos they have previously leased, in order to maintain control of the images in their central art library.

The book publishers, magazines, and newspapers that have been found to knowingly use a photo they have in their files for second usage, are not attempting to clandestinely steal the photo. (It wouldn't be worth the risk of loss of good will in the creative community and the blot on their integrity.) Their intent is often to test interpretation of the Copyright Law.

You can understand their point of view. Their database of previously published photos is an excellent source of visuals. The task to track down the copyright holder of a photo for permission for re-use can be prohibitive in labor and cost.

All this is to advise you that there are two separate "camps" when it comes to "image snatching" on the Net. One is real: Major publishers using an image a second time because they believe it is their right. The second consists of minor infractions where honest people (scouts, non-profit groups, etc.) and dishonest people (the ones supermarkets define as " that 5% of the population that cause shrinkage" i.e. that 'steal') are making "mistakes." Would it be worth it to spend time focussing on this 5% of the web population? Well-known photographer Pete Turner doesn't think so. Otherwise would this world-famous photographer display samples of his best images on the Web? He no doubt realizes that the honest 95% of Web users might enjoy or even buy his already well-established work.

The main loser in this continuing dilemma could be stock photographers, and by extension, photo researchers. If, because of rumors and fictions of theft, photographers shy away from posting their images on the Web, this would eliminate chances for sales and new contacts for the photographers, and eliminate the advantages of image sources on the Web, for researchers. It's monumentally unlikely any given photographer would experience photo theft. But if the unusual happened and they did, they could look at it this way: say if one or two of their photos were used without permission, every year - that minor loss would be a small price to pay for the significant benefits of getting their photos out there, with Web exposure to potential markets.

Rohn Engh is director of PhotoSource International and publisher of PhotoStockNotes. To receive this free report: "8 Steps to Publishing Photos," visit his website at PhotoSource International or call 800 624-0266.

Cameras Lenses Best Buy
Best Buy Camera Case
Best Buy Canon Accessories