Stolen Photo

Sorry if this is old news here, but I did a search and found nothing regarding the story. I was reading a blog by a man named Michael Yon who has done some extensive reporting from Iraq over the last couple of years as an imbedded free-lance reporter with different units.

In May 2005, Yon was on patrol with the 1-24th Infantry Regiment of the 25th Infantry Division in Mosul, Iraq when a suicide bomber drove a car bomb towards a US military vehicle that was surrounded by kids that were receiving candy from the US troops.

In the aftermath of the blast, Yon captured a photo of a US officer carrying a very young girl to an aid station. The photo evenually earned Yon Time Magazine's online photo of the month for November 2005.

In May of this year, HFM, a french publishing conglomerate, debuted a new magazine called Shock. The front page of that inaugural issue was Yon's photo, even though he had not given permission for use. His requests that the magazine retract the issue and remove his photo was met with threats of a defamation lawsuit by HFM.

HFM is the publisher of American Photo and Popular Photography and Imaging. Photo magazines should be extra sensitive to stealing of somone's photos.

Please help Yon in his battle by not purchasing those magazines. A complete list of publications by HFM includes:
American Photo
Boating
Car and Driver
Cycle World
Elle
Elle Décor
Flying
Metropolitan Home
Mobile Entertainment
Popular Photography and Imaging
Premiere
Road and Track
Invalid
Sound and Vision
Woman's Day

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/actions-speak-louder.htm

Tim

What is a French publishing conglomerate doing publishing an "American Photo" magazine anyway? :P

I don't get any of those mags.

Hmmm,

Already subscribe to three of them.

After looking at the link, reading the photographers website and blog, and visiting SHOCK's website, I think I am going to have to side with "Greater Good" on this one.

While I agree that copyright violations are bad, it would be simplistic to say that it is always bad in all cases under all circumstances. (Hmm, maybe a new creed, Photographic Fundamentalism). According to SHOCK's website, their intention is as follows:

So, yeah it bites to not get paid when your photo makes a national magazine cover, but I think that the raising of the social consciousness and sparking debate does and should override issues of civil law.

My 2¢

Rad

I think its crap. To have an image posted on the cover of a magazine without permission. Id have the best attorney $$ can buy.

isnt it illegal for them to use his picture ? how could they sue him ?

I keep waiting to hear the rest of this story - because as it has been presented , the magazine has no excuse for using somebody elses photo.
I assume it is not a "non profit" organisation - ie they are making money.
Most magazines devote a lot of time to the front cover due to it's importance to selling the mag. How do they justify this theft?

I believe SHOCK's untold mission is to make a pile of money. It seems they want to maximize their profits by not paying dues to the photographers who took the pictures.

My PopPhoto subscription just ended and I have no plans of extending it.

That guy needs to get Denny Crane on his side..

I would never take any action because of something I read on the internet. Simple as that.

There are laws in place to deal with this sort of thing. If they can't/won't defend it legally, then it's public property really.

I am surprised they got hold of a good enough quality for a magazine cover anyway.

Graham

Yup social consciousness will definitely help him get bread and milk in store. I do hope you were not serious with your comment.
Stealing is stealing no matter what reasons for stealing are. And there's really nothing to discuss about this.

There's probably more to this story, but I can't agree with your logic, given the information we have.

The guy risks his life in a war zone to get pictures, and some magazine steals one to boost their circulation. What "greater good" can you possibly be referring to?

Judge Judy, so that everybody can watch..

Here is a link to the story behind the photo and a copy of the photo.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/little-girl.htm

Tim

Uh huh. I read Michael Yon's website and blog. He has got brass ones, I will grant you that, and he has a lot of motivations, but the need to "get bread and milk" is not one of them.

Absolutely serious - why would you think otherwise?

I thought the issue was copyright infringement. If I steal your car, that means your car is in my driveway. If your car is in my driveway you can't use your car, it is gone, stolen. Still with me?
Because Yon still has the RAW file and any other PPing, it is not stolen. The question is one of unauthorized use. (I agree, though, that "Stealing is stealing", so you don't have to worry about your car.)

Your actions don't match your words. After all, you posted on this thread and in doing so, participated in the discussion.

Rad

I agree that there is most likely more to it. I don't know. For example, what does Csaba Csere have to do with the unauthorized use of the photo by and what good would it do to cancel my Car and Driver subscription?

But the answer to your question is this:

The declared intent of SHOCK magazine is to "utilize the most riveting photos in the world to ... spark a little debate."

The "sparked debate" can change one more mind, sway one more vote, change one more seat in Congress and in doing so, bring the American troops home just that much sooner. If that is allowed to happen, then perhaps there will be just that many less flag draped coffins. THAT is the greater good.

Put it on a scale:

Flag Draped Coffin_____/°\_____Cop​yright Infringement

Hmmm....

Flag Draped Coffin_____/°\_____Cop​yright Infringement

Let me try that again....

Flag Draped Coffin_____/°\_____Cop​yright Infringement

Yup, I would rather have Copyright Infringement over Flag Draped Coffins any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Rad