Deception by omission, what are your thoughts?
Hi Guys and Gals,
I have a topic I would like to throw out there and see what everyone feels about this practice.
Ok so I visited someone’s website and was looking at their images on the website. Many were very good but I know that the person that owns the website didn’t take most of the images e.g. they are not his/her photos. There is no reference to who the copyright owner is or no reference who was the photographer anywhere on the website.
Now, I understand that there might be some arrangement with the owner of the images to allow the use of the images but shouldn’t the website owner point that out in their copy.
Personally, I think this is deception by omission given that the website is about the photographer and his/her body of work. Having other people’s images on their website without a clear distinction that many of the photos weren’t taken by the photographer showing the work seems to be rather deceptive.
What is your take on this?
I tend to agree.
The general practice is for image credits to be provided. The exception would be advertising where that is specifically excluded - and even then credit is often provided.
If the person is marketing photography or related businesses, images from others could be considered fraudulent. If the person is not marketing photography, you would hope the images are appropriately licensed. I still think credit should be given.
Stock photos are available very inexpensively. There is simply no reason for unauthorized use of photos.
I'm in no way saying that they were illegally using the other photographers images or that they stole them.
But they "mixed" quite a few "artistic" images with their own images, without watermarks or any indication of who the original photographer was.
This I think would lead any visitor to their website to assume that all the images were the website owners images with the exception of obvious images such as icons, banners or the like.
It might be a huge oversight on the website owners part in not recognizing that people might think that all the images were theirs or it could be that they deliberately excluded any reference to the true ownership to embellish their own photographic skills....who knows?
But I'm curious to know what others thought about this, should all "artistic" images be clearly identified as to who the photographer was if not oneself?
After all, we have demanded the paper press and other big business to do this for years, shouldn't everyone be doing it to clearly identify the owner of images not their own?
I'm not sure there is an issue if the images are properly licensed. That's why I made the distinction about photographers and marketing photography. For example, National Geographic Expeditions offers travel to Africa and uses some images from Piper McKay. The images were licensed through Getty and no attribution or credit is given. If NatGeo is marketing photography travel, they should disclose the photographer rather than imply the images are from the trip leader and are typical. On the other hand, if the travel is not geared to photography and photographers, and image making is secondary to the experience - I can understand the lack of photo credit.
The same idea hold for a website. I think photography related websites have a higher standard of disclosure than normal commercial use.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.