Michigan Republican Party and Tim Walberg Steal Picture For Attack Ad

So much for values and morals (4.00 / 3)

Laws are for everyone else in their twisted way of looking at the world.

Walberg, Saul and the MRP owe you an apology for stealing your work and also a check.

 

---

by: Kathy @ Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:27:43 PM CDT

More blatant hypocrisy (4.00 / 2)

They want to claim that it is Schauer who is hurting Michigan, but then they turn around and steal from a Michigan free-lancer.

The MDP is using another picture from the same event (mouse over the Schauer link in the top box), they asked my permission first, and paid to use it.

The MRP just takes pictures from you to use for their own purposes. Never attempted to contact me, never asked permission or offered compensation. Just went to the internet and stole something marked "all rights reserved".

Is that the kind of thing that Tim Walberg approves of? Stealing from Michigan workers? Seriously, someone needs to ask him about that.

---

by: wizardkitten @ Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:38:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey Wizkitten (4.00 / 2)

We got a mailer from Ray Franz that has a picture that may be one of yours from the last governor race of Granholm. We can scan it and send it on if you want.

They used a blow up of one of my pics of Dan Scripps and turned it into a pixelated mess on 2 different attack ads so far. I talk to Dan a lot and apologized. Photobucket has a free use agreement unfortunately. So I feel ya.

Thank you for supportingDan Scripps!

---

by: AikoAdam @ Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:46:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, please do (4.00 / 3)

Send to bloggingformichigan@gmail.com.

Would love to see it. If it is, we will add him to the list of Republicans who steal from Michigan workers.

After all, this is work, this is my work, and they don't have permission to use it.  

---

by: wizardkitten @ Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:52:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Brad Flory posted a comment (4.00 / 2)

...at the Cit-Pat that once you post it on Flickr, the world can do what it wants with your pictures.

That is just not true. Photographers - you own the copyright to your work.

I have been trying to reply over there and it keeps disconnecting me.

All of my photos are marked with the copyright symbol and "all rights reserved". If what Brad says is true, then why does Flickr offer different forms of copyright?

http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/

Why do they offer a place to submit of Notice of Infringement?

http://www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne

Just wanted this posted here so people know the truth. YOU own your pictures, folks. If someone uses them for commercial purposes, you deserve compensation.

---

by: wizardkitten @ Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 18:08:18 PM CDT

Flory gets legal advice .. (4.00 / 1)

.. from a "web guy"?

He should rethink that.



If you're not interested in what a sit-downer has to say, it's going to take him twice as long to say it. ~my grandpa

---

by: Christine @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 04:40:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Cit-Pat should rethink that (4.00 / 1)

They might want to tell their people to watch it, they could be opening themselves up to trouble with that kind of thinking.

Here is a brief over-view of the copyright law as it pertains to artists, from a lawyer in the field.

http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html

If anyone wants to try and interpret the actual federal copyright law - start here, and good luck. There is a reason you need lawyers for this stuff. It is very tricky business with many sections, subsections, etc.

I believe that I could nail them on distortion of the work and damage to reputation if they tried to claim any kind of fair use or parody. Both of these incidents of theft now have distorted the pictures that they stole, which is a misrepresentation of my work, and could prevent me from landing further gigs. Plus, there is the "damage to reputation" fact that Democrats could think that I sell to Republicans and swiftboaters, which simply isn't true. They are taking these things without permission.

So, I think I would have a case, given those factors. But, I cannot afford a lawyer, and the Republicans probably know that - so they just steal.

I just want it known to other people out there that Flory has totally missed the boat on this. You own your pictures, people.

---

by: wizardkitten @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 05:30:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Even if you sued and won your case... (4.00 / 1)

It wouldn't hurt Walberg or the MRP. They'd just ask Club for Growth to pay the fines for them.  

---

by: Kathy @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 07:38:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, (4.00 / 2)

It's probably not a good idea in general, to go on the Internet and say "I am known for stealing stuff and I have been warned."  If you ever do get sued, that's the kind of thing that can come back to haunt you.



If you're not interested in what a sit-downer has to say, it's going to take him twice as long to say it. ~my grandpa

---

by: Christine @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 09:57:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Someone got a comment in (4.00 / 1)

It kept saying "thanks for your comment, will be posted on approval" - but at the same time my computer said I was disconnected from the internet.

(I have the same problem at the Freep at times. Probably an IE thing)

I'm just kind of floored that a journalist would make such a statement, obviously not bothering to check basic copyright law or the terms of use at Flickr (I picked them because they offer copyright protection), and then opine that a professional photographer shouldn't get paid for their work.  

Seriously dude. Don't use me to defend your behavior.

---

by: wizardkitten @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 10:28:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What did anyone expect... (4.00 / 2)

The CitPat is the only newspaper I've ever read that endorsed some kind of censorship.  It's only natural that they'd go in for intellectual property theft, too.

I wonder what if the CitPat's staff photographers would take the same easy approach to the appropriation of their photographs under the same circumstances.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 17:58:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe someone should test them (4.00 / 1)

Good point, Eric, but I suspect they have a different set of double standards when it comes to their photographers.  

---

by: Kathy @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 18:16:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My ex- is a news photographer... (4.00 / 2)

A principled news organization would side with Wizardkitten.  I've heard of newspapers that have filed injunctions against campaigns for this kind of stuff.

The irony is that the last time I heard, the CitPat had a really good reputation for news photography and as a place where news photography students went to get experience.  The guy who now runs Midland's news photography department (which also has a really good reputation) used to rave about his time at Jackson (this is while I told him about how lousy a place it was to live).

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 07:53:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Stupid (4.00 / 3)

Look, whomever made this decision made a dumb, boneheaded decision that wasn't well thought out.  But it only reflects on those who made the decision - not all Republicans, as some people here have suggested.

I'd recommend that Wizard ask MRP for a fair amount of compensation though, before any lawsuit is filed.  If the request is reasonable, I think that's fine.  If you ask for a million dollars, then I'll change my mind.

As a fellow photographer of candidates, I certainly would stand behind any legal action WizardKitten took against MRP if they refuse to pay something.  She should at least get a fair market value price for the photo - although I'm not sure she would have ever authorized it for this purpose and there might be a legal question of fair-use and First Amendment speech (political speech is the zenith of the First Amendment, so my belief is that fair-use is expanded in these situations, but I'd still weigh the property rights, and the fact that this photo had no intrinsic newsworthiness and could have been replaced by anything the MRP paid to have taken, and I'd side with Wizard on this one).  That may be a dangerous position for me to take as a consultant to conservative and moderate clients, but I'm siding with property rights, so I think they'll understand.

---

by: chetlyzarko @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 18:48:09 PM CDT

Guilt by association (4.00 / 2)

There seems to be a lot of that going around this election season, Chetly, so if I painted all Republicans as thieves I apologize. On the other hand, I haven't heard a single Republican offer an apology for the MRP's actions. That could be because most Republicans don't read this blog, but surely Anuzis and Walberg read the CitPat's column. Someone at the top should be apologizing, offering to make restitution, and criticizing the actions of the person responsible.  

---

by: Kathy @ Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 19:07:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What (4.00 / 3)

Why would Republicans in general "apologize" to you.  I'm not apologizing to you - although I am condemning this action and the people responsible for it.

You deserve an apology only from the Republicans who created this ad.

On the other hand, that means that you should be asking those people directly for an apology, and restitution. If you need their e-mail addresses, I'll be happy to forward them to you (although I got them from online).  You can't fairly be sure that they've read the CitPat or comprehended that you want compensation and an apology unless you've directly asked them, explicitly. I'd also expect they'd wait it out until after the election, at this point, given its only a couple of days and I'd hardly call this a priority.

And if they apologized, would you accept it as sincere and as a conclusion to the matter? And how much money do you want?  If I knew these things, I might even ask for you, although I have zero personal relationship with Walberg's people and only modest contact with MRP.

Frankly, if you think this is or even should be an "issue" for voters, you're mistaken.  It's trivial and gotcha in the larger sense, and it doesn't bear on the question of "who would be best to represent the district."  That is, when I vote, I ask myself, who is best to represent the district and while I consider positives and negatives, I also consider what's relevant.  Unless Walberg himself did this which we know not to be the case since all candidates at this level hire designers (and even then it'd be trivial), its so trivial in the policy context that I can't see it mattering. Obviously, many people will disagree on the criteria or who is best for the district, so let's not get into that.

But I do believe you should pursue the "professionals" responsible, as a matter of principle and to discourage this type of thing in the future, if they refuse to apologize or pay fair-market value.

As to other "guilt by association" which you say seems to be going around this season, I agree.  People on both sides of the aisle have done and said some dumb things - it happens every election cycle, although it seems to have gotten worse in modern times (with no one president or candidate "starting it" - just progressively worse).  It's our job to call each other and people on our own sides out on it though.

---

by: chetlyzarko @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 05:39:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No one should have to ask for an apology (4.00 / 4)

An apology should be offered, not requested.  This was clearly theft of intellectual property by the Michigan Republican Party.  And, by the Michigan Republican Party, I mean the party as an entity.  Someone downloaded wizardkitten's photo, which was wrong.  Someone else created an ad with that photo, which compounded matters since apparently the MRP isn't too particular about how it obtains its materials.

Since the ad has the name of the Michigan Republican Party on it (and since the MRP paid for it, and paid for broadcast time), the party itself owes her an apology and ought to offer to pay restitution to wizardkitten since they are now no doubt aware that they (bleep)ed up.

Also, Brad Flory probably ought to find a better source of legal advice that "the Web guy."

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 07:39:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

As I said (0.00 / 0)

As I said, the party itself owes her an apology, but not "Republicans".  But expecting apologies to appear out of nowhere if you don't tell a person they've done something wrong or that you're expecting apologies is wishful thinking.

And yes, clearly Brad Flory got bad advice.  This sounds like the stupid decision of one person - not a master conspiracy to deprive WK of her property rights.  Lack of thought or stupidity doesn't exonerate anyone here of their obligations or it being stupid, but it does mean it isn't a huge story.  It's a mistake.

And if there is no apology, it's still not a story that voters should care about. It's not a policy issue, among other reasons. If Mark Brewer's bad behavior reflected on every Democrat - Republicans would be in good shape right now.  But the political cycle is where it is and even blind squirrels survive in a mountain of nuts (which, I dare say, Republican leaders have been creating for themselves), so Mark Brewer won't pay any prices for his behavior.

---

by: chetlyzarko @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 15:01:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Theft of intellectual property (4.00 / 1)

Theft of intellectual property, especially when it comes to people who eke out a living are victimized by it, I think is always a big story.  Wizardkitten's ability to earn a living off her work suffers when someone misappropriates it for their own use, and the best way to prevent it from happening again is to raise as big a stink as humanly possible.

I also disagree that this is a story that voters shouldn't care about.  The GOP over the years has painted itself as the party of individual rights and private property.  It should be the party best attuned to protecting intellectual property rights, if it was really serious (if the GOP's line of attack were correct that the Democrats were all about socialism, then the Democrats should happily appropriate people's intellectual property on the grounds that it serves the common good ... I see the Democrats actually work out terms of use with Wizardkitten and give her money.

The GOP has people who read these blogs (just as the Democrats have people who read conservative blogs).  They know they (bleep)ed up.  You go to a grocery store and someone runs over your foot with a cart.  You aren't commonly expected to actually ask them for the apology, especially since both parties know what happened.  You expect them to offer one, and if one isn't forthcoming, you're entitled to call them a dirty name under your breath and walk away.  I expect one, and if they don't offer one up, I call them a dirty name under my breath and walk away.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:00:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And (0.00 / 0)

You are commonly expected to think that if a Republican ran over your foot at the grocery store, it would be an issue for voters on the other side of the state to take into account against all Republicans.  I suppose if the Republican who did it was the candidate, it would be for that race - but even that isn't the case here, to my knowledge.

Yes, there is an irony here on property rights, but its stretched at best given that humans make mistaken errors and trespasses all the time, but I'm sure (I hope) when calmer heads prevail in a few days the issue will be resolved.

Still, Saul, you should compensate this person if you're reading this, and apologize on behalf the staffer whose judgment was poor.

That's all I'm saying on this. Even when I side with you guys, you don't accept it for what it is.  Very frustrating.

---

by: chetlyzarko @ Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 06:18:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

errata (0.00 / 0)

That should be "not commonly" - missing a not above.

---

by: chetlyzarko @ Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 06:19:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Nice Chet (0.00 / 0)

"Even when I side with 'you guys' you don't accept it for what it is"

So, you chastise people for making a blanket statement, and then you turn around and make a blanket statement.

Very frustrating.

Thanks for playin'. Have a nice day.

---

by: wizardkitten @ Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 06:39:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Come on, WK (0.00 / 0)

I was referring specifically to the two or three people in the thread who were disagreeing with me when I referred to "You guys" (Eric being the last, hence my use of the masculine, but I probably shouldn't have used the informal phrase that way because women were also on the thread - just habit), I was not referring to any collective of liberals or the left.

I apologize for any confusion.

---

by: chetlyzarko @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 04:01:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not me (4.00 / 2)

I'm not asking for the apology for me but rather for Wizardkitten; however, this is about more than an apology, its about the MRP stepping up to the plate and condemning these actions. (And I don't believe they're not aware of this issue. If Saul didn't read about this incident, surely someone at Right Michigan or another blog made him aware of it. Saul doesn't miss a trick.)

And I don't think this is trivial. Major recording artists have had their music used without permission by candidates over the past few months and there have been instances of pictures being used without permission in other states. This is a slippery slope. A picture here, a song there, and pretty soon everyone is stealing from everyone. Someone at the top needs to call this what it is - stealing - and offer to compensate the people affected.  

---

by: Kathy @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 07:52:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Music (4.00 / 2)

A bit different. Songwriters license their material to groups that manage the royalties for them, and those groups turn around and sell the license. The songwriter has no control over who can buy them. Heart, for example, is donating the royalties from the song "Barracuda" to the Obama campaign - but they couldn't legally stop McCain from using it. (I believe that is how it went)

The are photography organizations as well - Corbis, Getty - etc, where photogs can also license their stuff for use. Not sure about the control on those, but my guess is the same thing applies.

Copyright and intellectual property are big business, with big, long, legal ramifications behind it, especially given the ease of transmission now on the internet.

---

by: wizardkitten @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 08:29:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oops (4.00 / 2)

I didn't know that. Thanks for setting me straight. I still stand by my assertion that stealing your pictures isn't trivial though.  

---

by: Kathy @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 08:40:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No, it's not (4.00 / 2)

When you step back and consider the big picture. If everyone stole, no one would work. Except the lawyers and the prisons, I guess.

Or something like that.

Thought Republicans hated the lawyers. Why are they trying to create more business for them? (ha ha)

---

by: wizardkitten @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 08:48:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not trivial (0.00 / 0)

I agree it is not "trivial," particularly to the owner.  My point is that it is not a policy issue voters should care about - it can be important, but no relevant in some contexts.

---

by: chetlyzarko @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 15:02:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry, confused the two (0.00 / 0)

I don't follow you often enough - I confused the two of you.

Regardless, I agree it is a very important issue as a business issue, and MRP should be made to pay for it as a business matter. Ergo, I support you on that front.

I don't support expanding the issue beyond that or as some have painting it as reflecting on other Republicans (calling Republicans hypocritical for supporting property rights, etc. --- I think most Republicans would probably agree your entitled to fair compensation here, although getting them to agree with that publicly in the context of a battle may be hard)

---

by: chetlyzarko @ Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 15:08:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]