Must read

What's hot

Time for a change?
iphone-5-vs-galaxy-s4
28

And they wonder why I call them repeaters

by Whaleoil on June 2, 2012

ᔥ Stuff.co.nz

Stuff has stolen my photo and written a story based on my post (Don’t Come Monday) of yesterday about a staff member ”cocking up” a Dio school magazine. Despite the licensing on my blog being Creative Commons – Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike they have not provided a single link, or even a mention as to where they go the story and photo from. You can tell it is my photo because I blurred the faces. Given that Stuff actually named the gorl concerned when I did not shows they had no need to blur the photo. It is doubtful they could obtain the photo from anywhere else.

As readers can see I have attributed this post. You would think a responsible media organisation could do the same.

I think I will bill them. For want of a link they could have avoided that. Does anyone have an idea of going rate for use of photos?

A disgruntled employee sabotaged a commemorative booklet for his boss’ teenage daughter, drawing a lewd image on her photo that was then printed and distributed to her school friends.

Emily O’Halloran, 18, is captain of the rowing team at wealthy private Diocesan School for Girls.

With the rowing season just finished, she planned a 40 page booklet for her team-mates to celebrate her final year at the Auckland school.

The school’s ”purpose statement” is to: Be more than you ever imagined!

She unfortunately got much more than she imagined.

Emily’s father Martin O’Halloran, chairman of influential advertising group agency DDB, volunteered to organise design and printing through his business.

But a staff member involved had a dispute with O’Halloran midway through the project and drew a large, comical male genitalia on a photo of Emily posing with team-mates.

The drawing went unnoticed and the booklet was printed.

”It was a silly and stupid prank by someone who is no longer with DDB,” O’Halloran said.

Tagged: • • • • •

Related posts

  • Rodger T

     Does anyone have an idea of going rate for use of photos?

    Channel the IRD Whale, pull a figure out of ur arse, quadruple it ,impose a 150% fine and you will be in the money.

  • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Inventory2

    Intellectual property costs; I’d suggest $2500.00 plus GST if you are registered.

    • Elaycee

      Yup – $2500+ sounds about right. Go for it.

  • nathan

    Three strike them, close the servers down!

  • Blokeintakapuna

    Nah – make it the maximum amount the small claims court will allow in civil cases – and include a clause about every day your invoice goes unpaid in full you get to charge another 100% or so for interest… but perhaps get some legal advice and then you can run another post about getting a cheque from the NZ Horrid – kinda like the American blogger that charged the mom and pop’s local rag paper for his story… be most amusing to see it all unfold.

    Go get ‘em Cam! Hope it all goes well!

  • ConwayCaptain

    If this is a topotch company surely they would have proof read and checked the booklets when they came back from the printers.

    If not then they are sloppy

  • Lesterpk

    A friend sold a picture to be used on the cover of a novel, going rate IIRC was around $300.

    • Adolf Fiinkensein

       Musta been Mills and Boon.

  • A-random-reader

    You cannot invoice stuff.co.nz because you don’t own the copyright to the original image.

    The copyright to the image belongs to either the original photographer or the publisher (depending on the circumstances of the commission).

    Simply making a reproduction of an existing photograph doesn’t create a new copyrightable work. The case law is very clear on this.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      Except I did create the image concerned, when I edited it to remove the id of the young women in the photo in order to protect them. 

      Since i was the only person who published it with permission from my source, then it is mine.

      Therefore I own it, and I am also the publisher

      • Another random reader

        You don’t have ownership of a photo from a magazine that was printed. Nice try but nope, it ain’t yours because the person who took the photo of the magazine didn’t have ownership of the magazine..

        As  A-random-reader has said, you do not own copyright to the original image – it’s in the printed magazine.

      • Richard McGrath

        I have e-mailed Stuff, pointing out the theft (by non-attribution) of Cam’s image, and I suggest all readers do the same.

      • Cadwallader

        Stuff seem to have done exactly what that little prick who publishes “Frank” did with scripts.

  • Bunswalla

    I see that Stuff’s sub-editors and churnalists don’t understand the proper use of apostrophes for possessives either. It’s not a “photo of boss’ daughter” since “boss” is singula,r not plural. The correct use is “photo of boss’s daughter” – they also get it wrong in the first sentence.

    Seems they don’t understand the difference between “session” and “season” either.

  • RockyFist

    Time to get that big old Whale Harpoon out and go Fishing. Go Stuff Em and get them good. $2500 + GST sounds good.

  • Johnboy

    I stopped buying the Dompost rag a while ago and I only read Stuff cause it’s free.

    The times they are a changing and to be honest who really gives a fuck.

  • Jod

    I think the story is funny as hell, I laughed my ass off when I read it, fantastic, I wish there was an OMG face from Emily when she saw it because that would have been the icing on the cake. Yeah also, who cares about the photo, you didnt take the original, I cant just go and take a photo of a woolf photography shot, blur something and say its an original work that I copyright..

  • Vlad

    Whether WO can legitimately claim copyright or not, this is not the first example of cut-and-paste theft by the MSM from an energetic and hard-working blogger who deserves at the very least attribution from well-funded newspapers for their use of his underpaid efforts.  They should be ashamed. 

  • Sideshow Bob

    It’s a sad story (the idiot who did the drawing needs to be seriously beaten up) and I’m glad it’s not my daughter who has to bear the brunt of it however Stuff has stolen your story WO and should front with maybe $25,000 not $2,500 because they didn’t have to do any work to get the story. Great story at no cost –  $25,000.

  • Johnny58

    Will people who think WO has copyright over the image just stop posting. Stupidity spreads like a disease.

    • Mediaan

      Stupidity, as in “people who disagree with me”? 

      Where did you get that attitude, you social training oddity?   Not at a school I was helping pay for, I trust.

      He worked on the image, for proper journalistic reasons.  Work.  The image was changed. 

      Work, creative work, is copyright. 

      Read the Copyright Act 1994.

    • Gazzaw

      Appears that you have caught it Johnny.

  • Symgardiner

    Whether WO has the copyright over this photo and story is neither here nor there. 
    The issue is the bit at the bottom where “Fairfax NZ News” claims copyright over the story. If that is the precedent they wish to set, then so be it. I hope however they have thought through the consequences. Because they are explicitly saying it is ok to copy someones work, pass it off as you own and claim copyright on it. Which of course leaves any claim of copyright completely pointless. Which actually isn’t actually a bad thing.

  • Mediaan

    They’ll be getting their staff to ring up their aunties soon for stories.  “Asking them to pop down to the latest local sports event, write down who won, and post the photo. 

  • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10810335 Least the Pravada attributed Cam this morning…

  • Mediaan

    Um, knowing how family perks and friend specials are put through, at advertising agencies, on some unsuspecting client’s production costs bill, may I say I hope Doyle Dane Bernbach, or whatever DDB stands for, is way above that common practice.

  • Carver Media Network

    The repeater who filed that story must have to same place Bevan Hurley learnt to write, I mean repeat.
    Whale you should do honorary doctrines in repeating – frame up and give them out

  • Dave

    I think such an edited picture, with permission from the person must be worth 10K + GST.  No doubt its copyright.    Given you add a source for your material – i.e.  stuff.co.nz……   there is an established precedent.     

    I would ask a Prickly Lawyer friend of yours to draft a letter, and send it to the main shareholder of their parent company.    Might get their attention, or at least occupy their legal counsel for an hour or three.   

    And, the best bit, have the added advantage of showing them what their repeaters get up to!!

%d bloggers like this: