Photographers' Gallery finds itself at centre of copyright row [update 2]
This image was provided by the The Photographers' Gallery in August 2010. BJP understands that it has now been removed by the gallery and its architects.
The Association of Photographers has called on The Photographers' Gallery to pay up for the "unauthorised use" of a photograph for the promotion of its new building
Author: Olivier Laurent
09 Mar 2011
In an open letter to Brett Rogers, director of the Photographers' Gallery, the Association of Photographers has expressed its "very great concern" over the"unauthorised use of a photograph made by John Goldsmith titled ‘Porcelain' which resides on his Flickr Photostream and which has been used as part of a computer-generated impression to promote and publicise the new Photographers' Gallery building."
The unauthorised use was first noticed when one of Goldsmith's friend saw, in the Photographers' Gallery's window, a CGI rendering of the Gallery's upcoming new space. BJP understands that the rendering has been produced by the Gallery's architectural firm of O'Donnell + Tuomey.
While Goldsmith contacted both the Gallery and its architects, both had refused to resolve the situation, forcing the photographer to publish, on his blog, a full account of the affair. BJP was also investigating the image theft after it was contacted by Goldsmith.
The Association of Photographers says that "as a trade body representing professional photographers, working to promote best practice and securing and protecting the rights of photographers everywhere, we are sure that you would not condone such a breach of a creator's rights and would join with us in condemning what amounts to theft of someone else's intellectual property."
The Association adds: "We trust that as an organisation dedicated to promoting the best in photography, you are equally committed to respecting and honouring the rights of others, and will ensure that the photographer is paid the commercial rate for the use of his image as a matter of urgency."
The Photographers' Gallery has now issued a statement to BJP in which it expresses its own concern over the matter. "The Photographers' Gallery is extremely concerned by the unauthorised use of John Goldsmith's photograph. It was used by our architects O'Donnell + Tuomey in the CGIs of our new building. The CGIs were created for planning permission purposes and associated uses by the Gallery."
It adds: "Last October we learned from O'Donnell & Tuomey that Mr Goldsmith owned the copyright in this image. We removed it from our website immediately and stopped further distribution. At the same time O'Donnell & Tuomey removed it from all the websites and files under their control. The Gallery apologized to Mr Goldsmith on 18 January; he has not contacted the Gallery since then, but the Gallery remains willing to talk to him."
Goldsmith welcomes Rogers' sympathy, but tells BJP that it's not enough. "I can only say that actions speak louder than words. She and the Chair of its Board of Trustees, Mr. Brian Pomeroy, have been well aware of my complaints since I forwarded a letter to them on 12 January 2011," he says. "For a full week, I heard nothing. It was only after I called the Photographers' Gallery that I was able to speak with Director Rogers. She assured me that O'Donnell + Tuomey would contact me with a resolution but it was clear in her response that it was the architects' responsibility - and not The Photographers' Gallery. That was on 18 January 2011."
"The next day I received a letter from Mr. John Tuomey that amounts to a denial of liability. In addition, the architects O'Donnell + Tuomey were under strict orders from my lawyer NOT to damage or destroy any evidence from this case. In that letter, Mr. Tuomey does, in fact, admit that they deleted all files just as is mentioned in The Photographers' Gallery's reaction."
He adds: "While The Architects and The Photographers' Gallery did stop using the likeness of this woman, from what I can tell, the damage had been done. They used my photograph without permission in their marketing materials. Furthermore, due to the nature of the Internet, unauthorized copies continue to thrive on the Internet. Also, and more importantly, each organization had already directly benefited for from my work and, seemingly, the work of many other photographers, all at the expense of those who are pictured."
Goldsmith tells BJP that he has "great respect for those who are devoted to the cause of photography. Yet, because of their positions, institutions like The Photographers' Gallery have an even greater responsibility, and even more so, because they are public. They get public monies and their actions have greater influence on photographers' rights. Thus, the Gallery should have been the first and loudest organisation to condemn the actions of O'Donnell + Tuomey. I welcome communication from both The Photographers' Gallery and O'Donnell + Tuomey. Nothing would make me happier than to put a period at the end to this story."
O'Donnell + Tuomey has yet to return BJP's requests for comment.
Comments
you appear to have lifted the image straight from the gallery's website. do you have a license for such use?
i think you'll find the photo (though maybe not the lack of a model release) probably falls under fair use. (and the only way of finding out for sure is for the photographer to go to court)
...the charity has removed the image from their website and apologized. pursuant to s.96 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) they cannot be sued for any damages for unintentional copyright infringement.
the photographer would have to go after the architects (and more likely the makers of the CAD design software) for any remuneration.
i'm a photographer and i dunno why others make such a big deal of these things. it's a tiny, semi-transparent non-commercial image ffs. get over yourself mate.
@Ianw. What is your website please?
I want to use some of your images for various projects. Thanks.
I would be flattered if you would like to use my photos for small non-commercial use. In fact because I put my stuff online I would be very surprised if others' didn't anyway and foolish if I actually cared.
But that wouldn't make a good hysterical help-help-my-rights-are-being-oppressed story now would it? ;)
Your answer gives you away. This is not a "small, non-commercial project," it's a multi-million-£ project by a leading firm, and the client is an entity that should be at the forefront of ethics in this field, not lagging at the end.
My apologies anonymous, but not all of us have careers as thespians to fall back on :)
mbs, I thought it was an informational sign in the window of a small charity (that does not even charge entrance last time I visited) of which 1% contained copyrighted material.
I will of course stand corrected if they actually build a multi-million pound replica of the women and generate millions of pounds in turnover as a result.
Regardless, my original point still stands re. s97 of the relevant legislation...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/97
OMG! ianw...are you dumb or what?
You don't understand the issue and you certainly don't understand that which you quote.
You are basically just plain dumb!
I believe the image in question is still on the architects' website, albeit small. At least, it was when I looked yesterday...
I believe the image in question is still on the architects' website, albeit small. At least, it was when I looked yesterday...
@ianw,
You're still missing the point. The architects are certainly not non-commercial, and they supplied the image utilising the lifted original from Flickr. The question really is why would the architects feel it's OK to lift work - clearly marked as 'all rights reserved' - for use in a CGI they intend for public display. Could it be they're just too tightfisted to pay a sub for a royalty free library? I doubt they'd be so disinterested if someone lifted one of their designs.
I'm sure everyone would "get over" themselves far more easily if this were a occasional and easily explicable accident, rather than a routine and widespread daily business practice that costs most of us income derived from the intellectual property on which our businesses depend.
This 'normalised' casual disregard for copyright holders is evidenced by the initial non-response from the architects and gallery, and the belated, tepid response from its director. Only when it became public via the BJP did they start to show any real interest - CYA anyone?
The scale on which this is done should concern us all, yet your own dismissal goes a long way to show why it is becoming acceptable - if we don't care, who will?
the photographer says on his blog post - down at the bottom - "... to the subject of my photo. If I may: who are you? In my haste to catch up to my friend, I rushed away after taking your picture. While I would have liked to thank you for your time, as momentary as it was, it’s only upon returning home that I could even adequately consider the photo’s merit." - RIIIIIIGHT... so a "professional photographer" published a photo for commercial purposes without a model release, and now... gosh. look.
Of course photographers' rights should be upheld, but if you live in a glass house, you might want to consult architects about a possible re-envisioning of your residential property before deciding to throw stones.
"so a "professional photographer" published a photo for commercial purposes without a model release"
The image was never published for commercial usage.
I do hope the photographer receives the 50p microstock fee he is rightly entitled too.
After all it would be a crying shame if photographers can't earn the same saintly reputation as the MPAA and RIAA in pursuing all infringements, no matter how ridiculously minor!
Related Articles: John Stezaker, vandal and thief
The BJP doesn't go after the guy in their other article with quite so much vigour I notice.
not wishing to waste my time with many of the pathetic comments above, it seems to me as though the architects are a bunch of crooks and liars. TPG are either completely gutless for not doing anything about this, or have shoddy lawyers for not getting an IP clause in their contract with the architects. absolute disgrace and i hope BJP actually do something constructive about this rather than simply report a story that has been doing the rounds on twitter, flickr and facebook for a while.
Related Articles
BJP Daily
Most Popular Articles
Updating your subscription status 
About us
British Journal of Photography is the world’s longest running photography magazine, established in 1854, and online since 1997. A high-quality monthly printed edition is available as a subscription or from selected newsagents in the UK and around the world.
Jobs
Customer Care & Technical Support
To provide the very highest standard of Customer Care and Technical Support for all UK Hasselblad customers and potential customers as a member of our "Hasselbuddy" team.
Photographer Wanted
Imagethirst Photography is an exciting photography studio in Central London specialising in family portraiture. Our standard of excellence and absolute client confidentiality has established us as London’s leading family photography studios.
Photographer in Dubai
We are seeking a creative and confident photographer at a licentiate level with a minimum of two years studio experience.
Popular Topics
