login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > DKNY uses 300 photos in displays w/o permission Search   Reply
first12
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,065
Glens Falls, New York, US


When a major national cooperation steals a song for an advertisement, the settlement is usually MUCH more than $100,000.  Obviously 'putting something in the window' is not the same level as 'basing an advertisement campaign around,' but without negotiating a lump-sum deal, this is technically 300 cases of copyright infringement.

If this is true, DKNY would be stupid not to shell out the $100,000 and move on.
Feb 25 13 05:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JimBobLc
Posts: 196
Martinsburg, West Virginia, US


Jeeze all said and done, the artist should have taken the $15,000. They are using all 300 as a single piece, in some ways, the artistic idea of the final display came from the customer as maybe the photog wasn't displaying all 300 together in that way. Some people would want to advertise/have their art used in such a way. They are getting even bigger bang now by having some scandal and in the end they donate to YMCA and get even more press. Not like they killed a puppy or fed someone horse meat or something. Everyone will have a feel good, tear jerking closure to the scandal when the donation is made to YMCA.
Feb 25 13 05:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 23,354
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US


KirstyWiseman wrote:
it looks like its been resolved:

Response from DKNY
Since its founding in 1989, DKNY has been inspired by and incorporated authentic New York into its imagery. For our Spring 2013 store window visuals we decided to celebrate the city that is in our name by showcasing "Only in NYC" images. We have immense respect for Brandon Stanton aka Humans of New York and approached him to work with us on this visual program. He declined to participate in the project.

For the Spring 2013 windows program, we licensed and paid for photos from established photography service providers. However, it appears that inadvertently the store in Bangkok used an internal mock up containing some of Mr. Stanton's images that was intended to merely show the direction of the spring visual program. We apologize for this error and are working to ensure that only the approved artwork is used.

DKNY has always supported the arts and we deeply regret this mistake. Accordingly, we are making a charitable donation of $25,000 to the YMCA in Bedford-Stuyvesant Brooklyn in Mr. Stanton's name.

That makes sense.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Feb 25 13 05:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Smedley Whiplash
Posts: 17,146
Billings, Montana, US


How did DKNY acquire the photos if the photographer didn't take the $15,000 ?

He may just be saying that he asked for more, but accepted the $15k for the NY usage (in his mind), but then found out later about the Bangkok usage? It's worded funny.

I mean... I don't issue pics unless I have a PO for an invoice. 

Even then, if there was a contract at all, and it didn't stipulate usage rights for DKNY, they could have freely used them for multiple locations.
Feb 25 13 05:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
kane
Posts: 1,487
Tarnos, Aquitaine, France


Matt Knowles wrote:
All I know is I want a lifestyle where someone could offer me $15k for photos already on my hard drive, and I'd tell them to go fuck themselves.

Ha! This.

Feb 25 13 05:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Right Poes
Posts: 801
Colorado Springs, Colorado, US


The last time someone offered me 15,000. I .....



sniff.
Feb 25 13 05:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Smedley Whiplash
Posts: 17,146
Billings, Montana, US


KirstyWiseman wrote:
it looks like its been resolved:

Response from DKNY
Since its founding in 1989, DKNY has been inspired by and incorporated authentic New York into its imagery. For our Spring 2013 store window visuals we decided to celebrate the city that is in our name by showcasing "Only in NYC" images. We have immense respect for Brandon Stanton aka Humans of New York and approached him to work with us on this visual program. He declined to participate in the project.

For the Spring 2013 windows program, we licensed and paid for photos from established photography service providers. However, it appears that inadvertently the store in Bangkok used an internal mock up containing some of Mr. Stanton's images that was intended to merely show the direction of the spring visual program. We apologize for this error and are working to ensure that only the approved artwork is used.

DKNY has always supported the arts and we deeply regret this mistake. Accordingly, we are making a charitable donation of $25,000 to the YMCA in Bedford-Stuyvesant Brooklyn in Mr. Stanton's name.
Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
That makes sense.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

I dunno... It sounds like something the legal dept concocted to explain it. How did Bangkok NOT get the memo?

and where did DKNY get his photos to do the mockup?  A copy is a copy. It doesn't matter if it was in-house or on a campaign... the point of copyright is: DO NOT COPY

$25K is probably a number they pulled out of their asses to soothe him, because the 300x$150,000 possible copyright  liability looked much worse to them.

Feb 25 13 05:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Smedley Whiplash
Posts: 17,146
Billings, Montana, US


Matt Knowles wrote:
All I know is I want a lifestyle where someone could offer me $15k for photos already on my hard drive, and I'd tell them to go fuck themselves.
kane wrote:
Ha! This.

I made $500 the other day for doing just that.  I've sold the same set 3-4 times now, each time for a different price.  I'm not even sure what my price is... I just usually ask them "what have you been paying for similar content this year?"  If it sounds good that day, I agree to it.

Feb 25 13 05:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Spaces Between
Posts: 650
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


caught red handed ha ha

although one part of the story bugs me is that the photographer wanted more money on the simple basis that the company has more money.  Not sure if that's how you should always price your work, to jack up your prices if you think the person can be squeezed for more.
Feb 25 13 06:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Josh Yu Photography
Posts: 206
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


The Spaces Between wrote:
caught red handed ha ha

although one part of the story bugs me is that the photographer wanted more money on the simple basis that the company has more money.  Not sure if that's how you should always price your work, to jack up your prices if you think the person can be squeezed for more.

It makes sense because a company with such large revenue will get more out of the images. They will be able to use it more thoroughly in their marketing and have wider reach than a smaller business.

Whilst the creator of the work may use the same effort to create material whether used in one store or 100 stores, it's not wrong for them to be compensated based more on how much benefit the client gains from the material.

Of course, this guy doesn't put it that way, but the act itself makes sense.

Feb 25 13 07:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Little Ginger Lamb
Posts: 62
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Humans of New York posts photos every day at humansofnewyork.tumblr.com and the Humans of New York Facebook page. They're not watermarked at all on the Tumblr, which is probably how DKNY managed to procure the images for their store.

I love Brandon Stanton's work, but I'm surprised this is the first time possible copyright infringement happened to him.
Feb 25 13 07:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Know Idea
Posts: 2,893
San Diego, California, US


I wonder about the model release issue?
Feb 25 13 07:53 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,438
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Smedley Whiplash wrote:
I dunno... It sounds like something the legal dept concocted to explain it. How did Bangkok NOT get the memo? [some text removed here] $25K is probably a number they pulled out of their asses to soothe him, because the 300x$150,000 possible copyright  liability looked much worse to them.

I'm not even sure that the artist's claim is actionable in the United States. The infringement, if that's what it actually is, took place in Bangkok not in New York, not even in the United States.

As to releases, NY law only covers the release requirements for images that are used in NY state. What releases would be required in Bangkok? Any at all?

There is also a question I would love to know the answer to as to if the store in Bangkok is parent company owned and operated or franchised or neither.

Questions, questions, questions......... Everything may be as it is but that may not be what you all think it is.

I just don't see 300X$150,000 liability here. Or if there is any particular US liability at all.

Studio36

Feb 26 13 04:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
A-M-P
Posts: 17,336
Orlando, Florida, US


Smedley Whiplash wrote:
How did DKNY acquire the photos if the photographer didn't take the $15,000 ?

He may just be saying that he asked for more, but accepted the $15k for the NY usage (in his mind), but then found out later about the Bangkok usage? It's worded funny.

I mean... I don't issue pics unless I have a PO for an invoice. 

Even then, if there was a contract at all, and it didn't stipulate usage rights for DKNY, they could have freely used them for multiple locations.

DKNY admited to using the photos without permission and that he did indeed decline to work with them.

Feb 26 13 05:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Barry Kidd Photography
Posts: 2,363
Red Lion, Pennsylvania, US


Josh Yu Photography wrote:
It makes sense because a company with such large revenue will get more out of the images. They will be able to use it more thoroughly in their marketing and have wider reach than a smaller business.

Whilst the creator of the work may use the same effort to create material whether used in one store or 100 stores, it's not wrong for them to be compensated based more on how much benefit the client gains from the material.

Of course, this guy doesn't put it that way, but the act itself makes sense.

A licence rate isn't quoted by how much money the company has but rather how the print will be used, how many runs and even location.  For example how many in North America, How Many in Western Europe etc.

Then there is size of print, and all of that.

Is it editorial, advertising or perhaps brochure and small business etc.

Unfortunately I don't have allot of experience with advertising and only twice in all of my years have my photos been used of that purpose.  Most of my photos are used for editorial when in fact they are and editorial fees doesn't pay squat beside advertising fees.

Then there is the myth behind the legend.  Billboards are great for the ego but even though they are advertising they will tend to not pay as well as other types of advertising.  This is because billboards are often going to be a last line of targeting when there is money left over in an initial budget.  The company doesn't need it but decides that they want it.

OK, so  a store front isn't exactly a billboard and it wasn't a last line of attack but a primary campaign.  I realize this before every one points it out.  It's just something I'm tossing out there.  Licensing fees change and they do change on usage.  Not how much cash the company has.  Theoretically Mom & Pop's Pizza shop will pay the same for the same usage of a photo as DKNY.  It's just that DKNY will typicality have more cash for larger campaigns is all.

Now, a quick search tells me that there are 70 DKNY stores world wide.  For all I know there may be 700 and I really don't care but I will assume there are 70 for the purposes of this argument.  Their initial offer would come to about $214 per store front.  This isn't isn't necessarily a low ball offer depending on things we don't know.  Was it a seasonal front? Was it a run for 6 months, a year or forever like the images inside a Subway sandwich shop?

$214 per shore front of a 6 month run on 70 stores isn't bad.  It may not be the most extravagant license ever granted but not bad.

Disclaimer. (Once again keep in mind that my real experience is in editorial not advertising.  I'm just giving my view point.)

The issue of willful infringement on the other hand is a different story altogether and if at turned out to be that all bets would have been off.

Feb 26 13 05:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Barry Kidd Photography
Posts: 2,363
Red Lion, Pennsylvania, US


DP
Feb 26 13 05:28 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Signature Image
Posts: 12,055
Gorham, Maine, US


Michael Pandolfo wrote:
If that's accurate I hope they're held to the fire for more than a $100,000 donation. That's about a willful infringement as you could have after initially offering him payment.

On another note, I absolutely hate this mindset, "A friend in the industry told me that $50 per photo was not nearly enough to receive from a company with hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. So I asked for more money."

Now, if he had said $50 per image isn't enough for unlimited usage and worldwide distribution I would have no problem. But the idea that you should charge more "because they can afford it" really bothers me. That's just him listening to a friend who is telling him to milk the company.

Also, you wouldn't price this on a per image basis, it would be a blanket license for 300 images. So, saying $50/image isn't enough doesn't sound like it's from someone who really is in the industry.

The photographer was within his rights to ask for more money, but when the company said no perhaps he should have taken the $15,000.00? All said and done, how much does he have now?

Perhaps he should ask his "friend" for some money since his friend advised him not to accept the offer?

Feb 26 13 05:34 am  Link  Quote 
Makeup Artist
Cynna Stylz MUA
Posts: 216
New York, New York, US


Smedley Whiplash wrote:
How did DKNY acquire the photos if the photographer didn't take the $15,000 ?

He may just be saying that he asked for more, but accepted the $15k for the NY usage (in his mind), but then found out later about the Bangkok usage? It's worded funny.

I mean... I don't issue pics unless I have a PO for an invoice. 

Even then, if there was a contract at all, and it didn't stipulate usage rights for DKNY, they could have freely used them for multiple locations.

We know that DKNY agreed to the "mistake". even if the  guy got paid there was something that he didn't agree to. Was this set up in NYC? DC? LA? It was in Bangkok and someone (non forward thinker/non-social media user) in DKNY just thought let me use 300 pics from this 1 photographer " they will never know" ( evil laughter in my head now)

If FB and Instagram were big back in my day of HS... my sisters would have caught me every time with one (or more pieces) of their clothes or shoes even after they said " OH HELL NO"  and my pics would be all over FB and Instagram looking all sexy in their property.

Feb 26 13 06:03 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Barry Kidd Photography
Posts: 2,363
Red Lion, Pennsylvania, US


Damn I hate this system sometimes.
Feb 26 13 09:23 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Neil Snape
Posts: 9,424
Paris, Île-de-France, France


i saw this posted on FB. Looks one sided to me. How did DK get the images, what is missing here?

In advertising you have the choice of accepting or denying the rates for usage. He denied, yet the thing about someone else says it was way to low kills me.

I think he is very happy with the press, and the fact that DK did give a large donation.

Now some of you may know how I feel after seeing my image substantially used in The devil wears Prada and not being able to do a thing about it for various reasons stated here.

I've shot window displays before, and I would have been happy with 15000$, but that is me.
Feb 26 13 09:45 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 20,615
New York, New York, US


Neil Snape wrote:
i saw this posted on FB. Looks one sided to me. How did DK get the images, what is missing here?

In advertising you have the choice of accepting or denying the rates for usage. He denied, yet the thing about someone else says it was way to low kills me.

I think he is very happy with the press, and the fact that DK did give a large donation.

Now some of you may know how I feel after seeing my image substantially used in The devil wears Prada and not being able to do a thing about it for various reasons stated here.

I've shot window displays before, and I would have been happy with 15000$, but that is me.

I would love to read about your experience, can you post a link?

Feb 26 13 09:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Supermodel Photographer
Posts: 3,309
Oyster Bay, New York, US


Neil Snape wrote:
Now some of you may know how I feel after seeing my image substantially used in The devil wears Prada and not being able to do a thing about

That could drive a photographer to drink (Hennessy?).

Feb 26 13 10:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4,142
New York, New York, US


Smedley Whiplash wrote:

KirstyWiseman wrote:
it looks like its been resolved:

Response from DKNY
Since its founding in 1989, DKNY has been inspired by and incorporated authentic New York into its imagery. For our Spring 2013 store window visuals we decided to celebrate the city that is in our name by showcasing "Only in NYC" images. We have immense respect for Brandon Stanton aka Humans of New York and approached him to work with us on this visual program. He declined to participate in the project.

For the Spring 2013 windows program, we licensed and paid for photos from established photography service providers. However, it appears that inadvertently the store in Bangkok used an internal mock up containing some of Mr. Stanton's images that was intended to merely show the direction of the spring visual program. We apologize for this error and are working to ensure that only the approved artwork is used.

DKNY has always supported the arts and we deeply regret this mistake. Accordingly, we are making a charitable donation of $25,000 to the YMCA in Bedford-Stuyvesant Brooklyn in Mr. Stanton's name.

I dunno... It sounds like something the legal dept concocted to explain it. How did Bangkok NOT get the memo?

and where did DKNY get his photos to do the mockup?  A copy is a copy. It doesn't matter if it was in-house or on a campaign... the point of copyright is: DO NOT COPY

$25K is probably a number they pulled out of their asses to soothe him, because the 300x$150,000 possible copyright  liability looked much worse to them.

How did Bangkok get a mockup in the first place?

Feb 26 13 10:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4,142
New York, New York, US


Know Idea wrote:
I wonder about the model release issue?

You can make, display and sell prints without a model release. For instance selling through a gallery.

An in-store art display is not an advertisement. In addition candid photos of people do not imply any endorsement of DKNY. It's unlikely that they need a model release.

Feb 26 13 10:34 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Renato Alberto
Posts: 715
San Francisco, California, US


Not sure if it has been mentioned, but there is an article with an apology from DKNY.
http://consumerist.com/2013/02/25/dkny- … e-display/
Feb 26 13 10:42 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jhono Bashian
Posts: 2,427
Cleveland, Ohio, US


Time to call a lawyer or if the photographer is a member of an advocacy group like ASMP, PPA, PPoA, etc. Please contact your chapters liaison and make DKNY accountable for this misuse of the images.
Now DKNY thinks an apology will make everything OK?  Here's a perfect example of another case of Corporate America doing whatever they want to regardless of the laws of © protection. I hope a NYC law firm takes this case and "makes them pay"
Feb 26 13 10:46 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 15,242
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand


studio36uk wrote:
a DKNY store in Bangkok

ROTFLMAO   Good luck with that!

Studio36

DKNY settled. It made the Bangkok Post for 2 days. His Facebook campaign was VERY effective here (Bangkok has the highest % use of any city on the globe supposedly).

$25,000 donation to the Y.

Feb 26 13 10:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 15,242
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand


studio36uk wrote:
I'm not even sure that the artist's claim is actionable in the United States. The infringement, if that's what it actually is, took place in Bangkok not in New York, not even in the United States.

Certainly actionable within Bangkok. How much he would have got? Different question.

As to releases, NY law only covers the release requirements for images that are used in NY state. What releases would be required in Bangkok? Any at all?

Only if the image might be considered to show the subject in a bad or detrimental manner (which under Thai law can mean something much different than it would in the USA).

There is also a question I would love to know the answer to as to if the store in Bangkok is parent company owned and operated or franchised or neither.

It is my understanding that the BKK outlet in question is owned and operated by DKNY. It is not a franchise.

Feb 26 13 10:42 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,438
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Al Lock Photography wrote:
- - -

Thanks for that.

Studio36

Feb 27 13 01:56 am  Link  Quote 
first12   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers