I'm shocked. This isn't the Chicago food bank, it's the Surrey food bank. They added the incorrect caption although they gave me the photo credit.

http://www.wbez.org/story/new-study-says-1-5-chicagoans-are-food-insecure-92356

Read 618 times

Reply 

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on January 22, 2012 9:56:20 PM CST Worse yet I think it's a media outlet. Sheesh, they are lying! Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on January 22, 2012 10:00:26 PM CST Busted! http://www.linkedin.com/in/michellreloy So what would you guys do? I could live with her linking to my photo on Flickr, but republishing it and out and out lying about the location -- it seems beyond what I should overlook. Especially from a journalist. Please don't post anything on there, I don't want to alert her. Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on January 22, 2012 10:09:28 PM CST lol one of her specialties on her CV is fact checking Reply

From robertwallis/Robert (12,866) on January 22, 2012 11:08:54 PM CST That's got to be an ultimate irony ;-) Reply

From robertwallis/Robert (12,866) on January 23, 2012 9:11:28 PM CST Okay, I had to go there out of curiosity. I didn't leave anything behind, but I did copy this off her vita, and of course I had to go "snort" ;-) Meticulously fact checked feature stories for accuracy. Reply

From del/Administrator (0) on January 22, 2012 10:23:05 PM CST This is sad. Consequences now might let her keep a Pulitzer she might win in the future. Notify the publisher. Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on January 22, 2012 10:24:22 PM CST Yeah this is going to be sucky for her :( Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on January 22, 2012 10:04:17 PM CST This is where they found the photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sheenastudios/sets/72157616199775475/ Reply

From wdeon/Wayne (8,931) on January 23, 2012 4:10:23 AM CST Even if there were a Surrey, Illinois suburb of Chicago there is a clickable link on your flickr page to a map showing Surrey B.C.. So much for the fact checking part of her resume;) Reply

From dogothunder/Tim (6,886) on January 22, 2012 10:51:16 PM CST "Release the hounds...." But seriously, this is something that cannot be overlooked. Take your screen grabs and then confront the company. You should be duly compensated and I would say both for the use of the photo as well as punitive compensation in hopes of discouraging further misbehavior. Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on January 22, 2012 11:05:15 PM CST I'm not looking for money, I just want the media not to use photos that aren't theirs and to not lie. Reply

From dogothunder/Tim (6,886) on January 22, 2012 11:12:01 PM CST Understood, but sometimes money is the only way to deter bad behavior. You could always donate any compensation for the photo to the foodbank that is at the crux of the misuse of your photo. Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on January 22, 2012 11:12:53 PM CST I'm not going there, I just want them to remove it and give that woman a talking to. Reply

From stmv/Sebastian (59,807) on January 23, 2012 7:59:06 AM CST sorry to hear that one of your photos is being misused, but I also if this is a reflections of the current cutting of budgets of newspapers. In the day, they had dedicated photographers, and lots of editors. Hey,, send a staff photographer out to get a food bank photo, now in the day of the internet, its hey, grab a photo off the net in what society considers an open free content. Why would a newspaper want to pay 100 dollars in time/effort to a photographer to get pictures on subjects, when for a few minutes they can grab shots off the web. besides the moral issue, what is the flikr rules of the site? Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,928) on January 23, 2012 8:37:19 AM CST The photo is clearly marked "© All Rights Reserved", and flickr doesn't claim any rights to license or allow other use except as required to run flickr, so the newspaper had no right to use the photo without obtaining proper permission. Further, I'd argue they have an obligation to get the facts straight regardless of rights. They failed at both of those in this case. Reply

From del/Administrator (0) on January 23, 2012 9:08:29 AM CST The person who did this has a college degree in a communications field and varied experience. She should have known about usage rights, copyright, and journalistic integrity. If she did not, shame on University of Illinois. This is not about money; few newspapers pay for editorial photos that are not sensational. It is about having a photographer's property inappropriately taken and used, and that use being deficient in both integrity and accuracy. I am not highly familiar with Flickr rules, but I doubt that they care about this, and their terms of service probably protect them from liability. Usage rights are always between the user and the copyright owner. Reply

From ericnla/Eric (1,496) on January 23, 2012 11:12:45 AM CST Sheena: I'm curious how you found your image had been used without your permission (stolen)? Would you have found it if the radio station had just appropriated the image without giving you photo credit? Is this something Flickr shows in its stats? Also, this is Chicago Public Media, a strong media outlet. Looks like someone there is not managing the interns. Maybe she slept through that day at school; this is basic stuff even an intern should know. Wake her up, and her managers. Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on January 23, 2012 12:00:45 PM CST I probably never would have seen it if they had not had my name in the HTML code. Google is your friend. Reply

From rmullns/Robert (3,078) on January 23, 2012 1:58:26 PM CST Eric, google has a program called 'Google Alerts' ... works well and you can use it for personal and business .. google it ... lol Reply

From ericnla/Eric (1,496) on January 23, 2012 8:31:47 PM CST Robert: Great idea on google alerts. I use it to watch business competitors (not photography). Never thought of it for myself. Doh! Thanks. Reply

From rmullns/Robert (3,078) on January 23, 2012 2:08:29 PM CST Sheena, I know you're not looking for $$ or payback but still, I just gotta say. This kinda crap rreally annoys me : did you not put any effort in getting that image (rhetorical) and this young lady has put zero effort in acquiring it for her use except to either do a screen grab from her desk or cyberphysically steal it from your flickr account! If you had this on film she would have had to break into your studio and take it or by some other nefarious means steal it! Before one professional can site you as the image maker they would need to contact you and ask politely for that permission and usually pay something ... rates are pretty low these days -- even lower than stock in most cases. I'm sure it would take more effort than it's worth to nail her down for an apology or whatever but I hope you've contacted her and given her a piece of your collective mind ... Reply

From leren/Luc (32,427) on January 23, 2012 3:21:39 PM CST In my experience it isn't always the journalist who brings on the image, nor the caption. There are lay-outers, illustrators, more editors, etc... Confusion always close. At least the photographer and the source are right. I thought it a quite interesting shot. Curly line, the tail facing the photographer. Yet, faceless, except for one lady on the left. Almost anonymous. Delicate. Right frame has an echo in the sidewalk. Strong vignetting. Overall a cool street photography shot. Reply

From del/Administrator (0) on January 23, 2012 8:37:28 PM CST You are right about captions, Luc. Over the years this has been the source of much friction between photojournalists and editors. The only way a pj can be sure to get her captions right is to make a photo book. Reply

From raelzinga/Ron (2,686) on January 23, 2012 3:37:32 PM CST You got the right idea, turn her in and get her talked too. Im with you on this one 100%. Its funny though that she lists so much in her bio and cant get even the location right.... Reply

From jklee/James (3,242) on January 23, 2012 4:51:15 PM CST This isn't the Chicago food bank, it's the Surrey food bank""""""""""" Typical journalism, bend the facts to suit the message. Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,928) on January 23, 2012 8:09:01 PM CST I think it's unfair to paint all journalism with that particular brush. Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on January 23, 2012 8:15:54 PM CST I agree. I think this is the exception to the rule. Reply

Return to forum