This started making the rounds yesterday. The Stolen Scream: A Story About Noam Galai. I thought it important to post here. Wanted your thoughts to be a part of the conversation.
IMHO, this is:
Exciting.
Scary.
Different.
Opportunistic.
Cannibalistic.
Visionary.
Divisive.
Should we celebrate it or hate it? Lawsuits or a new suit of clothes that recognizes the times?
Two obvious sides with no obvious answer. And on and on… It’s our newest classic challenge as a rapidly evolving industry with the rapid deployment and sharing of information.
What say you?
(via the nice folks at fstoppers)
So many issues to discuss, so little time. In order of egregiousness:
1) the “artists” who claim the image as their own. Truly horrible, unethical, and possibly even unforgivable;
2) the person, persons, and commercial entities making money off the image without compensation. No defense for that – it’s just plain wrong;
3) everything else I don’t have time to discuss.
If he had an agent, would his image have gotten this much exposure? Probably not; not in this day and age anyway.
Certainly no obvious solution, as previously stated, and maybe no other type of solution either. I hate to think that. Maybe the best solution is to make lemonade.
The fact he hasnt sent out bills to those that are making money of his image is a joke. That reflects badly on him in my opinion.
Interesting topic. We probably would never of heard of Noam Galai if it wasn’t for his photo being stolen. So he is already benefiting from the theft. If he is a really good photographer this could launch his career. Then again maybe its just a hobby and he isn’t that good (I’m not saying that, as I don’t know) and this was his only image that will be of any significants. In which case he benefits the least.
Finding out that someone stole and profited from your work sucks. But, finding out your image is iconic as a result must take the sting out of it. And, there is value in that.
This could be a case of an image going viral. Hundreds if not thousands of people downloading and using this image. In which case hiring lawyers wouldn’t do much good. Its assumed that big money was made off this photo. Could be hundreds of very small profits made or not made.
Setting the record straight as to who the image really belongs to was a good first step. Now he needs to show the world what he is made of and he can capitalize on this fortunate misfortune.
I think he is already well established
http://noamgalai.com/
I still get the biggest rush when someone like my work and wants either it or to use it. If people want to pay for my art it’s a bonus. If I make art for myself without the notion of money it’s different to using my art to make money. The crime is not so much in my opinion using the art it’s the not crediting the maker. The great thing about the film you shared shows the artist regaining some of his power over the image by telling people “i made this”. I wonder how many more people will be interested to see what other work he has made. And at the end of the day it’s a great image.
Telling people ‘I made this’ although noble, is not going to pay for his rent.
If you combine all data from the beginning of written history, it would fall short to the amount we currently generate annually. Think about that for a second, and just the sheer volume it includes. Every book, cave drawing, audio recoding, photo, carving, painting, stamp on a product, etc… combined from the dawn of man is equal to the amount we currently create in less than a year.
There comes a point where you will simply reach saturation. What happens if someone develops a piece of software that produces every possible word combination (easily done with current tech), every possible sound ( plausible in a few short years at the rate of data storage), every possible visual ( hard to imagine being possible, but what if an image is ‘close enough?’), what then does copyright matter?
The photo in the video is clearly being used without the rights holder’s permission, with some possible exemptions for creative adaptations., but did he have it uploaded as a creative commons license on Flickr, and if so which type (with the exception of the published materials, most everything else could be considered legit)? Were the T-shirts and promotional materials being used for a non-profit? Were his images being used in countries that do not have a system of intellectual property, or more to the point, do not have a treaty/agreement with the US saying that we will honor their IP and vice versa? History and legal precedents even in our own country show that if a law is unenforceable, it is moot. The FBI has an entire wing dedicated to nothing but infringement, ICE, DoJ, etc…all have ramped up their staffing to combat movie/song piracy and they have yet to make a dent domestically let alone internationally. Their efforts have done little except help insure our national budget is steeped in the wrong direction. Those of you having the atypical ‘He needs to sue everyone!!!’ reaction are only further entrenching yourselves in the past. He should capitalize on his images fame, and not its abuse. He could write a book about the journey his photo went on and how it became a symbol far beyond anything he imagined. He could release his own line of t-shirts, buttons, etc…from all of the images he already ‘owns’. Start a blog (with adspace of course) for ‘stolen images’, tracking all of the additional places his photos appear (and maybe other’s images that develop similarly i.e. the Obama poster).
The recording industry is struggling with these sorts of problems because they refuse to adapt their business model to keep pace with the sprint of the world. Music is no longer about a product, i.e. a physical album. It’s about an experience. Photography is headed down the same path and Ockham’s razor has never had a sharper example.
MESSAGE TO JEFF….. WAKE UP!!!!
You can’t whitewash this CRIME and concede it’s now the world we now live in. And what you said about the state of the Music Industry today. And I quote you “Music is no longer about a product, i.e. a physical album. It’s about an experience.” Well how do you pay you’re rent from just an experience? Have you ever had anything stolen from you? Physical or Intellectual? You’re insulting every creative person out there. Are you going to shell out of your pocket to keep these artist going? Well I will! It’s called a free market. But guess what? It’s not free! A musician creates a song. I like it, well then I buy it! Plain and simple.
This Photographer created his image. If he intended this to be up for grabs. I don’t think he would have posted it. Noam Galai was ripped of plain and simple. I think you might agree with this. But what you don’t see from your comments is that this is wrong! Your attitude is worse than the actual crime. Because you allow it to happen. You equate this (and I will quote you again) “to keep pace with the sprint of the world.” Well then should everything be free? Photography, Music, Computers, Food, Clothing, Cars and our Homes. Is it a world where we will freely give away everything to anybody & everybody? Are you talking about Socialism or Communism? (disclosure: I’m an Independent that voted Obama)
Should Bill Gates have given away his first OS code to the world at its inception? If so what do you think would have happened? Could his creation have grown into what it is today? How? Without funding or any kind of R&D? I think not. Should the union workers in Wisconsin give up their rights now that they have been promised because a few bullies are claiming they made us broke? Indecently the Professional Photography business never had any kind of union. So there was never really any one effective organization that fought collectively for the rights of Photographers and other support positions. Bill gates created Windows. You want to use it? Pay for it! Noam Galai created this scream photo. You want to use it? Pay for it!
If I create something like a photo or music. Then I own the rights to it. Any one infringes upon that. Then I will seek legal action against them. And it has happened to me twice. The irony is that I would have allowed them to use it for a fraction of what I won in litigation. They were wrong I was right. But more importunately I was protected. Not only by law but by ethics and moral standards in our society. Noam stated in the video that he would have openly shared his work for an art project but not given away for commercial use. And that is a beautiful action on his part. Because he made the art he and only he should have the right to sell it or share it with whom they choose. No one else can make that decision.
And I have learned to be very careful what photos or videos I post on Social Networks. Read the fine print. (I see that you have on Flickr.) And what these outlets do not do is to help protect it’s participants. All these Social sharing sites should have a banner going across the screen to indicate the rights of the individuals posted artwork. The principle behind Social Networking is to SHARE, NOT STEAL. Warnings won’t stop theft. I am aware of that. But what it will do is declare rights of the individual who posts their property. Something you assume does not exist at all.