• Couple of things here:

    a) Tagging you on Facebook was a way to attract your attention and promotional
    b) When you used the pic on your Facebook profile The offer should have been to send you a original for your use without the watermark so you can get the benefit of the full pic without any resolutions loss.
    c) Maybe a request to credit the photographer wherever possible may have been reasonable – obviously not possible on a Facebook profile pic
    I think KK is a great example to follow. I myself have learnt a lot from him.

    As an amateur photographer who takes a lot of pictures at events, I will respect any request from the subject of my pictures.

  • Hey Geoff,

    You’ve filled my feed for a week with debate over the use of the photo (not complaining, just acknowledging just how much dialog has taken place over a single photo). The time that you took to debate the issue, you could have actually accomplished something. I think you get social media, but you also clearly don’t get what it’s like to be a freelance photographer. Giving away your photos for everybody and covering events for free tends to accomplish nothing more than getting you more free events to cover.

    There’s a reason Flickr lets people restrict how their images are used or at least require some form of credit to be given. Perhaps this blog post is a back-handed way of providing credit, but it’s a weird way to do so if that’s the case. Try to survive as a freelance photographer and then you can tout the best practices for them.

    If the person was paid, I’d understand removing the watermark, but so far it sounds like he wasn’t. I think you’re great, but you sound pretty pompous in this piece.


  • @Shashi Exactly.

    @Nick 1) As someone who is a photographer in his own right, albeit an amateur, I found Mr. Zusman’s business approach to his photographry to be questionable. The post raises those questions. I survive as a content creator and someone who specializes in social media communications, so I think I have more than enough chops to offer a differing professional view. 2) He was originally at least on verbal contract, and withdrew from the contract when the issue came up. 3) Don’t like my Facebook feed, hide it or unfriend me. I won’t take offense.

    Thanks for your feedback, Nick!

  • I can appreciate your perspective. Do we get to tease you that just as this socially ‘green’ photographer gaffed, perhaps you could have done the social thing of whipping him less publicly :)

    These are very real concerns no matter what side of the camera you sit. Thanks for crystalizing more clearly what best practices look like.

  • @Geoff, not unfriending or hiding you :) Just trying to voice something I had previously wanted to. I didn’t realize he was on contract, but that issue would then be brought up with the people who hired him.

    Anyways, being an international model and everything, I’d imagine that there were plenty of other photos that you could use ;)

  • This post disturbs me. I host social media events and I am a HUGE fan of Moshe Zusman. To imply he doesn’t “get” social media is unfair – on many fronts. As I saw this play out Moshe CLEARLY states his criteria (in the album when it’s posted on Facebook) that if you choose to use his images in your profile it should be done with watermark. I respect you and your work Mr. Livingston, but I must say the dramatic stance you’ve taken on this seems far more personal (and egotistical) than a desire to teach photographers the “rules” of sharing through social media.

  • @Lisa We’re all entitled to our opinions. I did not read Zusman’s policy, as he tagged me with the photo and it was in my stream. I liked and used it. Frankly, when he enforced it, I yielded. So I took the bait and made his photo spam my profile pic, unknowing of his policy or his intent to rigorously police it.

    I host social media events, too, and would not welcome a photographer who took this intellectual property stance. Perhaps having Zusman and his digital watermarked photos can be considered a strategic decision in or against your favor. We all make market decisions based on our opinions and views of such things. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

  • I read your blog post a few times as I wanted to try and understand your point of view. I can respect that you are a blogger and an author, and I am somewhat surprised with this posting. I am responding to share my point of view as I’ve tried to convey it to you before about this subject, but now in this social space.

    I photographed the event as a guest and posted photos from the event, as I often do when I take pictures at an event. My photographer friend Moshe Zusman also took pictures at the event and posted pictures, and we both watermarked our photos as usual. When you cropped his picture, you went against what he wrote for use of his photo: “You may use the images for facebook profile, blogging and any noncommercial use, as long as they appear as shown here — without altering,cropping or removing the watermark.”

    You said “by using the watermarked image, I would be using my social profile image to promote Mr. Zusman’s photography business.” You two connected on this social site. You don’t have to use the photo nor does anyone whose picture we take and post. We desire to take great pictures and care how people look in them. It’s not about forcing advertising on people, but it’s naturally showing an owner’s work and we need to try to protect our work. Many of these pictures are taken at public events, and people come to events knowing that there will likely be pictures taken at the event, as so many people have cameras. Sharing photos via a social profile is just one of the many ways in which we can share our life and work, and social networking sites are one of the best places to do so. There are times when we use watermarks and times we don’t, depending on what we agree on with those who want to use our photos.

    When you asked to use the photo that I took of you without my “image stamp” for your profile pic, I figured you would enjoy showing it on your profile, but I did not think the use of that photo would be part of a post like this which seems to undermine Mr. Zusman. This issue has consumed too much of my time, and it seems to me that your approach and reasoning of this issue has taken things in a direction that is different from simply enjoying the event. It not my desire for my photo to be used in this manner.

  • @Vithaya On your last point, I respect your desire not to use your image in this manner, and have removed it from my profiles. Because you did allow me to use your image originally sans this post, I will leave my recommendation of you as is.

    On the larger point, you may try to protect your work, and it’s your right to do so. I consider it spam and an unethical practice for you or any photographer to take shots of people publicly, tag them with photos and demand they use watermarked versions in their social profile. And that’s my right. It’s also my right to complain about it publicly, and use whatever imagery I want as a profile, and recommend and review whichever photographers that best understand this medium. So we’re going to agree to disagree.

    I don’t find it fun to get spammed by photographers who pursue me to have their watermarked images on my social profile. Generally, I find the whole photo watermark enforcement BS has ruined my enjoyment of the event, too. I was wondering which one of you was going to ask me for $50 for a framed copy.

  • Great tips and tricks with the photography. A regular picture is just not enough in the social media era. :-)

  • Geoff, I’m also a bit surprised by this posting.

    First, because I believe all content creators do need to look out for each other in this digital world. I would certainly not clip a quote from one of your books, a blog posting, or even one of your tweets, without quoting you, and it seems that’s all this photographer was asking for – a citation after you clipped a bit from his work.

    Second, because you weren’t an ordinary attendee at this event. According to the Associated Press Stylebook, “It can generally be said that when people become involved in a news event, voluntarily or involuntarily, they forfeit aspects of the right to privacy.” From what I can tell here, when you volunteered to be a model, you implicitly gave permission to temporarily become a public figure and have your photo taken for the duration of that event and attached receptions.

    There was no need for you to give your permission to this photographer to have your photo taken, especially since he was the invited photographer to cover this event.

    Finally, I’m surprised you would tarnish someone else’s fundraiser with such a stink. Bad social form indeed.

    We all know that it’s increasingly difficult to protect creative works of all kinds — words, music, images — in our digital world, but that’s no reason that we shouldn’t try to create graceful best practices. Otherwise we’ll all just keep our creations to ourselves, and that would be plain sad and pointless.

  • @Heather Since when has AP been the paradigm for social media best practices? As to the rest, I have reached out to you privately, but generally stand by my comments. Thank you for making your views known.

  • Hey Geoff,

    Seems like the salient points are that the photo was posted on Facebook and you were tagged. One of the reasons so many have avoided social media is because of a feeling of a lack of control. But those who have embraced it hopefully understand this lack of control is the point. The free form style of social media is what makes it such an effective tool. Easy access. Low or no cost. Potentially large audience. There is always the potential that what you put out there may not be used the way you want it to be. But you have the option of NOT making your stuff public. Once you do that, you have released control. I would always encourage the artists to reach out and ask for attribution/promotion or whatever helps. And I would encourage those utilizing the art to accommodate those requests that are comfortable and possible.

    I am not a professional photographer or someone who makes my living from the arts of any kind. Perhaps I am missing something because of that. However, I do think this situation could potentially be a great springboard to thinking more broadly about how we will navigate these issues. I am certain that this is just the tip of the iceberg of what is to come.

  • Geoff,

    My citation of AP wasn’t regarding social media, it was in reference to your statement, “… I have requested him not to use my image as he did not have my legal written permission. ”

    I just wanted to make the point that many event photographers would think they implicitly had your permission, since you had volunteered.

  • @Heather As someone who engages in online PR and hires professional photographers, you always get people’s permission to reuse the photos… in writing. There is legal precedence for organizations to be sued for using photos without permission. Here is an example:

  • This post and discussion is bizarre.

    What I am reading here is that a freelance photographer wants to capitalize on someone else’s image by sharing it around and linking as much as he likes. However, he is disallowing the subject to use the photograph unless they comply to specific rules about how that image is presented even though it could generate more interest and business?

    It’s very hard to take this seriously. I don’t even know where to begin.


  • Too much focus on the problem and not the solution.

    Also, there seems to be something missing from this post: the email conversation.

    From the DC Tech group, Geoff says, “There was much back and forth between me and the photographer. My blog post was necessary based on that conversation as well as several with the event organizer, IMO. I wanted to give the photographer an opportunity to change his mind and take a different stance before I acted. Just as I would any other person in my social network. If the photographer changes his mind now I would happily write a second post about that, and how we can make amends and have strong conversations.”

    At the heart of photography is as Vithaya says, “We desire to take great pictures and care how people look in them… Sharing photos via a social profile is just one of the many ways in which we can share our life and work, and social networking sites are one of the best places to do so.”

    As a freelance photographer, getting credit for my photos are VERY important to generating new clients and making ends meet. However, Rich makes a good point, “What I am reading here is that a freelance photographer wants to capitalize on someone else’s image by sharing it around and linking as much as he likes. However, he is disallowing the subject to use the photograph unless they comply to specific rules about how that image is presented even though it could generate more interest and business?”

    My suggested solutions to this problem:

    1) As Shashi says, “c) Maybe a request to credit the photographer wherever possible may have been reasonable” such as a caption crediting the photographer.

    2) Have the photographer make a transparent watermark that covers the entire photo in order protect photo rights.

    3) …?

  • Mr. Livingston;

    The point that Mr. Zusman was trying to make with you is the following:

    1. I believe that you are wrong when you feel that you must give written permission prior to Mr. Zusman taking your photo and associating your name with the photo. As per Bert Krages , an attorney out of Oregon, indicates here:
    The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.

    Since Mr. Zusman was tasked to take photographs at the event and since you did not object to having your photograph taken at the event by posing and not requesting to have your photograph taken, the implication is that you are allowing Mr. Zusman to take your photo. The event was public and he was tasked to take photos. He may have refused payment but the invitation to take photos was still there and therefore, the intent was there.

    2. Mr. Zusman clearly states that the photos may not be altered in any way, shape or form. This includes cropping the photo to remove the watermark. You did not hire Mr. Zusman for this event. He was hired by a third party and the agreement made between him and the third party excludes you. Therefore, by using his images of you and altering this, you are essentially breaking copyright. Per Section 107, of the United States Copyright Office:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to
    be considered shall include—
    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
    work as a whole; and
    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

    Now looking at your biography on your blog, you use social media as a business. Your business is to provide consultation services to companies and markets and help them utilize social networks and media to promote themselves. Per your front page:

    A social enterprise, Zoetica provides superior communication consulting, training, and strategy to help mindful organizations affect social change. We do this by building relationships with the community using well-honed social media communication and networking skills.

    Therefore, by using Mr. Zusman’s image as a profile pic, one can deduce that the use of the image on a social media network helps to promote your business as well, especially if it is an improvement to a previously used image. In addition, you mentioned that you are a professional blogger and that using the picture on your profile will enhance your image. This allows for note 4 above to come into effect and therefore disqualify it for fair use.

    3. You provided credit for the photo used above. However, although my use of facebook is somewhat limited, I do not know of a way to show credit on a profile pic permanently. This is a contradiction to your post. In providing a method of permanent credit to one photographer but denying it to another (by removing the watermark) this is essentially stating that you are allowed to pick and choose who you give credit for when using another person’s work. If you do not wish to give credit to someone, please do not use their work.

    4. In addition, while you feel justified about using another person’s work for free because they were tasked by a friend, I fail to see the logic. Looking at your Management page on Zoetica Website, I can easily determine which picture is the best (I don’t know who the photographer was for you but it was better than the one for Ms. Beth and Ms. Kanti. However, in doing so, unless you paid or received the photo from the photographer for free and received the use of it as well, I don’t know who the photographer is. This is potential lost revenue for the photographer.

    To recap,
    1. A photographer has the right to use images if taken in a public place and if the subject denies the image at the time, it is implied.
    2. Use of a photo for potential revenue violates the fair use and unfortunately, since your business is about social media, I believe this would exclude you from using it on a social media network
    3. Picking and choosing who you credit is, in my humble opinion, poor taste if you use both photos. However, you have removed the photo Mr. Zusman took of you so therefore, it is a non-issue now.
    4. Use of a photo for your commercial benefit and not providing proper credit is tantamount to stealing.

    I believe that Mr. Zusman’s request was simple and not out of the ordinary. You may use his photo for FREE if you do not alter it. I find it hard not to understand what the problem was.

    (Please forgive any grammatical or spelling errors since this was done on my phone)

  • Oh and I just read the response to Ms. Heather. In this case I believe you are wrong because the person using the photo was making money from the photo directly. As the article clearly stated, Hallmark was making money DIRECTLY by using the photo of Ms. Hilton on a card. This is different than posting it on a social media network. Had Mr. Zusman sold your image to another party, your point would have been valid.

  • re: “… I have requested him not to use my image as he did not have my legal written permission. ”

    You have no legal right to privacy at a public event. Mr. Zusman’s use of your photo falls under the editorial use and no permission from you is required. The link you cited in your response is a completely different situation and is not at all relevant to this discussion. His use of your photo is not for commercial purposes.

    Whether or not you feel that Mr. Zusman’s restrictions on the use of his photo were smart, it was well within his legal right to impose them.

    You seem to believe that the only possible reason that Mr. Zusman would request that you not alter his photo in any manner and that it display his watermark would be that he is seeking publicity and free advertising. That is a gross misconception.

    It is internet bullies like yourself – who want to force professional photographers to give up their legal rights at every turn, providing free content to blogs, facebook, twitter, etc. – that require that photographers enforce their legal rights.

    None of the reasons you state as why it was acceptable to you to use the photo in a manner which was not authorized or intended by Mr. Zusman, have any legal relevance. That your friend hired the photographer would not even grant your friend the right to use the photo in this manner. That you were a guest or even a featured guest at the event provides you with no claim to the photographer’s intellectual property.

  • Sadly, I am sure there are lots of details missing here, but the fact that you cropped the photo shows that you going against his terms of use. Clearly, you don’t agree with those terms, but you have to act like every other consumer. You deal with the terms, or you don’t use/buy the product.

    I’ll add my thoughts on the whole thing:

    1) This is why there is ALWAYS a contract. When I work events, it is either paid and I give up the photo rights to the corporation paying, or it is contracted as a no-fee coverage and it is used for advertisement/publicity. The rights of the photos should always be covered. Shame on both parties for that(Microsoft and Moshe). I’m sure this won’t happen again to either.

    2) All photographers have to go through this decision process. With wedding clients, I just let it slide when they misuse photos on Facebook. The client relationship is worth more to me than fighting that battle. But that is my decision. Apparently in this case, he felt otherwise, which is completely his choice.

    3) You probably enjoyed the event while he was working. Carrying around his pro DSLR and flash. In exchange for his work, he wanted free publicity or possible payment. Perhaps you should have simply asked to purchase the digital image. Maybe you did. I assume you didn’t since you didn’t mention it. He might have only charged you a couple bucks. Then you have to act like every other consumer and make your purchase decision. So either A) Pay the price B) Don’t use the product or C) Make your own (bring your own damn camera).

    You chose none of the above because you didn’t agree with his “social policy” for his business. Perhaps I don’t think $11 is a fair price for your work on Amazon and I believe information should be shared freely for stuff like that. All social bloggers should know that. At least it should be offered as a free digital download. It has worked for countless authors and maybe I believe that your method is a HUGE faux paus. If I believe that, should I do the equivalent of “cropping out the logo” and just getting it from BitTorrent? Are you okay with me making that decision as a consumer even though I know it is against your terms? I seriously doubt you’d be fine with that. Maybe I should go blog about how Geoff Peterson is a greedy writer who doesn’t want to share his works, while keep calling you out by name and mentioning other bloggers who do it “right.”

    4) Last, but really the most important point. This is clearly personal since you used names. You could have spoken about this issue in an overall tone/scenario without names and gotten your point across just fine. This fact alone made this article seem petty, vengeful, childish.

  • Correction, in the recap. I meant to say that if the subject does not deny the image at the time, it is implied.

  • Yet, legally right, Zusman’s photo is still not in my profile, and he lost the opportunity to make the event into a network building opportunity for him, all over a watermark. That’s the point of the post, and no matter how you argue it, it’s still the end result. And so marketing to me in Facebook failed because of his very correct legal rights.

  • I think it’s pretty shitty to bad mouth someone else publicly just because they don’t let you use their photograph of you without their watermark. If you don’t like it, just don’t use it, and ask them to delete their photo of you.

    Legalities aside, it’s the nice and polite thing to do: to credit a photographer when you use their work. It wouldn’t have hurt you to just put a little link on the bottom of your photo, or to use the watermark. Instead you went into a pissy match.

    Basically it just sounds to me that both of you are pissy people. He could’ve gone the more generous route with you, and you could’ve gone the more generous route. But instead you’re both squabbling online.

  • I think if you liked his image enough to want to use it as your profile you should give back a little by using his watermark. If the role was reversed and he used your wording and didn’t say it was yours, I’d bet you wouldn’t be so nice.

    • @Amber, I have people that use both my writing and my photography without attribution. I see these incidents, and simply comment for attribution. While I wish people were savvier about attribution via linking and creative commons use, I’d much rather have my content, photos and ideas out there. It builds more influence. I also don’t waste my time with Draconian enforcement. Forward motion is better.

      I would never use a watermarked image as a profile pic on principle. My social graph is not ad space for any photographer.

  • Geoff,

    IMHO, you are both wrong. I don’t know you or Moshe personally so I have to relate everything to my own personal experiences.

    I get annoyed when people use my photos and crop out my logo but I let it go. I understand most of my clients are not in the industry and a logo is an eyesore. That’s just me and I relate to my clients wanting to remove the logo.

    On the other hand as a photographer I would be more outraged if another professional(blogger) yet alone photographer(even though an amateur) would use my photographs and crop out my logo. Especially one who did not paid for my services and is just stealing my content.

    Your argument that it was Moshe who invaded your ‘wall stream’ by tagging you in a photo does not give you the right to alter his images. It only gives you the right to accept the tag or decline it.

    You don’t like the logo, delete the tag and move on.


  • What I find amusing is that you found no issue whatsoever with taking the photo and editing to remove any and all attribution to the photographer, but then you prattle on about the etiquette of this “social” digital world we live in. Since when did etiquette include being a jerk about the creative property of others (i.e., intentionally altering said work and then throwing a fit about it when called out for it)?

    You seem to be under a misconception that merely putting something out there on Facebook and tagging it is equal to giving it away. Let me ask you: Do you take the same cavalier attitude toward all intellectual property you find online? Do you routinely pull content from other blogs without crediting back to the source?

    It’s one thing to share content. It’s another to intentionally alter it so as to obscure the author. I would be willing to accept your “social media” argument that by posting it and tagging you that you then felt authorized to use the image on your profile — as long as you applied the same standards you would to quoting, in part or in whole, a blog post you found interesting (or wanted to reference/comment on).

    A blogger who rips content from other blogs, posts it as is or alters it, and completely fails to cite the sources would quickly lose credibility, if not be outright attacked. It wouldn’t matter what their self righteous justification was for behaving this way.

    Furthermore, if social media makes up a significant portion of your own personal promotion, and this was a photo you deemed flattering enough to your social image to use as your profile photo, then it could be said to have intrinsic value to you AND your image. Value that you didn’t pay for, but clearly hoped to benefit from. Yet you went out of your way to deny value to the photographer by intentionally altering the work. You created a one-way street to benefit yourself.

    Again, this violates the social media “contract” of not only sharing content, but also sharing the source.

    Finally, for someone who cites etiquette as justification for their irritation, you committed two very severe errors: First, you failed to ask the photographer about cropping the image, and second, you admitted that you didn’t bother to read the photographer’s rights statement.

    It could be argued that you’re now making a third social error: Despite your own mistakes in this situation, rather than handling it maturely, you decided to rant here and try to make yourself appear as the wronged party. Now, while I do agree that social media is fantastic for “outing” legitimate wrongdoings, as this post of yours sadly points out, it is also fantastic for allowing people to behave childishly.

  • It’s a shame you thought you could give this photographer a negative review by writing this blog post. It really sheds light on who you are as a person. You couldn’t agree with the terms so you had to get into a pissing match online to justify your position.

  • You claim that Mr. Zusman’s use of the watermark was a “network building opportunity” and you mention that you do not want the photographer to use your profile as an “advertising space” — I believe that you are severely misguided.

    First and foremost, Mr. Zusman’s right to copyright his work & apply a watermark onto it is his choice. He asked politely for anyone who wants to repost the photo to avoid altering it in any way and to leave the watermark visible. Furthermore, the use of a watermark (especially in event photography) is a mechanism for giving credit to the photographer who took the photo. It is not always a source of advertising or personal promotion – rather it serves as a visual citation.

    In my opinion, your exaggerated rant is merely a response to getting caught. Instead of respecting the time, effort, and work put into Mr. Zusman’s photography – you took something that didn’t belong to you & instead of obeying the rules, you broke them. When you were caught, you went off like an angry child. In case you haven’t noticed – Immaturity doesn’t look good on a man your age.

  • Also – Geoff, you stated: “At the heart of the issue is a photographer’s legal rights to their intellectual property versus the shareability norms of the social media world. In today’s digital media environment, images, content and ideas are shared with creative commons credit, links — and some times with no attribution.”

    I find it absurd that you argue against a photographer’s rights to watermark & protect their images based on societal norms of reediting & cropping pictures for Facebook. Just because everyone is doing it, that doesn’t make it right. Didn’t we learn this concept in kindergarten?

    You are an author and therefore I’m sure you understand that plagiarism is a growing issue on college campuses around the country. If I were to take a quotation from your book, wouldn’t you want proper credit? And by including you in my citation – am I advertising your book or merely respecting the time and effort you put into culminating your work?

  • Geoff,

    I want to thank you again for not forcing me to include a watermark promoting the CitizenGulf event with your photo. Since you are sometimes paid to take photographs, I thought it truly demonstrated your character.

    By the way, after reading the newest comments, I am even more interested in this subject. Maybe you could send me those e-mails and perhaps I could offer a solution in the way the communication was handled on the front end.

    All my best,

  • Geoff,

    From a legal perspective you’re obviously in the wrong (the above comments demonstrate that clearly) and I think you’re coming to realize that. From an ethical perspective your criticism of Moshe is absurd and reflects a total disregard for the efforts and rights of artists who struggle as it is. You claim “he lost the opportunity to make the event into a network building opportunity for him, all over a watermark.” How would he have benefitted from you posting one of his photos after removing the attribution. He lost nothing. You lost a nice picture of you “all over a watermark.” Moshe was completely in the right to insist on his terms of usage (using the watermark in this case). The legal issues have been clearly explained above. You wanted to use his work and give him no credit and now you’re whining because he’s insisting on respect for his intellectual property. I’m proud of Moshe for not letting you use his image without proper attribution. And of course you have the right to complain baselessly about Moshe’s sensible actions. We have the right to comment and criticize you for doing so as well.

  • If you don’t want to advertise for this person, then don’t use the image. You have no right to the image at all. Only the owner can decide if it can be displayed without the watermark. I don’t understand where you thought you had the right to remove it and use it as your own. Without credit you are basically saying you own the image and you can do what you damn well please with it. Well that’s not true. Stop being so childish.

  • Geoff,

    First let me say I think it would have been more professional to blog about the issue itself rather than trying to put another fellow photographer and professional on blast just because you had a disagreement with him which I am sure could have been worked out. To me that is a HUGE problem with the credibility of the blog-o-sphere.

    Now, whether paid or not, the images taken by Mr. Zusman are legally his unless you have purchased the rights to use or own the photographs. In situations such as Facebook, he published it to his profile and was kind enough to tag you (acknowledging you). By you cropping his watermark out of the photograph you have in essence tampered with and altered his original work/photograph which as a photographer yourself, I am sure you know that is a no no.

    My clients on Facebook and Twitter use images I have tagged them with everyday for their profile images and do not crop out my watermark/logo because the understand why the image is watermarked in the first place.

    At most if you do not want him to display your image, you may have the right to ask him to remove it from his gallery.

  • @ Rich, What he is truly demonstrating is the fact that he does not depend on photography to put food on the table.

    Geoff, I really think you are missing the point or you are very misinformed. I highly doubt if someone was making money off of your work without your blessing you would be ok with it. You are coming off as very arrogant

  • This has pretty much already been said several times in the comments, but it would seem to me pretty cut and dry.

    You wanted to use a photo taken by someone else, on your page. You didn’t want to do it on their terms, despite it being THEIR intellectual property. So if you don’t want to play by the rules, (the well stated rules) then don’t use the photo, and then move on with your life.

    If I lifted a blog post you wrote, put it on my website, but didn’t credit you, then you called me out on it and I still insisted I was in the right, I think you’d be pissed too.

    This was not worth pursuing to this degree, and smearing a respectable photographers rep for the sake of your ego. The mature thing to do would have been to either accept the use of the photo with watermark, or decline the use of the photo all together, and move on your merry way.

    • Erin: Actually, what is clear from this flurry of comments is that professional photogs feel like it’s their right to market their wares using tagged watermarked images on Facebook. As you all seem to be pros, I thank you for this insight as it explains the behavior I saw. Yet, a link on a photo community site and ensuing negative comments don’t make spamming any more acceptable to me. I do appreciate everyone’s passion and desire to earn a living off of their creative talents though.

  • Your argument about the tagging does not hold water. Tagging provides the opportunity for the tagged to untag themselves. You can remove it at any time if you don’t like it. A photographer who posts a photo, and then has it stolen and altered, does not have that option. I cannot go to your facebook page and delete the photo you have stollen. You are not stuck with being tagged but I would be stuck with being stolen from. Obviously asking you to remove it doesn’t work. You threw a fit. So how is that anywhere near the same?

  • Everyone seems to be of the same consensus. You’re wrong. You didn’t pay for usage of the picture and therefore should not use it without the photographers consent. As the photographer stated, you could use it provided you keep his watermark, hence contributing something for his time and effort in taking, editing, and uploading your image.
    You seem to be making a huge issue for such a small request.
    And, as you stated, you removed the image…so why the harsh unnecissary blog post?

  • I’m sorry. I am tired of people claiming to know the law. Here is the law.

    “• Using someone’s image for commercial benefit

    Many countries recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity is the direct opposite of the right of privacy. It recognizes that a person’s image has economic value that is presumed to be the result of the person’s own effort and it gives to each person the right to exploit their own image.

    Under this right, you could be liable if you use a photograph of someone without their consent to gain some commercial benefit.”

    To which, Mr. Zusman was right to take Geoff’s picture but he was wrong to publish it for commercial gain (promotional) without Geoff’s consent. To which, Mr. Zusman is lucky all Geoff did was attempt to use his image.

    While Geoff may have been at a public event, outside of editorial, it is extremely questionable in the manner of how he used it, including linking to Geoff, which constitutes implied consent that did not exist.

    I may not know the law, but I do know why we post signs when we film and have photo releases handy when we shoot events where you can clearly make out people. It’s to avoid confusion. Any professional should know this.

    Furthermore, since when it is wrong for a potential customer to disagree with the said policies of a company, which Geoff has done here? Mr. Zusman is obviously a business. Suck it up. You’ll have worse reviews to worry about if you don’t learn too.

    By the way. I am not a lawyer. Thank goodness. :D


  • Would you photoshop out Microsoft’s branding if you were wearing a name tag with the microsoft logo on the lanyard? Photographers brand themselves on their products; their product just happens to be the actual photograph. I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to ask that his images be left as is. You were the one who chose to use something that he created and uploaded. If you didn’t want to be a part of the photographer’s “marketing campaign”, you should have untagged yourself.

  • Generally speaking, I understand many professional photographers are upset with my stance. I am OK with your anger, and encourage you to keep venting. You know, it’s a time of change and many views on this.

    I am not OK with personal attacks on my blog, and ask that the discourse adhere to my comment policy ( Of course, the discourse can continue elsewhere.

  • Rich… What you say above is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Mr. Zusman has the right to publish the picture; he did not need Geoff’s permission to use the picture that he took. By Geoff agreeing to do this public event, he became a public figure and therefore has allowed his picture to be used implicitly.

    Geoff, I like how you point out that you are using the other photographers picture because “he gave you permission to crop out his watermark”. So you asked permission from this photographer to crop out the watermark but you did not give Mr. Zusman the same courtesy, why is that? The only answer to that question that I can think of is because you knew that Mr. Zusman was going to say no, because you read his disclaimer but you liked the picture and you wanted it so you stole it thinking that you were not going to get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

    I smell a fib based on the fact that you did not “read his policy because he tagged you” . The only way you could have gotten the full photo was to click on it and go to the original photo in his album where it clearly states his policy on use.

    You said that you did not want to use your social profile to advertise his business but yet you are ok with using his picture to market yourself?

    Whether you like it or not Mr. Zusman has every legal right to his photography, the laws are there for a reason. You do not like it? Take it up with those that made the laws.

    You also say that this event was by a friend of yours for a great cause, but you have given it a great disservice because you let your bruised ego get in the way.

  • It’s funny you ask people to adhere your comment policy when you don’t adhere yourself to the photographer’s terms.

    But you know, I don’t feel like what the majority feel will pass onto you as you are dead set on what you think is right.

  • I guess I just don’t get it. If you liked the picture enough to use it, why wouldn’t you want to give credit to the person who took it? It seems like that would be less of a big deal that purposefully going out of your way to remove their signature from the image. That’s just my opinion as a photographer and a blogger.

  • I just think it’s quite hilarious that you ask people to adhere to your comment policy but refused to adhere to the photographer’s usage policy. Hypocrisy, much?!

  • Geoff, this isn’t solely about “earning a living.” I suspect that the marketability of a photo of you on Facebook is pretty much next to zero, other than on whether or not said photo showcases a technical merit for taking photos. I mean, regardless of who you are in the blogosphere, the recognizability of your face isn’t much more than the average person to any other average person. Furthermore, the chances that some famous or quasi-famous contact of yours will see the photo and think, “man, I absolutely need to hire THIS guy to take candid portraits of me at some random social event” are also pretty slim.

    So that high horse should be dismounted.

    Still, even going with your position that you don’t have an interest in using your social currency to market some photographer, I say fair enough. And yet you saw definite value in the photo, otherwise you wouldn’t have wanted to use it.

    You assumption that it was free for the taking and alteration merely because it was posted to Facebook is incorrect. The fact that it’s a photo OF you makes no difference. You were in a setting for which photography was a part of the event.

    I realize that the social media landscape is defining new rules almost every day. However, until those rules are crystallized into law, then the actual laws on the books trump “social etiquette.” And the letter of the law states quite clearly that you have no right to alter and publish the photo without permission of the author – regardless of where you found said photo.

    That is where you clearly went wrong in this matter.

    I’m not saying that Moshe wasn’t being overly strict or uncompromising. Maybe so. But who knows without seeing the actual back and forth e-mails. However going with the “he started it” or “I’m just reacting” route makes you out to be ridiculous.

    The solution on your end was painfully obvious: He doesn’t want you using the image without the watermark? Cool. Use a different freakin’ image.

  • I’ve blogged for 10 years. I’m a professional photographer. I share a LOT of images with just the creative commons license on Flickr. If I volunteer to shoot an event, the images that I post on Facebook are always watermarked. I tag people that I know – they can always untag themselves.

    No one EVER has said that this is wrong to me — and as a long time blogger, user #8610 on Twitter, a member of Flickr since 2004, the person that named WordPress, well — I consider myself pretty well versed in “social media norms”.

    I’m sorry – but I think you were in the wrong for cropping out his watermark. Those were his terms of use, and if you didn’t want to play by the rules he had ever right to ask you to not use the image.

    I think you would feel VERY differently if it was your own copyright that was being trampled on.

    Oh, and by the way – he was invited to photograph the event, whether he invoiced for it or not. It was a public event, and you were aware you were being photographed. So he did have every right to photograph you. Based on the reasonable expectations, he was well within his legal rights to photograph you and share the images publicly.

    “but used with permission sans the Vithaya brand mark.” … so in other words you ASKED first that time? Maybe if you had asked Moshe first you might have gotten the same response? At least you learned to ask first.

    So, do you work for free without even so much as credit for the work that you do? I notice you have a copyright logo here on your site — does this post mean that based on the social media norms (well, your definition of them at least) that it is ok if I just copy your posts and post them on my site with no credit to you for the work? No? Why not?

    Your “standards” are flawed, Geoff. Sorry. I don’t agree with you.

  • @Tony & @Milena: LOL on the hypocrisy comments. I think the general negative thrashing I am taking is indicative that I’m not closing my ears. I just don’t think calling me curse words or flat out you’re a “f&%@tard” will be productive, nor is it fair to do that on my blog. I mean you can do it on Twitter, right? Even better, it’s more public.

    The comment policy says, “The discussion on this page should be provocative enough to encourage questions, disagreements, and meaningful dialog as to whether we are right or wrong. It’s not about being safe, it’s about pushing the envelope, thinking and, hopefully, learning. However, personal attacks won’t be tolerated and will be deleted. Thanks for coming by and visiting.”

    I interpret deragotry to mean, i.e. cursing, deragory “you” remarks, etc. I think the comments on this stream indicate I am quite comfortable with being told I’m wrong, and Tony, you are right. There can be 1000 professional photog comments here telling me I’m wrong, and it won’t sway me on the watermarking, tagging, enforcing, marketing specifics. I’m not a pro photog, and I don’t like the practice as a would be consumer, content creator or contractor of photogs for all of the above reasons.

    It’s also the right of people to sound off. As a result, I have learned a lot and am listening.

  • “…creative commons credit, links — and some times with no attribution.”

    As far as I know, every Creative Commons license requires attribution.

    The fact that it happens doesn’t change the fact that it’s counter to the license agreement.

  • The customer/consumer is not always right.

  • I also try to do as much research as I can about the facts and keep straight where my beliefs about what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ come from and how that interacts with what I want for my own usages.

    Maybe you just need to be right? I can’t tell.

  • As a photographer, I’ve had virtually the same situation arise twice, where a photo was cropped and used as a profile picture, as well as one showing up in a corporate annual report where one of my freelance photos was cropped to a head shot, and used without attribution. Of course, there have been many other instances where the images were used for personal Facebook pages and their ilk, but I let those slide. It is only where there is a commercial interest where I bother to enforce my copyrights.

    In all instances, I pointed out my usage requirements after discovering the offenders, but in each case, there was a much different response than your reaction to Mr. Zusman.

    Each time, I received an apology and credit. I did offer to provide a square cropped and watermarked image as a replacement for the profile pictures, and this was understood and graciously accepted. There are no hard feeling on either side.

    In the case of the corporate annual report, the managers were obviously embarrassed by the theft. They offered me a fair price for the image, plus re-use and attribution in the next issue of their report.

    Having had positive experiences dealing with this recently made your public outing and chastisement of Mr. Zusman seem unnecessarily venomous, even juvenile to a degree.

    While I understand that there are differing opinions on copyright law and the DMCA, not agreeing with them does not give you the right to ignore them, and to publicly chastise someone who is trying to assert those rights.

    Personally, I think you owe Mr. Zusman a public apology. I honestly hope you are big enough to do the right thing.

    Have a great week!

  • @Chris You and I both know there is more than one way to receive attribution. Watermarking is just one.

  • Look, I don’t want to waste too much of my time on this, but I just have to add this. You don’t think it’s fair that people impugning your character (whether through using curse words or whatever), but that is exactly what you have done with Moshe. You could have easily written this piece without using his name and gotten an interesting discussion.

    What you have done instead is attack someone for essentially protecting their copyright. I’m hesitant to use the word slander, but I definitely feel you have unwarrantedly called into question his character and business practices. Both of which, from all that I have read in your post are sound.

  • I couldn’t agree with Milena more! She is spot on. If you’re willing to smear the name of an extremely reputable and talented photographer on your blog with negative remarks – you must realize that there will be nasty backlash.

  • I am photographer. It’s how I eat pay my student loan bills, rent etc. You could have done on of two things: copy the picture for your profile and spreading out the social web or, what I think the really nice thing to do would have been to tell him you really did the picture and wanted to use it on your profile. He may have charged you a nominal amount (not sure what his is….mines about $2. Bam! Unwaterked profile picture! But no, not only were you not civil to this fella who feeds his family this way, then you drug his name through the mud. Tsk Tsk!

  • @Rosie,

    I’m just clarifying for the benefit of any photographers. What you do with it, it is up to you.

    Even in a public place, there is such a thing as “right of publicity.” Copyright protections are generally reserved for editorial usage. For noneditorial use, such as promotional purposes, a model release is generally required if the person is identifiable.

    I have no stake in sharing that. I would just hate to see anyone here learn the hard way. In most cases, you can take down if the subject protests. But to deny the risk exists isn’t accurate.

    And no, most people are not going to say anything. Most people do not even know there is a “right of publicity” that limits it to noncommercial usage (unless the subject consents). This is also why advertisers do not take pictures of people in public places and include them in advertisements. If you don’t agree with me, fine. But it would be in your best interest to look it up.


  • Just being realistic with you – if I were the photographer, you stole from me, and then refused to take down the image / use the watermarked version…you wouldn’t like the results. You’re also probably the same kind of person w/ pirated software on your computer.

  • And to the last commentor (Rich) – a model release is never required where there isn’t a reasonable expectation of privacy.

  • Geoff,
    Reading your post, in which you state “At the heart of the issue is a photographer’s legal rights to their intellectual property versus the shareability norms of the social media world. In today’s digital media environment, images, content and ideas are shared with creative commons credit, links — and some times with no attribution.” shows me that you, who claim to be wholly tuned into “social media” clearly don’t understand what Creative Commons is in the first place. I run three websites, one of which I utilize a creative commons license for as long as there is some form of attribution for my writing. My other sites are 100% copyrighted, and I have had people use my reviews, images, and writing without my permission and I required them to list a source for the information or take it down. It was 100% within my rights to do so, and not a single one of the individuals who used my content complained about doing it.

    For something to be used under a creative commons license, the content creator would need to state that the image is licensed under creative commons. Your site for example, doesn’t list any creative commons license at the bottom of the page or anywhere else I can see. In fact, you clearly list a copyright at the bottom of your page, which means if I chose to ignore that copyright and post a block of text or image you created, and use that in any other way, commercial or otherwise, I’d be violating your copyright.

    This is EXACTLY what you did with the image you cropped the watermark out of. What you did was no different than if a company took a image from your website, and blew it up big on a billboard without paying you or even asking your permission.

    You also stated “1) Taking photos of bloggers without their permission, tagging them on Facebook with the images, and then demanding they use watermarked versions of the images in any personal use is a HUGE faux paus.”

    Who cares if you’re a blogger? Any moron with an email account can blog! I’d never heard of you until someone tweeted this post about how ridiculous you were being about copyright. You were on stage at an event, you had no reasonable expectation of privacy, so anyone is allowed to take a picture of you and do whatever they want. Anyone could stand outside of your house on the public street and legally take photos of you inside your house if you had a window you didn’t cover and it would be perfectly legal, and they would still own the rights to that image. To claim that requiring you to use the image in the (free) way it was given to you, is a faux pas, is a bigger faux pas.

    You didn’t pay for the image, you didn’t ask for permission to use the image, you flew directly in the face of the explicit copyright notice, and you decided to whine about how wrong you were and try to convince your readers you were right!

    Your whole post seems like a man with a Napoleon complex, refuses to get off his high horse and admit he was wrong and doesn’t understand social media or the laws surrounding ownership of digital content. Just because something is digital doesn’t mean you are allowed to steal it and do whatever you want. Facebook is NOT Napster, and you’re not entitled to anything you didn’t pay for. I agree that a public apology is in order.

    • Bravo! You hit the nail on the head. BTW, it IS infringement of copyright to remove or alter ANY image that has a watermark © on it. Don’t steal photos and BTW if you are at a public event, you can be photographed without permission and the images can be posted anywhere without your permission as long as it is not used commercially. Editorially is just fine.


  • @Rich, the problem with citing the “right to publicity” is that it has absolutely nothing to do with taking an image protected by copyright (or even Creative Commons restrictions), blatantly altering, then republishing it.

    Even if we were all to agree that either Moshe was in the wrong to publish the image, or that his usage fell under promotional use (instead of editorial), that fact doesn’t create justification for Geoff making alterations and republishing it.

    Best (or worst depending on how you look at it) case scenario is that both parties made an error in judgment, and yet only one of those parties is now whining about it in an attempt to publicly justify their actions, while at the same time attempting to disparage the image of the other.

  • The photographer has every right to protect his work which let’s face it is now harder than ever in the ‘digital age’.

    I’m sure as a ‘professional blogger’ you would not be happy with anyone using content from your blog without seeking your permission so why should the photographer not be expected to react the same.

    A short email requesting permission to use the image is all that was required.

  • Geoff –

    If your primary source of income were photography and you were doing social media consulting “just for fun” . . . I’m sure your opinion on digital rights would be different.

  • Stop to think for a second why you made the photo your profile picture. Did you like the photo? Did it have some value to you? Obviously. Yet – you quite clearly ignore the value that the photo has to its IP owner by ignoring the quite clear terms and conditions placed upon it. If you didn’t agree to those conditions, you can untag it, delete it, and move on. You state that your profile picture is no place for advertising – yet it wasn’t the photographer who put it there. You did. A clear decision to break the terms and conditions of use placed by the photographer.

    This is bad enough, but for you to then slander the photographer, and use another photographers work to “one-up” him – of which this photographer also disagrees is bordering on immaturity. You say the photographer has done himself a disservice by his attitude? I think your post will do immeasurably more. Your hits may go up, but whatever reputation you may have will take a much larger hit.

  • “I acknowledge that Mr. Zusman has a legal right to his photograph.”

    You should have stopped there Geoff, because everything else in your post is startlingly disingenuous; the rest seems little more than a petulant screed provoked by being called out for trying to appropriate the use of someone else’s property.

  • What I find funny is that if I were to take this entire “blog” and put it on my facebook page without any mention of your website, you as being the “blogger” or a link to your site you would cry foul in less than a second. When you do the same it’s suddenly okay.

    By the way, as pointed out, any moron with an internet connection can be a “blogger”, it’s not that impressive.

  • Why are so many of these posts focusing on the problem and not the solution? #baffled

  • What solution could there be? Both parties believe they are right. One believes that he can steal a photograph and the other one does not.

  • “@Heather As someone who engages in online PR and hires professional photographers, you always get people’s permission to reuse the photos… in writing. There is legal precedence for organizations to be sued for using photos without permission. Here is an example:”

    Geoff, this is a horrible example. Moshe did not sell his picture to anyone, he took a picture of YOU as a model at an event. By agreeing to appear in that event YOU knew damn well there would be photographers there taking pictures of everyone on the runway at that time, you being part of that runway.

    If Moshe took that picture and made a greeting card out of it, or sold it to Hallmark then you have a valid example, but he didn’t. Do I need to point out the obvious difference between you and Paris Hilton being she has her image and likeness trademarked and you don’t? You understand by doing that she can control how her image is used when it comes to someone making a profit.

    Please remind me never to point my camera at you. Although I may do that because I’m sure the press Moshe is getting over this is certainly leading to potential clients he never had before.

  • I am sorry to say this but for as much as I admire your blog; I believe you are wrong. I am also a photographer and have had clients cut my logo from my images w/o asking for my permission. I cannot start telling you how awful it feels when someone takes your work and feels the right to take out your name from it. As ethical professionals; we must find comfortable balance to the issue of not wanting to give credit when credit is due.

    You must see this issue from the other side of things. What if we photographers took your blog posts and made them our own? would you like that? I bet you would feel betrayed, denied, and taken advantage of. This is exactly how I feel when everyone thinks they can take my name off my image and post it anywhere. I believe we as photographers deserve respect and respect comes with YOU or anyone else using our images with our name on it. IF YOU LIKE THE IMAGE SO MUCH TO PUT IT AS YOUR PROFILE PIC – IT MUST OF BEEN DARN AWESOME SO WHY NOT GIVE CREDIT TO THAT PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER?

  • I don’t have anything to add that any of the other folks leaving comments on this blog haven’t already said, only to echo their sentiment that you are in the wrong on this one.

  • Ok,so I take a paragraph/page from your blog, and post it on my site, benefiting from same, not linking back/giving you credit, and you wouldnt have an issue with that?
    LMAO i think you would be straight onto your lawyers insisting the material was removed.

    Bit cheeky to crop out the watermark, the guy did the event for free, the LEAST you could have done was to honour his request if you wanted to reuse the image, you are seriously in the wrong on this occasion.

  • A couple of thoughts:
    1. Removing the watermark and using it as your profile photo was wrong, whether you read his policy or not. It’s just not right under any circumstance.
    2. I don’t think it’s really “spam” when someone tags a photograph of you, even with a watermark. If you were not in the photo, I’d call it spam. If you do consider it spam and don’t want it in your stream then simply delete the tag. That’s the way social networking works.
    3. Perhaps the photographer was short-sighted in not allowing you to post it sans watermark with some other form of attribution (at least I think he was). But it’s the photographer’s creative work, and they have the right to stand their ground.

    Since there has been a call for solutions, here’s what I suggest.

    Best practice etiquette says do not alter other people’s creative work and post it without permission or attribution, anywhere, ever.

    And second, if someone posts and tags a photo of you that you do not like or approve, untag it and request that the user removed it. They can say no, but at least you asked and it will no longer show up in your stream.

  • At this point, not only do you owe him an apology, I think you should thank Moshe for driving all of this traffic to your blog.

  • Just chiming in to say I agree with all those other folks that said, “You’re wrong, and now you owe Moshe a public apology.”

    Man up.

  • Typically a watermark on a photograph isn’t necessarily just for advertisement but a way of attaining recognition and a means of contacting the creator for various reasons including permission for usage.

    Something that is left out in your examples is the fact that you agreed to model for a SOCIAL event and that a professional photographer is not a part of the general audience but a working professional at the event who has his rights to the media he creates unless he has signed a contract specifically stating a work for hire agreement in which the client could do whatever he pleases with the media produced – which is rare for a well known photographer to sign.

    The bottom of your page
    “(C)2010 Geoff Livingston. All rights reserved”
    This is your blog’s “watermark” and theirs a reason why you post it right?

    We’ve all run into these issues in the past or will in the future and from all sides being wrong or right – Just ask for permission or obey the usage terms next time. It’s best to work out any issues “in-house” then to exploit them in public where in the end it doesn’t benefit anyone involved at least this is how most adults tend to deal with things.

  • Hello goodly people:

    I’d like to take a different approach to this seeming impasse and look at it from the angle of being emotionally violated. It appears to me retaliation for being offended is what we have here and love is what we need more of.

    Two things that stick out to me in Geoff’s account are his feelings of being offended by spam, and second, having the rule of attribution imposed on the use of Moshe’s work as if a gift were given and then rules were imposed.

    First on spam: I challenge Geoff to review his decision to view being tagged as so offensive. It is my opinion that choosing to see it as spam and annoyance made it easier to disrespect Moshe’s work in this way. Cropping out a water mark is a pretty blatant act of violating the artists will and social trust. Retaliation for spam seems likely. So I would like to offer help viewing the tagging as a social good in the interest of hoping to learn and still redeem some positive value from this experience.

    For example: I happen to be a big fan of the work of Taylor Davidson who recently completed some great documentary photography for a similar social media event (The Feast) with a cause for good. After doing so, he made his work available on Facebook and tagged some of the folks in the photos who were also accessible via Facebook too. Now on behalf of those who desperately care to view and learn of more people who care about making our world a better place — folks like me who are so far away from being able to attend or engage physically, we care and are dearly interested in learning about more people who are helping with campaigns like Gulf Benefit, or Kiva, or Bioneers, etc. So by this simple act of tagging, you are helping raise awareness while encouraging others by giving the pictures greater depth and meaning when you help others discover a new heroic biography! I am hoping to see and learn of more people engaged in effort for good all the time. Please don’t look on tagging as a negative to be stigmatized. We are after all on the quest for good right? Let’s be creative in our quest to justify someone’s tagging as a *good thing* yeah? I have greatly appreciated Geoff’s work on Citizen Gulf and would have been really disappointed if I had lost an opportunity to discover his work because he objected to being tagged.

    Secondly: The same principle could be brought to bear on the question of allowing your social graph to have someone’s credit on it. Why not? Again in the interest of promoting a social good this is an opportunity where we might be more creative in our choice of perception which then could have helped us realize a whole different outcome. So many options such as feeling great that you happened to be working an event where Moshe was photographer “how cool is that!?” Or if that isn’t your thing you could have simple thanked him for his hard work and quietly hidden his feed to keep your aggregate less noisy but without the air of retaliation.

    These are just my two shekels worth of intent coupled with my own time and energy. My intent was for creating a good from this situation. I love you all. Actions beget action, but how we answer is first and foremost a matter of our choice which begins with how we choose to see what is before us. We’ve all made mistakes. We’ve all acted out of frustration and been irritable. What I hope is that we also are able to provide is an environment where owning our faults is a safe one. For there I believe we will learn and reconcile much quicker so that we can get back on track with our most important business of making the world a better place.

    With most sincere and warmest regards: Peace.

    Steven Boothe

    “Your living is determined not so much by what life brings to you as by the attitude you bring to life; not so much by what happens to you as by the way your mind looks at what happens.” Kahlil Gibran

  • Well, its digital media, its all FREE isnt it?. I mean, he bought his camera from producing all this free work, and feeds his family from all the donations he gets from the bloggers that use his pictures. Isnt that how photographers are supposed to work?, its called being an impoverished artist and improves their creativity.
    Blogger Zafagina

  • The equivalent would be someone quoting your blog without giving you credit. You are the one that needs to adapt to respecting artists in the digital age. And it looks like Moshe Zusman is doing pretty well… I’m going to go follow him and hope not to stumble upon your blog again.

    • No, the equivalent is me tagging you with my blog, and expecting you to pay me if you mention it or the ideas discussed within it anywhere.

  • Yes we’re at the wrong end of this kind of deal.

Comments are closed