A Threat From Clinton Campaign Photographer

So I get this email just now - yeah, I took the image of Hillary and Norman Hsu from the LA Times and intentionally left the photographer's name on it - Stephen A. Schwartz, as opposed to cropping it out. I guess it was taken while he was working for Hillary Clinton. Think maybe she doesn't want an image with her and Norman Hsu floating around? heh I better take it down as requested, so don't screen cap the page, or anything.

I can't seem to find your request to use my copyrighted image on your web site. The image is not  public domain. Remove it or be prepared to be invoiced for it's use.
Next time ask the owner's permission, they might say yes.

Stephen A.  Schwartz
www.camerarts.com

Stephen A. Schwartz

Previous Employment: UPI,Reuters as a stringer,I have spent the last 15 years working major U.S. political campaigns, including former First Lady, now Senator Hillary Clinton as her campaign photographer, as well as three U.S. Presidential campaigns.

Comments

[TheSpartan]

I missed the threat. You broke the law and got called on it.

[Peyton]

Accidentally, sloppily, unintentionally submitted to Ms. Hill's senate web form:
***********
Hey, check it out!
I submitted this under "crime." Fraudulent contribution bundling... Possible influence peddling.... Crime! Yeah, that's the ticket.

Hey, look what I found on the internets! It's a photograph of you and one of your Hill-Raisers! Nice likeness of you, Senator. So lifelike.
http://southernexposuresaustin.com/images/naan834_hsu_20070828184931.jpg
If you're not sure of the accuracy of the image, you could check with your Al-Reuters stringer, that Schwartz guy.

This is reality, Senator. You can't threaten people to take this picture down, and hope that it goes away. This is reality. It's not like the fantasy world that you spin for your knuckle-head base, where progress in Iraq is somehow a problem. You keep pushing for United States defeat, and we'll keep an eye on who you like to hang out with.
Deal?

[Sara]

I've seen that picture on at least a "gazillion" blogs, is he demanding the same of all of them? Wouldn't your use of the photo fall under the "Fair Use" section of the copyright law? Especially since you left the attribution on it in the form of the photographer's name and did not claim it as your original work?

[TheSpartan]

Course republican fundraisers are nice guys right?

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/09/mitt-romney-finance-bigwig-charged-with.html

[TheSpartan]

The photog has the right to pick and choose who his property is used by, so no he wouldn't have to ask everyone to take it down. As for "Fair Use" I think you misunderstand the provision this doesn't apply here.

[Sara]

Shoot meant to hit preview and hit post. Here is Section 107:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38

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 work.

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.

[Sara]

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I hope I understand this 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.

or else I'm in trouble daily on my own blog.

[TheSpartan]

Looking back at the post in question (Dan has removed the pic in question BTW), he isn't covered in my opinion. He's not a member of the press and he offered no substantial commentary on the image. You might see it differently but clearly Dan thought he was on questionable footing.

[Sara]

It doesn't say "a member of the press," it says news reporting and he certainly does that, as well as commentary and criticism. I'm not arguing this either way, more questioning, since I thought it was okay as long as proper attribution is given. But like I said, I'm not a lawyer.

[Topsecretk9]

I can't seem to find your request to use my copyrighted image on your web site. The image is not public domain. Remove it or be prepared to be invoiced for it's use.
Next time ask the owner's permission, they might say yes.

Stephen A. Schwartz
www.camerarts.com

You aren't distributing it -- and you left his credit. He's full of shit. If he'd like to make the image proprietary it's up to him to take it from public online linkage-- he can go figure out x17 online's procedure -- they seem to light years ahead of this lughead.

And I work in this industry and I really hate these smug talentless nobodies.

[Topsecretk9]

so does Jane Hamsher get a double fat fine for defacing the image of Clinton and Joe Lieberman?

[Topsecretk9]

So cameraarts image prices and in particular - a Schwartz image - this seems to be the pixel equivalent size of what you used ....Wallet size prints (9) 2.5x3.25 $18.00

Sooooo that would bring your grand total to roughly 2 bucks.

What a Hillary boot licker this schmuck is.

[Dan Riehl]

Honestly, I have no problem pulling the image basically in trade for calling the guy an ass. I could hot link it somewhere, or probably tell him to go for it and come after me, but I dont' want the hassle. I had an AP guy do the same thing once. Bottom line, if the guy was going great guns he wouldn't care and would appreciate the pub. Or Hillary asked him to police the image for her.

[Topsecretk9]

OH - crud...meant to say this first off...Schwartz doesn't own the image any more he sold it to cameraarts --- they actually own it. And since he isn't paid by say the AP the actual "byline" means nothing, no one is obliged to credit- these photos are for sale with NO rights manage license to be negotiated - you want them you buy them no strings attached- so Schwartz can pound sand because he just got pwned as a looser photog and camerasrts is prolly appreciating the traffic - I didn't know they were out there, they will be a great resource in the future.

[Topsecretk9]

--but I dont' want the hassle--

that's just it, there is no hassle -- I would tell tell the guy to lick my you know what --- and then what? He's gonna have cameraarts sue you? UH HUH - Hiilary Image site sues to censor blogger - riiiiiggggt.

[Sara]

I hear you on not wanting the hassle, I wouldn't either. And I like your diabolical humor of the trade-off. LOL.

[Sara]

Although I do agree with TSK9.

[Sara]

Googled "Hillary Hsu pic" and your post "Riehl World View: Hillary's Hsu A Wanted Man" came up #1 with a post by Malkin #2.