Re: [messengers] I fell down yesterday

Date: 23 Apr 2010 21:51:38 +0200
From: "Andy" <az@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


as a courier and a photographer, i see both sides of this. however i feel that if someone is out in public, they are fair game to be photographed. besides the fact that that's the law, i think it is a weird notion that people somehow feel they "own" their image, and that their image is somehow worth money when used commercially. even if jerome sold that picture (directly or indirectly through shuterstock) to the mcaa mag, i don't see how ben, the anonymous courier in the photo could feel he deserved any $. jerome (or whoever took the photo) did all the work - he had all the equipment, went out, took the photo, processed it, shopped it around and got it sold. ben just rode by same as he would've had the photographer not been there.
ben should have just asked nice for a copy of the mag in the first place, and maybe he would've gotten a reply. 
jerome is an awesome dude (he is sponsoring his services as the official cmwc photographer) so i'm sure if in fact he took the photo in question, and ben contacted him nicely ( http://www.chapter9photography.com/ ), he would totally do whatever he could to get him a copy of the photo or magazine or both.
what's the saying? you get more honey using bees? you know what i mean.
and oh yeah: register for the cmwc. do it!
--
az


>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: saravia.julio@xxxxxxxxx
>To: kenolaben@xxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:49:24
>
>ben...the guy you're talking about is Jerome. he's
>a cool cat...I  
>doubt he let that magazine use that pick. you
>should let Jerome know  
>about it so he could get on them about it. google
>chapter 9  
>photography for his contact info.
>
>as far as who IS shutterstock? it's not a question
>of who but what.   
>it's a site that sells royalty free stock photos.
>basically, If you're  
>out in the public then there's not much you can do.
>we all know about  
>tmz...right? they have a sh*t ton of people taking
>pics of famous  
>heads and sell the photos. it's all legal. did you
>know you could  
>probaly get six figures for a pic of all the
>Baldwin brothers? don't  
>ask me how I know that.
>
>Anywhoo...while I agree that it sucks...I'm pretty
>sure they are well  
>within their rights. sh*t...they probably have more
>pics of non- 
>messengers than messengers.
>
>on another note...it's nice out...peace.
>
>-julio
>
>On Apr 23, 2010, at 9:29, Ben Fietz
><kenolaben@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I'll bet that's the guy who took that really cool
>shot of Ben P	
>> under the El tracks on Wells street. I remember
>that guy coming  
>> through town. He had just come from Toronto and
>was going someplace  
>> else after Chicago to continue photographing bike
>messengers.
>> It sucked because I happened to be looking on the
>Messenger Courier  
>> World Magazine (which is a magazine for courier
>company owners)  
>> website, and saw that picture was used for the
>cover of the current  
>> issue of the magazine and told Ben about it. He
>was pissed because  
>> he never signed any kind of release form. He
>contacted the magazine  
>> about it, and they never replied. After a few
>weeks, he cooled off a  
>> bit and contacted the magazine again to see if he
>could just get a  
>> copy to give to his mom, and they still ignored
>him.
>> If you are going after the guy Cory, and it's the
>same person, I  
>> could let Ben know. I'm sure he is still pissed
>about the whole  
>> thing. And it was good to see you at the MMI, by
>the way.
>>
>> Ben F
>> On Apr 23, 2010, at 8:38 AM, Augustine Montes
><augiem21@xxxxxxxxx>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> that's pretty interesting. and fucked. who's
>shutterstock, by the  
>>> way? i'm gonna look them up.
>>>
>>> --- On Fri, 4/23/10, Corey Hilliard
><coreythecourier@xxxxxxxxx>  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Corey Hilliard <coreythecourier@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>>> Subject: [messengers] I fell down yesterday
>>> To: "Messenger list" <messengers@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Friday, April 23, 2010, 8:01 AM
>>>
>>> Anyway, do you know that Shutterstock is selling
>photos of bicycle
>>> messengers that may be used in magazines of less
>than 250,000  
>>> circulation
>>> for advertising purposes? Funny fucking thing
>because while they  
>>> make money
>>> from selling the photo, the rider in the photo
>doesn't get paid.  
>>> I'm no
>>> lawyer but third party commercial usage seems
>pretty fucking shady  
>>> to me.
>>>
>>> The back story on this is still cooking. I'll
>let you know when the	
>>> details
>>> are done. Then, I will fully vent and share.
>>>
>>> Corey the Courier
>>>
>>> "I am not an Extreme rider, I am an underpaid
>blue collar worker"
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Messengers mailing list
>>> Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
>>>
>http://ifbma.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/messenger
>s
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Messengers mailing list
>>> Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
>>>
>http://ifbma.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/messenger
>s
>> _______________________________________________
>> Messengers mailing list
>> Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>http://ifbma.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/messenger
>s
>_______________________________________________
>Messengers mailing list
>Messengers@xxxxxxxxx
>http://ifbma.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/messenger
>s