Who owns the content you post online?
We’ve all heard speculation about who really owns the content you put online. Who owns the images you put on Facebook? Who owns the emails in your Gmail account? Who owns your Twitter conversations? Or — closer yet to fashion bloggers — who owns the content you post on sites like Chictopia, Lookbook.nu, Weardrobe? And what can they do with your content? Back in December, Lookbook.nu called on its members to submit photos of themselves wearing American Apparel clothing for a booklet. Here the end result is clear, but what happens when you unexpectedly find an image you posted on a network in the style gallery of Payless Shoes?
Erin Hagstrom from Calivintage found out her images posted on Chictopia had been used in the Payless Style Gallery from a newsletter. Keiko Groves from Keiko Lynn found out that her images were used from programmers working on the campaign code. Neither Laura Reilly from Dirty Laundry or Elizabeth Johnson of Delightfully Tacky were even aware of the campaign until we contacted them. The bloggers hadn’t voluntarily submitted images to this campaign, nor were they asked, nor were they told when the campaign launched.
“At first, I was excited.” said Erin. “I wear Payless shoes and they’re a huge company with a lot of reach, so I was excited to have gotten their attention. Then, when I clicked through the campaign, it struck me that this was not a mutually beneficial situation. The only people who stood to gain traffic or profit from the campaign were Chictopia and Payless. I was really disappointed because I would have loved to work one-on-one with Payless on a campaign if they were interested in my personal style and my outfits featuring their shoes, but instead they cut me out and worked on a deal with Chictopia instead.”
Can companies really use your images?
At first you might think, ‘Hey, that’s got to be illegal.’ But it’s perfectly legal. In the Chictopia Terms of Service (ToS), users give the network permission to use content uploaded to the site, but you may not catch it unless you really read the fine print:
Helen Zhu, founder of Chictopia, didn’t immediately reply to a request for a comment [UPDATE: Helen Zhu, left a comment today, see below, noting that Chictopia is working on adding links within the Payless gallery.]. None of the bloggers who submitted quotes knew about this aspect of the terms of service. Laura says, “I had no idea about either this clause or the fact that my photo was used on the Payless website. I don’t suppose I mind too much, although it would have been nice for Chictopia to have even attempted to contact me to inform me of this. Finding out this way really adds a negative spin on the whole thing, it could have been rewarding to see myself featured by such a high profile company but instead I feel like my property and rights have been violated.” Keiko and Elizabeth admitted they did not read the terms of service either, and noted that it was their responsibility to do so.10.CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE SERVICE
Chictopia does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, in order to display materials you provide on the Service and elsewhere, we need your permission. As such, by uploading, emailing, posting, publishing or otherwise transmitting Content to any online forum or other feature of the Service, or by submitting any Content or feedback (including, without limitation, suggestions, complaints, ideas, results, modifications, improvements, translations, discoveries and observations) to Chictopia (“Submissions”) by any means, you grant Chictopia a worldwide, royalty-free, fully paid up, non-exclusive, sublicensable, right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, create derivative works of, perform publicly, display publicly, distribute, publish, and transmit such Submissions, including any and all publicity rights therein, in any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed, provided that…
Lookbook.nu has a similar clause in its ToS:
Yuri Lee of Lookbook didn’t immediately reply to a request for a comment. [UPDATE: Yuri Lee did respond via email May 5, 2010 "Since LB began we have always adhered to the fact that all content uploaded to the site is completely owned by the author," in reference to the 'You own all of the content and information you post on LOOKBOOK.nu.' verbiage in the clause. She continues, "We do everything in our power to make sure that whenever we ourselves or anyone we work with uses LB content for promotional purposes, such as re-posting looks on our Tumblr or Facebook page, it always links back to the original author's look page."]You own all of the content and information you post on LOOKBOOK.nu. In addition, for content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos, you specifically give us the following permission: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with LOOKBOOK.nu (“IP License”). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account.
Facebook, MySpace, Weardrobe, I Like My Style, and Modepass all have similar clauses in their terms of services. So if you ever wondered why a bloggers image on a fashion site had a credit to MySpace instead of the blogger, perhaps the blogger has simply been cut out of the equation. Twitter also has a the similar wording in their Terms, however, they clarifiy to their users that this wording is simply an authorization to make the tweets available to the world ‘But what’s yours is yours – you own your content.’
Many bloggers begin their journey from a passion, an obsession to share, to create, to meet new and interesting people. They build their blogs from the ground up, spending hours honing their talents to create something good. For them, it’s often a labor of love. Meanwhile, it’s their “user-generated content” that social networks rely on to create an audience and make money. What if there was no one on Facebook? Would you go there? Probably not. It’s no secret that one of the ways bloggers meet new potential readers, get inspiration, and build their own brands is by spending time on social networks. Larger websites like, TeenVogue, Seventeen, Glamour, WhoWhatWear Daily, scout social networks for potential features. Bloggers rely as much on social networks as do networks rely on bloggers to direct more traffic to their sites.
What can bloggers do?
Does this sound rather Orwellian to you? Well, it should. But it doesn’t have to be that way. We’re merely lulled into the feeling of powerlessness by fear of losing the opportunity to someone who won’t complain. Bloggers have more power than that. Blogger Alyson Woods of Alyson is Neat Twittered: “As a former SEO [Search Engine Optimization] worker, I know what a blogger’s opinion is worth trafically and monetarily, most companies under value them totally.” Elizabeth pondered in reaction to the Chictopia and Payless campaign, “With all the hullaballoo about bloggers being unethical in their relationships with brands, one has to stop and wonder if the opposite isn’t true as well, perhaps more-so.“
As a fashion blogger you want to grow your blog and you don’t want to turn away opportunities, but should companies be able to profit so blatantly at your expense? Without your active consent? In an environment where bloggers struggle to get $25 a month for a banner ad, perhaps it is time for change. It doesn’t start with keeping quiet. Erin elaborates why she came forward: “Basically, I’m interested in advocating a fair relationship between businesses, bloggers, and networking sites. These businesses need to understand that it is not a fair practice to cut out the blogger…. Bloggers spend a considerable amount of time styling up their outfits, doing photo shoots, editing the images, and creating unique content to share on the internet. While we provide this content for free on our blogs, it is our right to be able to receive compensation if someone else wants to use it for profit. It’s our time, dedication, and creativity.”
Loading ...
The retweeting comment was not a defense to the fact that you are not crediting someones work. The retweet gives the persons name and links back to their profile, and even their website, twitter widgets, and using someones photo without notifying them for profit are two totally diffrent things!
Thank you Kasey…that’s exactly what I meant. I’d kind of given up ; )
.-= Kelsi Smith´s last blog ..Links à la Mode =-.
I haven’t seen the Payless spot first hand, but did notice that they used Erin’s alias “Calivintage” as well as her photograph. The ToS clearly states that you surrender the right w/out royalities…blah blah blah to use photographs (as stated early nobody reads them and only a few understand legalese).
BUT!! Had Calivintage been a registered trademark or copyright I wonder if there would be grounds for a suit? What do you guys think?
http://pinkdossier.com
.-= Kid Couture´s last blog ..What They Wore: Coachella =-.
This is very interesting. I guess it’s time for us bloggers to equip ourselves with the legalities.
.-= Gleenn´s last blog ..How short do you wear shorts? =-.
Thanks for a great article! This was really educational and I hope that more blog readers read this and take it seriously…
gina
.-= Regina Dixon´s last blog ..GIVEAWAY!!! =-.
If Calivintage is or had been a registered trademark or copyright wouldn’t there be a legit cause for a legal action. Not because they used the picture, but because they used her name without permission, and attempted to profit from it?
Every blogger should copyright and or trademark their intellectual property when time/money permits. Just my two cents. What are your thoughts on how we can better work with these companies?
.-= Kid Couture´s last blog ..What They Wore: Coachella =-.
That’s a really good point, I will def find the time to do this for my blog. I think the ‘Creative Commons’ license is the easiest one to use, and it’s free http://creativecommons.org/
.-= CocoJones´s last blog ..so last week darling… =-.
FYI, you may want to bookmark the US Copyright site and spend some time this summer making it your best beach buddy. The touchy situation here is the Disclaimer in the Fine Print. Companies know they cannot swipe content from your site (not that a few haven’t tried) but have themselves covered when you post to a social network.
Here is a case of Fair Use gone wrong
From what it looks like above, Lookbook has the right to use any IP you post. So if you post images only and not your copyright registered name in this case (Calivintage) then they’d have no right to correlate that name with her pictures…but I guess there’s no point in doing that.
All of this could have been avoided with a “congrats you’re in our website” email and a link to her site by the photograph. I mean good grief, the length these losers will go to shit on people is despicable.
New solution, boycott and delete your Chictopia and Lookbook.nu account…send them a clear message that we are not to be fukd with.
.-= Kid Couture´s last blog ..Phoenix Live at Coachella 2010 =-.
Oh, I’ve just been thinking about your solution. But I don’t have much photos to delete from chictopia. I was always wary about this fact that I am not comfortable uploading a lot of outfit photos there nor in other social networking sites. But I’m guilty of doing so at fb.
Wow I can’t say I’m not surprised, Companies are finding sneakier ways to cut out the middle man. And it really sucks that the middle man has to be us bloggers. Bloggers who by their own love and dedication give these companies free advertising, in my opinion one of the most powerful forms.
This article was very enlightening, and I’m sad to say it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Not by what the author has to say, but how bloggers continue to be cheated, and in such a brazen fashion.
.-= Empress´s last blog ..Lookbook: McQ by Alexander McQueen F/W 2010 =-.
wow….I have followed the strong debate of ethics and blogging for the last year but this argument really rang true. My blog is not profitable and I use it for my own personal opinion and content, but, if someone were to take that content and make $$$ off of it instead of me….well that just sucks.
I think everyone needs to realize that the reason one person started blogging may not be the same reason someone else started blogging. Not all fashion blogs are the same…we are not a cookie cutter bunch. Some treat theirs like a work of art, some treat it like a magazine or business, and some treat it as a mix of the two. If you started blogging because you wanted to turn it into a profit-maker then why is it so wrong that you want to get paid for what you produce? What’s so wrong with wanting your site to grow into something that supplements your income a bit? We should be applauded for our efforts…we’ve gotten the attention of an entire industry – why is it so wrong to want that to grow into something profitable?
There is such a double standard between digital media and print media. Magazines inspire people and publish creative content and, holy crap guess what??, they get paid to do it! They receive daily shipments of a bunch of products from various merchants who hope to get their product featured. And I guarantee if Payless posted an article or editorial on their site that was originally published in a top magazine, with no credit back to that magazine, they would have hell to pay.
Why does it have to be so different for bloggers? If we are going to be taken seriously then we need to step up and make ourselves known by demanding credit and/or compensation, for those who want it, for the content we work so hard to produce. Otherwise this ridiculous behavior displayed by Chictopia and Payless will never end and blogging, especially in the fashion industry, will never evolve into something greater than it already is.
.-= Unfunded´s last blog ..Need a dress? Blow out sale at eDressMe.com =-.
So…….. did you ask for permission to use all of the photos from other brands that are all over your blog? You would like to “demand” credit and/or compensation for the ability to right-click and post other companies’ work when something that you’ve taken from somewhere else is then in turn taken from you?
You see, nobody here is responding to that issue. You need to think about the hypocrisy.
I think that most people would agree that it is proper to cite your sources for images – certainly there some legal standards for this And many companies have been upset when their images, particularly ad campaigns, are leaked on the internet. It’s and issue of control – control over how and when their images (ie property) are being used. Even though it is easily argued that the added exposure is free publicity for their brands. Remember the Susie Bubble / Pam Hogg incident. Brands, just like bloggers (who can become/act as brands), can have very strong feelings about how their “property” is being used.
Obviously if you agree to the ToS, your legal rights are negated but I do think that this explains the FEELINGS that people are having in response to this issue. It definitely makes me rethink my relationships with social media networks and if enough people are turned off by this type of behavior, it becomes less about feelings of respect, which are very important anyway, and it becomes about business. Is this a good business practice? Is this the way to build strong relationships with users? I think these companies will find that it’s not.
.-= Jillian´s last blog ..The Oxford Chronicles: Christian Louboutin =-.
That’s a really interesting comment. Reading this I’ve realised it would be better for me to include links to all my sources, rather than just cite them by name (which I always do, but to be honest with you, sometimes when an image has been re-posted, I might use it without even knowing the original source – I think I should really try and find the original source in future). It might be good if we could have some standard ‘best practices’ for things like this, or at least as an agreement between bloggers about how we use each others images.
.-= CocoJones´s last blog ..so last week darling… =-.
Agreed. I try to link, and definitely name original source of images culled from the web, or otherwise. HOWEVER, it would be UNTHINKABLE to use such a borrowed image and profit from it the way Payless has used blogger’s ie Calivintage. Any other medium and a law suit would be done quicker than a sneeze from a flower.
I don’t believe its hypocrisy to speak out against a corporation APPROPRIATING “cool” and profitting from someone’s elses’ image, images, whatever. They should pass on some compensation (it’s in an advertisment, fer chrissakes) since they are making a killing from it.
.-= Citizen Rosebud´s last blog ..the Rosebud Romper =-.
Oh, that’s very good question Vinyl. However, my answer is very simple. Some companies approach me to write about their products – of course I can use their photos – to create buzz and traffic and THEY PAY ME for that. So when I use the photos of a brand that I so like and blog about it without getting paid, that is what I call FREE BUZZ. Why would they be upset about it when they get free advertising from me? But what about this poor bloggers whose photos were used for such ad? They they get any benefits from it? Who got the buzz? The blogger or the shoes?
.-= Gleenn´s last blog ..How short do you wear shorts? =-.
Lesson learned.
I’d like to be a polemicist and bring up a few points because this discussion is a bit self-insulated…
There also seem to be two points being hashed out: are bloggers able to monetize their work, with the other being the protection of the work.
As a business owner, but not a blogger, I can only point to something regarding the second issue. There’s discussion in this thread, including a comment from someone claiming to be a lawyer, about copyright and trademark issues.
As a general rule, one thing that bloggers do not seem to comprehend is that merely linking to the original source, or crediting, an image of content that you have included in your blog falls short and, in legal actuality, would be a violation of copyright. You must ask for permission to reproduce material that is copyrighted – and the permission can be denied. Do all of you contact each and every rightful owner to ask for permission to reproduce what you include in your blogs?
Having had images and content taken from my business as long as blogging has existed, which is now many years, I can count the number of times that permission has been asked on one hand.
Please, all of you, take at least three deep breaths before you get all in a lather about my comment, and think about everyone’s part in this. Whether for better of worse, the internet has made content a lot less precious – not just yours.
Vinyl, you should look up the IFB article on Fair Use, which many blogs actually would probably fall under.
.-= Ashe Mischief´s last blog ..Links à la Mode: The IFB Weekly Roundup =-.
Thanks for the suggestion – could you provide a direct link? Can’t respond until I know what it references : )
http://heartifb.com/2009/03/30/fair-use-explained-more-on-copyrighted-images-on-blogs/
There’s a search box at the top of the page. All you had to do was type in Fair Use.
And if you don’t know what fair use is, I think you shouldn’t go around making legal arguments and defenses without knowing the law.
.-= Ashe Mischief´s last blog ..Links à la Mode: The IFB Weekly Roundup =-.
Ashe Mischief -
Thank you for the link. I, in fact, did use the search button at the top with the phase “fair use” and nothing constructive appeared. I’m mystified where the animus in your tone comes from…..? Regardless, this should be a factual discussion.
I am well aware of fair use – and more importantly copyright and trademark law. My brand is trademarked, and I have fought to protect (always successfully) copyright and trademark infringement of my company, content, and brand.
The information in the link provided appears elsewhere, originating on wikipedia. All well and good – it doesn’t include anything new that would change my point being made : )
Again, the point being made is that bloggers are wishing to have it both ways – crying foul when many (perhaps not all) have appropriated the work of others. Getting back to the original point of this thread: users on chictopia, whether they’ve read the TOS or not, have agreed to it. In the case of a blogger taking someone else’s work, there is no agreement, explicit or implicit.
No, the information in the link I shared did NOT originate on Wikipedia. That post was written by a friend of mine, who is a practicing lawyer (along with her husband) in IP law.
.-= Ashe Mischief´s last blog ..Links à la Mode: The IFB Weekly Roundup =-.
There is text in that post that appears on wikipedia – perhaps your friends contribute to wikipedia. Of course everyone could be pulling it from the same case : )
Vinyl,
here is where your argument breaks down– a blogger using your image without permission sucks. But they are not directly making money off the specific use of your image. If they were selling copies of your images, then they would be in violation of your copyright law. Which, as most blogs I read go, that is not the case.
When a user uses your image to illustrate a post and sells advertising space, the money earned has nothing to do with the inclusion or exclusion of your image, because your image is a small, small percentage of a whole– hence the fair use argument.
This is what Chictopia has done– they are taking other people’s pictures and selling them for their own benefit. Yes, people should be aware of the TOS– I’m not saying they shouldn’t. But the images that they have created, and may have protected under Creative Commons copyright are being sold as is.
.-= Ashe Mischief´s last blog ..Links à la Mode: The IFB Weekly Roundup =-.
There’s a lot of information freely accessible on the Stanford law site, UTexas, and many others.
Good luck everyone!
Thanks for this info Ashe, really informative! Definitely a good point about the profit issue, to me that seems really clear cut.
.-= CocoJones´s last blog ..so last week darling… =-.
Oh, I’m with you Ashe! Even if referencing the source of the photo isn’t sufficient, but if you speak about those products without getting paid, why would the owners like trademark cry foul? I guess the only time they cry foul about seeing their images on your blog and your words about them if and only if your readers did not turn out their buyers!
You made great points in the issue of fair use.
.-= Gleenn´s last blog ..How short do you wear shorts? =-.
Honestly, I see glimpses from both sides of the argument. I see it from Liz @ Late Afternoon, and I see it from the IFB point of view.
I personally do no see my fashion blog as a means of making money. If it brings in a few pennies, fine. But when I began my blog it was because I wanted to join in on the FUN and learn. I have found my passion. HOWEVER at the same time, I do not want to be treated as some over eager fashion blogger who will allow herself to be taken advantage of simply for the “exposure”. And, personally that is what seems to be happening. These magazines who just harp on a “trend”, and don’t even pay out pocket for it.
Almost like those companies who make their entire existence off of interns, and never actually hire an employee. (Not a stab at Chictopia. I personally have no idea how they conduct business with their interns.)
Wouldn’t you want these floating photos of you to at least link back to your blog? It would bring you traffic and comments, and then you would know you were featured. Instead of brining you no traffic and finding out you were featured via third party?
Right. I wouldn’t mind if they did give credit and link back -with my permission. But in the example of Payless and Vogue, these companies aren’t doing that.
If they did, it would be another situation. But still: the ethics of them not asking for permission is disturbing.
.-= Amber @ Ambersmouthwash´s last blog ..All a-flight // Miu Miu =-.
I learned from my friend, a photographer who’s working on his protfolio, how big photo studios work. His service was free because he was on the quest for improving his portfolio, the models where also free and were told that if they do good they might earn a modeling assignments. When the shoots were done for “World Fashion”, the outcome was magnificent. The only capital the owners spent were the plane tickets and food. And guess what? They sold the photos for more than 2 million baht. No model landed a job.
I guess that works the same in fashion blogging.
.-= Gleenn´s last blog ..How short do you wear shorts? =-.
Great post and discussion. Hmm, so many things to think over. I JUST recently started getting into the fashion networking sites because my blog has been up for 2 years and aside from a handful of other fashion bloggers, I felt sort of disconnected from the community. Now that I have joined a few, I find out about this issue. I’ll admit, I skim the TOS on most sites. Pretty unfortunate.
I think our society is at a crossroads with bloggers. There is still a lot of holdover of the old days where people think of blogging as a person’s online diary. However, there are a lot of amazing blogs out there with top notch content and should well be compensated for the work they do, and yet, there are still bloggers out there doing it solely for personal enjoyment. I agree with others that those two don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
There are some parallels in the music industry. People get upset when they think a band has “sold out” because it should just be about the music not the money. However, the bands are saying, “Someone is profiting from our art, why shouldn’t it be us–the ones who created it?” I agree there are ways to sell out (i.e. working with a company who go against your values), but making money off of content that you create is not selling out. I think this is very similar to where bloggers stand. There are people profiting from bloggers’ content, why shouldn’t it be those who are creating it?
.-= Fia´s last blog ..222 =-.
My husband said I didn’t give proper attribution because he was the one who came up with the music industry parallel.
.-= Fia´s last blog ..222 =-.
I agree with most of what’s been said – I blog for fun not money and I also join those fashion sites for fun, and any exposure that comes out of it is great. However the law is the law, and yes if you don’t read the rules then it’s kind of your fault that you didn’t know that… but I really do think that it’s just polite, courteous and ethical to at least let the blogger know that you are using their content and link them (not just the fashion network) at the very least.
It’s really just impolite not too, and a small thing like that doesn’t take time. Losing a couple of minutes to shoot a few emails off is far less trouble than losing the trust of your members.
From now on I think we’re all going to be a bit more careful! And while I know I am a bit uncomfortable using these sites now, I want to see how it all plays out.
But can anyone tell me how exactly I can copyright my stuff??
xx
.-= Sonia // Dozen Dresses´s last blog ..Once Upon A Time There Was A Magazine… =-.
Unfortunately, you cannot claim a copyright for things that you didn’t create, which includes a lot of images that you have copied from brands and designers and posted on your blog. You aren’t the person who originally created those works – someone else did, and they have legal claim to copyright.
No offense Vinyl, but she didn’t ask how to copyright your materials, she asked how to copyright her own and if she’s uploading pics to Lookbook/Weardrobe/Chictopia then she is generating/producing those images.
Now, work you produce: literary, pictoral, intellectual property, etc is automatically copyrighted whe you produce it.
However, if you want to get legal about it you should register your work(s). Here’s the page for the US Copyright Registration of Online Works: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ66.pdf
.-= The Clothes Horse´s last blog ..Blue Elephants On Parade =-.
No offense taken, I’m sure : )
I understood Sonia’s question – she asked how to claim copyright on her materials. I looked at her blog. She has materials that are not of her creation.
Are you suggesting that she put copyright symbols on her pictures only….. and leave the borrowed ones alone? I suppose that’s a solution. Generally, a website or blog uses the boilerplate language for claiming copyright on its entry page, or as some sort of footer, or both.
I can assume, of course, that when you recommend that people file copyright protection you’ve read the entire form and calculated the financial cost of taking those steps? It should be noted that material that has already been published, ie, a blog, that’s in the public domain, cannot be submitted for copyright after the fact. Again, it’s not always a necessary step, and for some bloggers, who are in their early teens, the filing fees might become burdensome (isn’t it $35/item, approximately, that’s registered? You can correct me on that if that’s the incorrect amount).
Have you considered the time frame for approval and registration of copyright? If someone wanted to start a blog, not already in the public domain, and copyright, how long would they have to wait to hear back from our .gov to find out if the claim has been granted?
Vinyl, I’m having trouble responding to you when you seem inept to read others posts, but here goes.
Any original material she has produced is ALREADY copyrighted, in that SHE produced it.
.-= Kelsi´s last blog ..Lookbooker of the Week: Kristania P =-.
Vinyl, obviously those are factors to consider, anyone who reads about copyright in-depth knows that. I don’t feel like arguing about it, but I don’t think cost or time should prevent someone who is determined to protect their work.
A person asked how to do something and I feel that that is the only question that needed to be answered here. Other queries are off topic and unnecessary.
.-= The Clothes Horse´s last blog ..The Terrorist Rabbit =-.
I am actually curious Vinyl if I’m guilty of using your images that you had laboriously protected and mainly referenced you? I am eager to know. But why do you hide your link from us? You seem to be reading everyone’s blog on here and we would like to see your copyrighted stuff too.
.-= Gleenn´s last blog ..How short do you wear shorts? =-.
Vinyl – the images in question are her own outfit shots, which she is asking how to copywrite. Not any images that may or may not have come from other sources.
.-= Lauren´s last blog ..A Catch Up =-.
I think you can set up a simple, free copyright using Creative Commons (I have yet to look into it fully myself tho) – http://creativecommons.org/
.-= CocoJones´s last blog ..so last week darling… =-.
Wow, look what happens when I’m not paying attention.
I have accounts with a few of these sites, but I don’t really use them, and I also applied to Lookbook and didn’t even get a response, I guess I’m not trendy enough for them!
I really don’t understand why people seem to think it’s not possible to both focus on producing good content for readers AND get compensated for it? My blog didn’t start as a way to make money, but it did start as part of my business, so I certainly won’t turn down the chance to make money from it! If anything the prospect of it being a revenue producing part of my business has spurred me on to create better and more frequent content than I otherwise might have done if it was just a personal news stream.
As bloggers we need to value ourselves as a brand and as a person, and that means demanding that the material we produce is valued appropriately and can’t just be stolen by anyone who feels like it because we’re “just bloggers”
.-= Retro Chick´s last blog ..Not Just a Cocktail Cabinet…. =-.
SIGH. Thank you for writing about this; for bringing it to our attentions. REASON # 187 why I love and am glad to be part of IFB. Wondered about the mentions. Have read on peoples’s blog that they got a mention in a magazine that they didn’t know about, that a reader told them about…and I was thinking: shouldn’t a publication tell the blogger that they were mentioned? And to be used and cashed in on without compensation is EXPLOITATION. pure and simple, the man appropriating people’s content for profit. I do believe blogger’s should have some say whether or not they are to be associated with an ad campaign AND they deserve to be compensated. Calivintage’s image and style just sold Payless who knows how many shoes to people who like her. She deserves some of that profit, she deserves her say in the matter.
.-= Citizen Rosebud´s last blog ..Graphic Novel =-.
I had a feeling that this was going to be an issue when I read the terms and conditions of joining Chictopia. Thank goodness I did not sign up!
I have a copyright on my content and I encourage all others to do so especially when you never know if the person browsing your blog is ethical or not.
.-= Brow Raised Beauty´s last blog ..Plaid Wool Skirt Revival =-.
Right, it brought Payless sales and Chictopia some $$ for letting them use the picture, a cut of the sales. Or they could have done it for free, who knows?
I pondered about this last night – and many people who use these fashion networking sites do not have blogs, or maybe started blogs after joining. So perhaps exposure like this would be interesting to them. But bloggers have something to lose, and it is not about money. You are losing traffic and citation. On the Fashion Spot forums you cant link any photos without sources without having the moderators hounding you about it. These people were not contacted to see if they want to opt in or out.
.-= Eli´s last blog ..A Love Story =-.
I personally think a link back to the bloggers site would be reasonable, and then if the store wanted to work further with the blogger personally, they could pay them. As a free service I guess Chictopia needs to make money, but it just seems a bit underhand they way they’ve done this.
.-= CocoJones´s last blog ..so last week darling… =-.
This is a tricky one! I must admit if it were my pictures being used i’d be pretty annoyed that i hadn’t been informed, but wold see it as my fault for not checking the terms properly.
To be fair, by blogging our own personal images we’re all at risk. Pictures from my own blog had recently been taken and posted on tumblr without permission even though i have a copyright notice on my blog. They then were ‘reblogged’ to over 100 other tumblr accounts- some of which were quite ‘unsavory’ you might say. I came across this completely by accident- none of us really know where our pictures are going. Luckily i contacted tumblr and they swiftly removed my images from all these sites.
I also had a similar problem with the pictures being posted on chictopia’s tumblr and reblogged, but again i contacted chictopia and they agreed to remove them- no problem.
I think my point is- we’re all complaining about re-use of pictures from Chictopia, but we agreed to it in the terms! you don’t even realise that your pictures can be taken anyway and posted all over the place. This is one of the risks we have to accept by blogging. Yeah it sucks. i watermark all my pictures now even on chictopia, lookbook etc. who knows if it helps- i’d like to think it does a bit! xxx
Ok…
Since there’s been a request to deal with facts…lets do that.
- Yes, Chictopia are covered under law by their TOS
- Yes, we should have read them.
- In my opinion the TOS of Chictopia are unethical, if they choose to use them in the manner the article has outlined.
- IFB’s purpose is to educate and inform (one of them) This article has done that. We are all free to make our own choices with the given information.
- Blogs that use others copyrighted pictures, NOT covered under fair use, should always ask permission first.
- Blogs may use others copyrighted images under the fair use.
- Blogging provides authors with the freedom to do with their blogs what they please. Just because someone wnats to make money off their hard work doesn’t make a blog lesser than another – and vice versa.
We’re a community, and we should respect one another as such. In my opinion this is where Chictopia falls short.
.-= Kelsi Smith´s last blog ..Links à la Mode =-.
Vinyl – I meant for photos that I have taken, not other peoples, but I see how it came across that way
Clothes Horse – Thats exactly what I meant, and thank you for the information
I’ll try and find the UK copyright stuff too, but I think they should be similar. Thanks!
.-= Sonia // Dozen Dresses´s last blog ..Once Upon A Time There Was A Magazine… =-.
I guess everything that is not registered and protected by law in some way is prone to abuse. Internet as a whole is still a mess, and your rights can be violated online in so many ways!
well, terms of service are terms of service, and the fact that you don’t read them only makes it your own problem, because they are there FOR YOU TO READ (and know, and act accordingly).
however, someone should check if it is legal for them to do so. because, if it isn’t, then it doesn’t matter, if it’s in the terms of service or in the toilet.
.-= F (For All The F’s)´s last blog ..: The Thing About Film And Fashion, Is Tom Ford Unbelievable, Or What? =-.
Well…this is a difficult situation. First of all let me clear out that I do think it is wrong to post a copyright image and use it to gain money without permission.
We blogger don’t always ask for permission when using a image for a blog post, but we’re not making money of it. this as a reply to Kidcouture , If Calivintage had been a registered trademark or copyright she could have prest charges or something like that.
Selling photos or not selling photos, Chictopia could at least just ASK the blogger directly rather than having them find out for themselves.
It amazes me that some people would think that bloggers are unethical. Clearly the people who stand to gain the most are always going to be the corporate entities.
I am constantly getting emails from companies who do not have my best interests in mind (or any of my interests in mind) another problem I have had recently are spam comments from Sketchers UK and GHD.
Maybe they thought that by leaving me a sappy comment it would be OK for them to advertise for free on my blog.
In the case of GHD I did email them with a link to the comment that was left but they couldn’t be bothered to reply to me.
I’m getting tons of these and it’s highly annoying! They really must think we’re daft.
.-= Denise @ Swelle´s last blog ..Scenes from Bristol, the Pastel Painted City =-.
I understand the frustration of having one’s content published without one’s knowledge, and the fact that businesses need to have more courtesy…but I think the main question should not be whether bloggers are hypocrites but rather how do we stop being the “middle men” that get cut out? When an employee at Payless finds a blogger’s picture on Chictopia, instead of paying chictopia for the picture, how would we get them to SKIP CHICTOPIA (the “middle man” in the traditional sense) and contact the blogger directly? That’s what I’d like to read about.
.-= Jessu´s last blog ..Alice + Olivia @ Payless! =-.
Hello Jennine and IFB readers,
I am the founder of the online community LOOKBOOK.nu. I unfortunately did not see the email that was sent regarding this article because I have been traveling for the past week, and regrettably only just today was this brought to my attention by some of our followers on Twitter.
We are mentioned in the article primarily because we have a similar clause in our Terms of Service to that of another site, so I would like to clarify what we use our clause for in particular.
First, the clause quoted from our Terms of Service was originally added in late 2009 for our then newly launched partnership with the German Vogue.com (http://vogue.de). The clause allowed for us to grant permission to Vogue to create editorials on a regular basis using content that our members have posted to our site. These editorial articles all credit and link back to the authors of all photos that are referenced, and we do not directly profit from these articles being written.
Second, we also use this clause for posting images of our users to our Facebook page (http://facebook.com/LOOKBOOK.nu) and our Tumblr blog (http://lookbookdotnu.tumblr.com), where we always link back to the author’s original page.
Third, we also often receive requests for images from magazines like Elle and Vogue which ask for specific photos from LB members to be included in upcoming issues. The clause allows us to grant permission to these publications so that they can print the images that we send them. In these cases, it is standard for us to email each member personally to ask for their highest resolution photo(s) and let them know about the opportunity before sending. Though our request is not always honoured, we always make a point to fight for photo credits for each individual author, not just a reference to LOOKBOOK.nu.
Fourth, we use this clause for collaborations with major brand partners who we screen and carefully select based on their existing popularity and reputation among our community members and what they can offer our users. The LOOKBOOK.nu Lookbook by American Apparel which was referenced in this article is a good example of such a collaboration, and I would like to highlight a few facts on how it was run:
- Neither LOOKBOOK.nu nor American Apparel profited directly from the the printing and distribution of the lookbook.
- The collaboration was launched as an opt-in contest, where it was made clear that all entries were eligible to be included in the print lookbook, and by entering the contest the user acknowledged and gave permission for their content to be used for this purpose.
- 3 winners of the contest were flown to the American Apparel headquarters in Downtown Los Angeles for a special photoshoot that appeared in the lookbook, all expenses paid.
- Both the print version and the online version of the lookbook (http://www.americanapparel.com/lookbooknu.html) include photos which credit the authors of every single photo. The online preview version includes photos which link back to the author’s original look page on LOOKBOOK.nu.
- The lookbook was distributed to 280 stores in 20 countries, giving each member included a significant amount of exposure.
- American Apparel is and has consistently been among the top 5 tagged brands in our community, so we knew all along that we were working with a brand that was already held in high esteem.
The bottom line is that we are grateful for our talented members and the amazing quality of content they contribute to our collective gallery. We fully acknowledge the fact that we depend on our users in order for our site to be a success (what social site doesn’t?) and this is why we know that we need to do right by our users in order to flourish both as a community and a business.
We always do everything in our power to give our members recognition for their talents (that is the entire point of the site) and we always try our best to give credit where credit is due, especially when it comes to bloggers. And we are very careful in screening and selecting brand partners to ensure that they are a good fit for our audience and have something meaningful to offer our community before working with them.
If anyone has any specific questions about our policies or cooperations with third parties, I am happy to address them! I can be reached at yuri [at] lookbook.nu.
Thanks for reading,
Yuri
Yuri, thank you for taking the time to comment and share with us both Lookbook’s explanation/use of that particular bit of TOS and how much you value your community.
.-= Ashe Mischief´s last blog ..Links à la Mode: The IFB Weekly Roundup =-.
Thank you for taking the time to address this issue, Yuri! Your comment was respectful and thoughtful, and I feel better already about continuing to post pictures on my lookbook.nu account.
~Robyn
.-= Robyn´s last blog ..Did you miss me? =-.
I think this seems very clear and reasonable, and I personally feel very comfortable with how you use contributors images in this way, it seems like a fair, two-way relationship, which is as it should be. Thanks!
.-= CocoJones´s last blog ..so last week darling… =-.
wow thanks for the article! I was really unaware of this!
its quite shocking and sort of disrespectful!
much love, Victoria.
.-= Victoria´s last blog ..Acquiring Healthy Habits =-.
Yuri Lee,
I am happy to hear about the high standards of how Lookbook treats it members. In my eyes, there is fairly a difference to Chictopia. My conclusion will be to leave the latter and concentrate on Lookbook. I will post about this on my blog and let my readers know about the reasons for this decision.
It may seem as if the Payless campaign is just a small case. But it is not. As the founder of Chictopia already pointed out, there are more plannings in this direction and I decided it’s not what I want to happen to my photos.
I highly appreciate your answer and will be looking forward to stay active on Lookbook.
Lilly Rose
.-= Lilly´s last blog ..Out of Reach =-.
Great post! I had no idea…
.-= TheShoeGirl´s last blog ..Weekend Gettaway =-.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Regardless of the fine print, I think it’s sneaky. As others have pointed out, this practice is incongruent with the sharing and trust that is largely inherent in the blogging community.
Helen Zhu recently began following me on Twitter and then unfollowed me once I followed her back. It’s a little thing, and I simply unfollowed her once I realised, but it points in the direction of being prone to underhanded practices.
.-= Denise @ Swelle´s last blog ..Scenes from Bristol, the Pastel Painted City =-.
wow, this is really something to think about. I like the idea of these social/fashion networks but I feel like there should be some protection or at least a mutually beneficial exchange when it comes to using blogger content outside of it’s origin and with out asking directly.
thanks so much for this!
.-= meg, reckless daughter´s last blog ..yes to scallops! =-.
Such an imformative post, I mean does anyone ever read terms & conditions!! But yeah it would have been nice for the companies to actually include the bloggers in what was going on!
.-= Pearl Westwood´s last blog ..When you have a Pair of Chanel Ballet Flats, Why Would You Ever Need More Flats? =-.
I knew this about Chictopia with Polyvore, but I wasn’t aware they were using them on payless! That annoys me a lot actually!
I use pics from chictopia a lot, but I always ask permission and promote their blog on the post. This doesn’t seem to be the case here.
.-= Maggie´s last blog ..Featured Find: AmeriBag Metro Geneva Mini Backpack =-.
Vinyl – Yeah I do understand that, and thank you for the information. However I was just wondering how to do the copyrighting, not that I was definetely putting it into action, because I had no idea what it involved. I know I have got other material too, but I was just curious. But thank you very much anyway
Yuri – That comment was very clear about how highly Lookbook treats it’s members (which i am very glad of because I practically live on LB! Haha) And I have no qualms about posting again on there.
But I am closing my chictopia down. I know which site I’d much rather be on!
Yuri – That comment was very clear about how highly Lookbook treats it’s members (which i am very glad of because I practically live on LB! Haha) And I have no qualms about posting again on there.
But I am closing my chictopia down. I know which site I’d much rather be on!
.-= Sonia // Dozen Dresses´s last blog ..Designers Marketplace at Mbro Fashion Week =-.
Wow! Everyone is so serious. C’mon have some fun and be flatteredthat a HUGE chain thought your style was awesome enough to even use your pictures. I get it the point and all, but still, get over it–people probably know who you are with or without being mentioned in the ad.
.-= Nick´s last blog ..Weekend Rewind: May 1-2, 2010 =-.
You mean, the get over the they just made a big chunk of change off your image without crediting you part? that’s a tough pill to swallow, dearie. A big company just made a whole lotta money using an individual’s image and style, without compensating her. I think it has made me seriously reconsider my time spent on Chictopia, for sure, and plan to take action for blogger’s to benefit from their content if someone else benefits too.
.-= Citizen Rosebud´s last blog ..the Rosebud Romper =-.
jennine,
thanks for the review
great – informative read, V.
.-= Veronica´s last blog ..Fern Mallis LLC =-.
Taken via my blog post today:
Late last week, IFB posted a great article regarding the recent partnership with Chictopia & Payless. As a majority of you know, I intern for IFB so I was made aware of this partnership. Of course it made me angry because of the way Chictopia went about it; it seemed entirely sneaky. And yes, I agree that bloggers should be made aware when photos are used, just like we request from people who want to use our images via our blogs. There should of at least been a clickable link to trackback that individual. However, that is not what I’m trying to address here.
The article was great, expressed something that definitely needed to be brought up in the blogging community. We do need to be more aware of the ToS. What happened IS OUR FAULT. However, in the comments section, it seemed to go extremely downhill from there. It is absolutely, 100% true, that we are all entitled to our opinion. It seemed that the commenting turned from the actual issue to personally bashing bloggers. I was appalled at what people were saying, considering we are all in this blogging community together. We should all be on the same side. I found it extremely rude that instead of people discussing the issue at hand, which is companies discrediting/taking advantage of bloggers, it seemed to take a turn for the worse, singling out bloggers just because they spoke their opinion. I do believe in the multiple ways we do business but it is so inappropriate to bash someone for the way they handle their own.
We should be coming together as a community to make awareness. The private opinions you have about other bloggers should definitely remain quiet and if you do have an issue with someone, speak directly to them via email, in person, etc…not via Twitter, on public forums, or whatever nonsense your choosing to hide behind.
PS. Also, yes, my widgets for chictopia & lookbook.nu are gone but not because of this issue; it’s due to tech errors with Typepad.
To view discussion, check the IFB website.
.-= Christina of Profresh Style´s last blog ..when we fell in love, it was the summertime =-.
I have been providing online content for 17 years. When I started out, I got paid (better) than an average, print columnist. But now online journalists are mixed in with bloggers, who write for fun. I think that is part of the problem. And, furthermore, the idea that if you can “right click and save-as” it should be free for the taking, is ridiculous. On the Advice Sisters Blog http://advicesistersblog.blogspot.com/ I have a copyright notice (in several lanaguages) on every blog post I write. Every time I do a search (and I do that, often), I find my content, photos, videos, just about anything available, used by others without my knowledge, approval, or compensation. I think the issue is that most people really do not value what they see online. It is up to everyone who posts, even comments like these, to protect their intellectual property. If someone walks into your house while it is unlocked and steals your stuff, it’s still theft.
Amen, Sister Alison!
This is the point that I’ve been trying to make. There’s a lot of commenting on here about “fair use”, which people don’t seem to understand isn’t law. It’s a loophole that is *sometimes* usable – but not a term or practice to rely upon.
I understand that some feel that the thread gets off-topic when discussing this, but it’s really the crux of the matter. I think it indicates a future piece for which, perhaps, Jennine could get an intellectual property attorney to respond to some helpful questions. Someone who’s been practicing for many years – I mean the kind of person that I pay to do I.P. work for my company, not a law student…..
Thanks for your concise and honest comment.
Loop hole… it is quite possible that what Payless and Chictopia did is illegal. First off, the copyrights of an image belong to the photographer taking the photo. Therefore, if the person posting the photo on a site, like Chictopia, doesn’t have a licensing agreement to publish the photos then the photos are being used illegal by the blogger. Therefore, Chicopia would be providing images which they don’t have the legal rights to the terms then become void. However, I think this is something that Payless/Chictopia legal department probably know about but then dismissed the idea because that means the blogger is condemning themselves (how they is no legal ramification if the photographer and Chictopia don’t come after you). So potentially a photographer could go after Payless for not getting permission from the actual copyrighted owner and Chictopia would be legally responsible for providing unlicensed images. But in all likelihood it depends on how good your lawyer is and if your willing to putting yourself on the firing line.
My honest opinion, companies and people will always do things that are unethical, we can come together as a community to improve our rights and fight for what is right. But until that perfect day where all negative things no longer exist we as professionals must educate ourselves as best as we can to protect and respect each other.
The issue of intellectually property and the internet is a very dark place that has yet to be properly explored and I’m very interested to hear more about this topic from IFB and thank you for the post and everyone’s comments!!! Good stuff.
.-= Devon Poer´s last blog ..Generosity Water Charity Event – Video =-.
Wow not happy to hear about this! I saw the payless photos awhile ago but just assumed the bloggers had been informed they were selected to be featured and gave their consent.
Sorry if this has already been mentioned but perhaps we should think about watermarking our outfit photos when uploading them to one of these sites. Then if another site or magazine wants to republish the pic, they can contact the blogger directly for the unmarked photo
hey honey… great post!!!
LOVE IT <3
a hug, from Portugal*
.-= Ivânia Santos By DIAMOND´s last blog ..Lady…what?!! =-.
Without that clause, Chictopia would be breaking a privacy tort–appropriating one’s image for commercial gain. But the way the clause is articulated is sneaky.
that is precisely why I don’t use any of those sites and I bought my own URL and I pay for hosting on my own blog. I don’t have to worry about any of that!
.-= roni´s last blog ..Han Cholo =-.
Wow, that really bums me out…at the least they could have told her that hey used her photo…at the very very least. It kind of makes me not want to go on there anymore which is too bad because I really like the site.
This is a little terrifying. I just uploaded pictures from a photoshoot of me and my friends to facebook the other day, and I just created a chictopia account today; now I’m second guessing wondering if I should delete the photos. But at the same time, I do have a desire to share things, and I want them to be seen, and those social networking sites are powerful tools. I really don’t know what I should be doing now!
I have to say I mainly use Lookbook.nu, but I think a lot of style bloggers are weary since they find they get their photos used. Here is my perspective on that. Copywrite law is a slippery slope online. If you an upload a photo anywhere you do it at your own risk. If you don’t want someone to use it watermark it. I hate to say it, but some fashion bloggers under mind themselves. When I go to work and a someone just happens to be a blogger tells me I shouldn’t pay for a blogger and we can exchange clothes that makes me sick because I use to do editorial and that just under-appreciates the whole idea of becoming a full time writer. The fact is though if you submit your photo to any site or anywhere online people can use it and not get in trouble for it. Too bad more people don’t know this. Even youtubers had this issue that’s why the huge ones watermark their videos now. I say just use common sense and don’t under mind each other and you’ll be okay.
I always knew there was a catch. Chictopia works with a lot of brands. When you post your pic, they tell you to “tag” or just write where you got a certain garment from. I would assume thats to let companies know that goodlooking people are styling and modeling it for free!and then boom free authentic advertising that goes in their newsletter. But to me its exposure and after all, its their responsiblity to read the fine print.
Wow! what an thought ! What a concept ! Wonderful .. Incredible ? I generally don?t submit in Blogs but your weblog pressured me to, wonderful perform.. gorgeous ?