The Ultimate Viral Image

Israeli-American photographer Noam Galai's incredible story, from Fstoppers. The ultimate viral image?

This is really the sort of thing you can't make happen on purpose—and, as Noam notes at the end of the interview, it's something that couldn't have happened twenty years ago—at least not quite this way.

Mike
(Thanks to Scott F.)

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Comments

[Barb]

and no one paid him for using it, I guess.

[RobG]

I had to laugh at Noam's final comment, "So... I guess they're wrong." What a great summation of the whole photo library scheme.

This image has become the 21st century's version of Korda's Che Guevara, it seems (and I'm sure I'm not the first one to mention that in this forum). Such a shame that he can't get any compensation for the commercial use of his photo.

[RobG]

ack, brain fart...

I meant to mention the Invisible Camera project as well, for those who have yet to look at the Fstoppers site - worth sitting through the 10 minute video, and when you have, don't sign up for the trial, coz I'm doing that and frankly, I don't need the competition. :P

[Eric Rose]

This piece has reminded me I need to delete my flickr account. Just did. Long overdue.

At least the guy was able to come to terms with getting screwed. Not that getting all twisted would have changed anything for him.

Unfortunately the internet has allowed a lot of people to unleash their inner thief since the chance of a)getting caught or b)suffering any negative consequences is minimal.

[ImNotBuyingIt]

Dude has to hire a lawyer, and a good one at that.

[Eddie]

Hmmm, interesting. I'm all over the internet day in and day out, a total newshound you might say. Never saw this image before until now.

Forwarded it to 7 people I know around the country and the world, from many backgrounds, none of them had ever seen it either.

[Player]

This is one of those "can you hold two simultaneous ideas in your head without going crazy". In one instance it seems the artist should be ecstatic for having his work so widely seen, but at the same time money is being made off his image and he's not making it. Should I laugh or should I cry? Is it bitter or is it sweet? Is it art or is it commerce?

[toto]

There are similarities and difference between this and the Obama Hope poster. In both cases, the photographers got their faces known to the public (in the Scream, literally). However, the Hope poster was made by someone known, and required quite a bit of imagination, whereas the scream poster was probably made by someone (as of yet) unknown, and it was a small step between the photo and the poster. I think it's the posterized version that got popular, rather than the original photograph.

Getty was right, the photo would not SELL. After all, there was only one sale - to Nat Geo. If people had to pay for it, it might not have sold.

[Robert Roaldi]

So many themes pulling in different ways. If, in some other universe, he had been able to limit the widespread usage of the image by some fee/legal-based protection or other, chances may be that no one would have used the image and he would have received no money or credit anyway. You can't get money or credit from something no one wants.

There are lots of photographers out there with images in their portfolios that no one will ever buy. Or steal.

It's not nice that the image was used in commercial ways, that's a no-no in publishing, but I can see where in a world of down-sizing and cost-cutting, some new (and old) publishers might not even have anyone on staff anymore who knows about these things. It seems unthinkable that this could happen, of course, but to a lot of people who work in the modern re-engineered company, complete and utter ignorance of the basics is all too common. (Not long ago, bankers, accountants, and insurance people, formerly the most conservative people you could meet, went berserk and forgot everything about how to do their job.)

[charlie]

Interesting,

First I ever heard or seen of it.

[Rogerbotting]

A number of thoughts flew through my head on this one. The Che photo, the Gene Smith Minimata photo, Barak Obama, Jimi Hendrix and Bob Marley images. And the ironic twist of an Israeli photogrpahers photo being used as an anti-Iranian government poster. I guess the Zionists are behind all of the protests. Just joking on the last point, before someone goes off the deep end.

[sporobolus]

Naom Galai should simply license to his photo to RightHaven, which will then egregiously sue the pants off everyone who's done something with Galai's image

http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/

[Jamie Pillers]

A follow-on thought to a comment above which suggests that his picture likely would not have sold if the photographer had put a price on it. So long as we all turn a blind eye to this kind of business behavior, then that's probably true. But why are we putting up with it?? Why is it that Flickr doesn't have to in a mechanism that REQUIRES approval of artist before download is allowed?? Are we now at the point where anything that gets in the way of 'doing whatever we want' is deemed acceptable unless we come crashing down with mega-lawsuits?? Public thievery; celebrity worship; disgusting consumerism... Its all gone too far, hasn't it??

[Christopher Lane]

Reason number 103 NOT to post your images on Flickr. I don't any more. You have been warned.

[Tim]

Actually, flickr has a setting to "discourage" people from downloading your original images. But, as they put it, "Please understand that if a photo can be viewed in a web browser, it can be downloaded". The only ways to really stop people would be to, 1)not upload large file size (totally doable) or 2) have flickr use some sort of annoying flash based system that still wouldn't totally prevent people from stealing your image.

It's just like with music, all the DRM in the world can't prevent somebody from just playing a song and recording it. If it can be heard it can be recorded. If it can be seen, it can be copied.

What this video does not address is what permissions he had set on the image regarding copyright status. I don't remember, but I think flickr defaults to a creative commons license (the noncommercial one I think), which is, in my opinion, a mistake on their part.

One other point is that many of the users of the image may not have stolen it directly. Once it was made into a poster and placed on walls, it probably took on a life of its own. Some people probably took that image (the image of the poster) and put it on merchandise.

[David Comdico]

The public art use is pretty cool but the graphic illustration thievery is troubling. Amazing how lazy and unethical some "artists" can be.