Photographer: I got griggs'd 4.5 million times by Texas

Left: Photographer D.K. Langford claims this Texas vehicle inspection sticker rips off his photograph. Right: The photograph on which Langford's lawsuit against the Department of Public Safety and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is based. (Source)

Since "to griggs" has been proposed as a verb in (dis)honor of Judith Griggs of Cooks Source, Texas photographer David K. Langford is facing similar drama with the state of Texas. In this case the scofflaws happened to be prison inmates in a state-run program to design vehicle inspection stickers:

The suit says Langford's photo was illegally appropriated by an inmate who scanned it from a copy of Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine in 1998. ... Open-record requests identified the prisoner who scanned the photo as a man serving a life term for aggravated sexual assault.

As with the Monica Gaudio case, common courtesy would probably have avoided the whole mess. Interesting how some commenters in the original article share Griggs' attitude and think Langford should simply be "honored" that his work was used without payment or attribution. "If they'd called me first, I'd bet we'd have had a deal in five minutes," Langford said.

There are plenty of free images Texas could have used to avoid the whole mess. Support free culture!

(via, via, OP)

Andrea James is a writer, director, producer and activist based in Los Angeles. Her work often focuses on consumer activism, the free culture movement, exogenous mysticism, humor, and LGBT rights.

MORE: Copyfight • guestblog • ripoff

More at Boing Boing

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Hackers prepare for first "national holiday" in their honor

Tomato Salad

Am I the only one who was wondering what a Ferengi had to do with Texas?
- rtresco
  
  The Ferengi plight of the old West is a little known stain in our history. Like the Chinese and the railroads, the Ferengi were second class citizens who bore our saddles hither and yon.
William George

Interesting how some commenters in the original article share Griggs’ attitude and think Langford should simply be “honored” that his work was used without payment or attribution.

Someone should make these idiots realize that, compensation aside, you can’t enjoy the honor of being the “driver’s license guy” if nobody knows it was you.
Anonymous

Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine is a publication of Texas Parks and Wildlife, the state park system of Texas.

One might consider looking at the contract under which the image was licensed to TPW… This might be a legal use.

As to the whole ‘should be honored’ stance… You know, there are professional photographers who would be honored to get paid, so they can pay their mortgage.

As a side note: I wish more states had the ability to publish a magazine to promote their parks, and ecological stewardship in general. TPW is a really good magazine for those times when you want to go to a state park but it’s 500 miles away. Which is a real possibility in Texas. :-) TPW also produces short videos on various state parks and related eco-science and culture. See for instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M10UdjvA6oM

When I lived in Texas, I took it for granted that other states would have this kind of media blitz approach to promoting the outdoors, but even in seemingly more progressive places, that’s not the case.
Anonymous

I thought the Marlboro Man was from Montana not Texass!
catgrin

Turns out there are ten different sticker designs, all featuring silhouetted cowboys. (“western motif”)

http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/52380662.html

There just may be nine more photographers out there who have no idea that they’ve done their civic duty for the great state of Texas.

I also checked out D.K. Langford’s site. He makes images available for licensing, clearly states use and copyright, and has contact info available in several places. It’s a pro’s site, not one that belongs to a part-time photographer. So, while Texas may not have unduly benefitted by the use of his image, he definitely did lose income by their failure to pay him for something he’d already set a price to (it was already a licensed piece).

Hopefully they’ll be able to settle. It sounds like all he’s trying to do is get them to talk to him.
badc0ffee

I love it… I bet Texas thought they were getting a hell of a deal using prison labour to design this sticker.

I hope Langford is generously compensated for this.
merreborn

I’m personally less offended by “the people” appropriating IP, than some private, for-profit enterprise.
Kosmoid

This image is by no means free, at least for the photographer who had to buy and maintain the equipment, not to mention the time spent trying to get the best photograph, which in this case works.

Support good photography, it doesn’t come cheap!
signsofrain

Okay, let’s use some recording industry math here…

Let’s say $62,000.00 per infringement, multiplied by four and a half million illegal reproductions:

They owe Langford 279 billion dollars.
merreborn

It’s worth noting that Shepard Fairey’s iconic Obama poster was created in a similar way:

http://boingboing.net/2009/02/04/ap-tries-to-shake-do.html

I’d be interested to hear a good argument as to why the State of Texas is guilty, while Fairey is innocent.
- Kosmoid
  
  The photog has no problem with how Fairey used it. It’s AP that’s causing the trouble.
  - Anonymous
    
    Actually the photographer did have a problem with Fairey’s fair use, and moved last year to intervene in the AP’s legal action: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090710/0159495506.shtml
    - Kosmoid
      
      He intervened to prevent AP from claiming copyright.
      
      We still don’t know how the photog wants to settle this with Fairey.
- Ean Moody
  
  Key differences? 1) The state of Texas charges for vehicle registration. 2) The state of Texas did not substantially alter the portion of image they used.
  
  Vehicle registration is a process during which drivers are charged, included in that price is the cost of printing stickers and distributing them. The markup the state charges is a means of collecting revenue. Fairey’s poster was released free of charge for people to duplicate at their discretion.
  
  The Texas image was magic-wanded out and kept as a silhouette, adding no new work to the original. The Obama Photo was reinterpreted, creating new shapes and boundaries of light and dark vs. the original analog image. A graphic artist could show you how the Obama image was not in fact filtered, but hand drawn from the reference. (Try running some filters yourself and look at the difference. There are some places where it’s obvious)
  
  That’s the best I’ve got right now. Good argument? I guess that’s up to everyone else.
- SamSam
  
  Good point. That said, many here in the comments already said that Fairey was guilty of appropriating the image illegally and should have asked permission. I don’t remember what the BB editorship said at the time though (not that They speak with one voice).
  
  It seems exactly the same. Except, of course, that Fairey was creating art (which happened to go viral), while the State of Texas was creating a product, which they wouldn’t normally think unreasonable to pay thousands for (although they were skimping on that by using prison labor).
- catgrin
  
  Fair Use Arguments 101:
  
  The difference is based in part on whether or not you’ve used the original item as it stands or if you’ve made it your own. Also, it’s based on whether or not the value comes from the original or from your piece.
  
  In your own comment you used the word”iconic” to describe the Obama poster, while the photographer of the original image described it as “literally a dime a dozen shot, absolutely nothing special about it.” He was totally fine with the artist using the image because he knew that he’d altered it enough to make it something totally original.
  
  Meanwhile, the above image is clearly simple trace work of a very identifiable outline. In other words – the original photo was special and the copy is banking on that. It’s the reverse of the Obama poster situation.
  
  One thing I am wondering is if the inmate was not provided outside resources via the internet and was only able to use the print material at hand. They should have provided inmates in the program with digital images that were user free. Without more information about what was made available, I hold the organization responsible.
- Paul Lockett
  
  That’s a good point.
  
  I really can’t get myself worked up about something like this. The State of Texas seems to have used the image in good faith and there’s clearly no direct financial benefit for them, as the design of the stickers will have no bearing on whether or not people register their vehicle.
  
  I’d agree that knowingly using somebody else’s photograph without attribution is, at the very least, bad manners and deserves some criticism, but in this case, the State of Texas doesn’t appear to have done that. It is the inmate who appears to have passed the work of as entirely his.
  
  What I find more troubling is the photographer’s lawyer’s attempt to claim retrospective damages from the State of Texas, when the State didn’t copy the image itself, used it in good faith and could only have confirmed that it didn’t infringe copyright by comparing it to every other image in the work. It is that kind of approach which could open the way to somebody poisoning the well of Creative Commons by releasing somebody else’s work under a CC licence and enabling anybody using it in good faith to be sued by the original producer.
  
  This is where the article’s statement “There are plenty of free images Texas could have used to avoid the whole mess. Support free culture!” hits a problem, because the State would have been no more sure that the images linked to were produced by the person offering them than they were with the one they used.
  - wrybread
    
    I’m pretty sure you’re responsible for the actions of your employees. Not quite sure how the law interprets slave labor though.
Anonymous

I can’t wrap my head around how everyone claims copyright infringement for personal use is somehow the most evil thing in the world, yet infringement for commercial business use is perfectly fine.

If you pirate a song, you’re getting $1 worth of goods. Of that, the artist may stand to get half a cent. Yet, somehow, it’s worth $20,000 in court.

If you steal someone else’s work, use it as your own, and make a business of it, you are depriving the copyright owner of potentially millions of dollars, yet these cases are dismissed and no one cares.
Stefan Jones

Careful. This suit may be all that’s needed to push Texas into full-blown seccession mode.
Anonymous

I’m also really confused. How does this get everyone up in arms, yet last week when the photographer wanted his photo taken down we see the same mob mentality burn him at the stake? Does one snarky email or illogical request for compensation mean you don’t “deserve” a copyright to your work? It’s like the ACLU – if you buy into the idea, you either defend everyone or no one, no matter their politics or jerkiness.
And trust me, I get it, everyone confused gets it. Private v public arguments don’t hold water. It’s your image and if someone is going to rebroadcast it, and especially if they are going to make money somehow doing so (by say, ads on a website), then you should either get compensated or be able to have it removed without getting crucified.
Kosmoid

Please, the gov’t has no qualms about supporting the too big to fails. Support your local artist. They should send him a check for $7500 and a thank you note, and tell him to keep up the good work promoting the state of Texas.
stormkite

@Stefan #9

You say “secession mode” like it’s a bad thing.

But really…. the secession question was settled about a century and a half ago, so it’s pretty much braindead (something it shares with most Texan politicos and not a few Texans of lesser stature).

However, to the best of my knowledge the question of EXPULSION has not yet been addressed. It might be worth looking into. What kind of percentage would be needed? 3/4 of the remaining states? 90% of the population of the remaining states? It might not be that much of a problem.
- teapot
  
  However, to the best of my knowledge the question of EXPULSION has not yet been addressed. It might be worth looking into.
  
  second
  
  I say give the bastards to Mexico, then see how far their infamous xenophobic attitude gets them.
  
  Also: Classic how Fairey’s CHANGE poster has now become the instant go-to example for anyone defending/attacking blatant photoshop misapropriation. Congratulations, you can read a newspaper.
- AnthonyC
  
  “However, to the best of my knowledge the question of EXPULSION has not yet been addressed.”
  The most it could require is a constitutional amendment setting the manner in which a state may be expelled from the union. So, 2/3 of congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states’ legislatures, then do whatever the amendment says.
Anonymous

So that’s two examples of how to screw up when you’ve taken an image and used it without permission.

Lets see a post with some examples of how people have appropriated something wrongly, and then fixed it when called on it.

It just seems to me, as more people are creating more intellectual property, there are going to be more people screwing up, and we could use some discussion on the right way to make amends.
gandalf23

The image shown is an inspection sticker, not a registration sticker.
catgrin

Here’s a link that helps with the explanation of why using this particular silhouette isn’t okay:

http://fablefolk.blogspot.com/2008/04/cartoon-silhouettes.html

If you took ten portrait head shots of Obama and created silhouettes of them, they’d all look similar. It’s the posterization, added imagery and layout that makes that piece iconic.

But here, It’s the silhouette of the cowboy himself that makes the image.
- Brainspore
  
  Agreed- this use of the image isn’t really “transformative” in any meaningful way, which is one criteria that can determine fair use.
ill lich

They should find the inmate that stole this image. . . and put him in jail!!
jaduncan

“I’d agree that knowingly using somebody else’s photograph without attribution is, at the very least, bad manners and deserves some criticism, but in this case, the State of Texas doesn’t appear to have done that. It is the inmate who appears to have passed the work of as entirely his.”

…whilst acting as an employed agent of the State of Texas, activating vicarious liability. Unless you want electricians to say ‘It killed your child? I’m afraid that was my assistant assembling it, nothing to do with me.’
- Paul Lockett
  
  “…whilst acting as an employed agent of the State of Texas, activating vicarious liability.”
  
  The issue isn’t whether or not the action has a legal basis, but whether or not the legal basis is sensible. That said, I don’t think this case is based on vicarious liability in any significant way. The lawsuit has been filed against both the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Criminal Justice. As the inmate was working for the Department of Criminal Justice, there is an argument that they had vicarious liability, but as the DCJ was acting as a contractor for the DPS, the DPS would not ordinarily have vicarious liability.
  
  “Unless you want electricians to say ‘It killed your child? I’m afraid that was my assistant assembling it, nothing to do with me.’”
  
  There’s a significant difference between the two. It should be practical for an electrician to check the work of an assistant for dangerous defects. The only way anybody could check that an image produced on their behalf doesn’t infringe copyright is to compare it with every other image in the world, which isn’t quite so practical.
txhoudini

Since I live in Texas and own a vehicle I have to purchase the sticker which means I am now in possession of an object containing illegally reproduced artwork. Talk about entrapment!
bardfinn

The problem arose from the State of Texas hanging their liability on someone who may or may not be justly imprisoned by the State of Texas.

Settlement time.
technosean

YES! Charge Texas RIAA rates! FAIR IS FAIR.
M

People really don’t get it. Back when I was a full-time newspaper photographer, the local power company wanted me to shoot their annual report. . . for free! They point out that I’d get CREDIT in the report, which was something I got six times a day in the paper. I said no, and I think they were surprised, since they thought I should be grateful for the opportunity.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  This was a popular meme in mid-century comedy, only with doctors. Gladys Kravitz and her ilk would get insulted when she was introduced to a doctor at a party and he didn’t want to look at her cyst.
  - Metostopholes
    
    This was a popular meme in mid-century comedy, only with doctors. Gladys Kravitz and her ilk would get insulted when she was introduced to a doctor at a party and he didn’t want to look at her cyst.
    
    Related: http://apocrypha.badgods.com/posts/hitman
    
    By the eternally awesome Lore SjÃ¶berg.
- thekinginyellow
  
  i think about 90% of most job postings online are for companies offering low to no pay for students or people wanting nothing but exposure for design work. it’s a shame. recognition does not pay the bills.
- catgrin
  
  I had a guy who wanted me to do a logo design to replace the one he was using (which was a rip off of Chip from Chip ‘n Dale). He wanted me to edit it “just enough” that it wouldn’t look like the original anymore, and wanted to pay me in cookies – when I’d never even tasted his cooking. He asked me to do all of this on a date.
thekinginyellow

texas is in my corner.

as an artist i hope and pray that langford gets something out of this. and wth is the state of texas getting inmates to design their stuff anyway? why not use monolithcreative.com? it’s affordable and located in texas!
bob d

The fact that Texas uses prison labor even for their official graphics design jobs is pretty damn bad all by itself.
penguinchris

I have to wonder – what exactly was the state expecting when it had inmates do the designs? Were they supposed to go out and take their own photographs?

Thus, I don’t think the state can be considered blameless. If you’re using inmates to do graphic design, you need to be diligent about things like this on their behalf, because chances are the inmates aren’t going to be.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  That’s funny because it’s true. Maybe you should file an amicus brief.
Church

It’s a derivative work. It was a stupid idea to include that in copyright, as far as I’m concerned.
Anonymous

Again: The photo was originally licensed by the state to appear in a state-produced magazine. The specifics of that contract would show whether this is a legal use of the photo or not.