Earlier this week, the UK Government came under fire over a “crass” campaign photo. It shows a young ballet dancer and a caption reading: “Fatima’s next job could be in cyber (she just doesn’t know it yet). Rethink. Reskill. Reboot.” Atlanta-based photographer Krys Alex shot the original image, and she spoke up about the incident. She says that she was “devastated” when she found out how her photo was used, and that she would have never allowed it.
To remind you, choreographer and director Sir Matthew Bourne tweeted one this photo and wrote: “This has to be a joke? Right?” He started an avalanche of negative comments, and I think there was no artist or creator who wasn’t furious about this ad (myself included). It was later revealed that the photo was taken from Unsplash, and whoever made it didn’t even think of paying an artist, apparently.
Krys Alex has posted a video to her Instagram and spoke about the photo and the scandal in which it was involved. First of all, Krys revealed the dancer’s name: it’s not Fatima, it’s Desire’e. She and Krys met through the owner and director of the studio, Tasha Williams. In fact, Tasha is sitting back to back with Desire’e in the original shot.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CGXuFDlp6tL/
The photographer says that she doesn’t know who “Fatima” is, but Desire’e is a young and talented dancer from Atlanta who has a dream of attending college to study dance. Tasha, whom Krys captured in the same photo, is also a dancer who has helped many young dancers pursue their careers in arts.
“I was shocked,” Krys replies to the question of how she felt about her photo going viral. She says that there were a lot of emails and messages when she woke up on Monday morning. “I really felt devastated,” she says. “I immediately thought about Desire’e and how her face was just plastered all over social media, internet, and different news article […] and she had no clue.”
The photographer adds that the whole situation really hurt her. Many people asked her if she had known about the campaign and if she had allowed for the photo to be used. “If I had known this was gonna be used in the way it was, I would have never agreed to it,” she says.
As I believe most of us agree, the coronavirus crisis has hit artists really hard. It’s sometimes hard to find work as is, and during the pandemic, it has become even harder. So, this campaign is like a cold shower for all of us. And I believe that most of us don’t want to do something other than what we’ve been investing all these years in.
At the moment of writing this article, the photo in question is no longer on Krys’ Unsplash profile.
[via PetaPixel]
Sucks for the photographer, but this is exactly what you have to expect (and exactly what everybody’s been warning about since day one!) when you upload your images to sites like Unsplash.
Can’t argue with that. Things like this are definitely something to have in mind before you give your photos away for free.
John Aldred apparently she didn’t upload it… as far as I understood…
no one got paid for the photo
The picture was on her profile. So she did it by herself.
Also, take 5mn to check the licence that unsplash offers there
https://unsplash.com/license
It’s quite clear to me that it’s 100% free if you upload something there.
What I don’t get is why photographers upload their work to such platform.
Don’t blame the photographer. Blame our Governments pr for being so crass!
Gayle Bevan crass in what way?
Well, governments should be able to pay for photos. It’s not like
creators working on low budget who would use her Unsplash picture for
free, and then maybe get paid for their work.
But why wouldn’t a government agency with a budget see free assets available for use and then not use them if they suit what they want? I use Unsplash images on my website – because Unsplash tells me I can. Use a free and legally available image that has been put up for that use, or spend thousands on a photo shoot with all the uncertainty that entails? Hmmm… and yes, I work in media production. If I want something that isn’t available, I’ll pay for it to be created or I’ll do the hard yards myself… but this is an example of working smarter not harder. The photographer knew what she was signing up for and is gaining from the controversy.
Whats the issue? That’s how the system works
Cybersecurity is very respectful job.
“Unsplash is a platform powered by an amazing community that has gifted hundreds of thousands of their own photos to fuel creativity around the world”
and it’s quite clear on their “licence section”
Unsplash grants you an irrevocable, nonexclusive, worldwide copyright license to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use photos from Unsplash for free, including for commercial purposes, without permission from or attributing the photographer or Unsplash.
So; she put a photo of this dancer on her Unsplash profile and surprised someone used it for free?
That’s a joke, right?
Why did she even fuel this platform with content? What was the meaning of doing so? Exposure?
These platform will never exist without photographer like her.
Did the dancer (Desire) knew about this? I guess no. She may even legally be able to sue Kris for doing such.
Action have consequences.
Most photographers get model releases. If you sign away your image, that’s your choice. You can’t backpedal if you dislike how it’s used. And Unsplash images are in the public domain, and the photographer knew and knows this.
Yes, I think this entire story is more a commercial stunt to complain abut the use of a picture she uploaded.
I guess she got plenty of “exposure” for complaining about a situation she created.
I just don’t get it: firstly why is the advert viewed as bad. And secondly there was no copyright infrigment. The photographer should have known better
The government are quite lazy with this, job crisis, simple, everybody go to work in IT, of anything, it shows little more than a superficial understanding of IT by the government.
But, the problem goes deeper, it’s about the arts being devastated during covid and the emergency funding not being good enough to support the smaller organisations, dropping your passion for survival.
Honestly, this should ring true for a lot of photographers, it’s hard work selling prints, more so with a niche genre and still making enough to live on, given the choice would ditch our jobs for a pursuit in the creative world.
Ah, someone who actually gets it and understands that the government’s idea, it’s insulting view of the arts and artists, is the real problem here.
There is an OTOH it seems, being that posting and having the image misused results in a) a relatively unknown photographer now world-famous, b) same for a relatively unknown dancer, and c) the episode generates unintended but still interesting discussions about the economic effects of pandemic measures on young people and government redress or lack, thereof, not to mention the well-trodden digital property issues.
Wish I could give credit to the creator of this meme, but found it posted through a friend of a friend.
This poor excuse for an article describes the meaning of an ‘own goal’.
As a fellow photo peer, this is a pure nonsense, total non-story and the article is disingenuous… the writer leaves out the true context completely, which is a sham. I and many others clicked on this thinking there was ‘ situation’…but there isnt.
NO story here. Just another sucker for unsplash.
If you’re dumb enough to put your work on unsplash without reading the MANY MANY articles about them, then…why you complaining on the net? Ridiculous.
Hey everyone! I was introduced to this opportunity by a friend of mines and decided to share the goodies with you guys, wouldn’t you like to get paid for you photos without having to be a professional photographer? Sure you do! The only bad news is, I’m only selecting a limited amount of applicants at this time. This is my email lyndonprieto91124@gmail.com send me a brief message to learn more about this, serious inquiries only.
I think the article could of done a better job explaining how they got the image and if it was disingenuous another example of why photographers should Always place a watermark copyright on any images they place online
Does she know there’s some real issues going on in the world that deserve being devastated about?
Perhaps a little less back of the hand on her forehead and a bit more effective indignation about stuff that counts.
I give away images on a set licence, but I would never make my photos free in the public domain. However, my images could legitimately be used in this manner, so there is no point in complaining about it after the event. Think about the possible end result before you do this.