Resolution: Hublot/ Yahoo/ Flickr rights, implications for photographers

Here is the original situation. And here is the final development. Please note that comments in the original article are now closed.

Credit to Hublot for taking action quickly, and local agents The Hour Glass (and my contact point) for lending their full assistance to resolve things. They posted this last night on my pages and theirs:

This morning, I think we have a resolution:

1. Hublot confirming that they did not take any action or institute copyright claims against me. This was confirmed in writing by the CEO and communications departments
2. Yahoo’s counsel saying that my images have been reinstated, issuing an apology, and intent to follow up with Hublot.
3. The images are back online, and the original post on Fratellowatches now works again.

Here’s the concerning line from Yahoo’s email, though:

“We intend to speak to Hublot SA regarding its practices, especially as it relates to its vendor, with the aim to prevent any further false notices.”

This suggests to me that it was either a genuine internal mistake, or…something else. Claims of fraud don’t make much sense given that no party really has anything to gain in this situation. Bottom line: the real guilty party still goes unnamed, but I can’t help but think there’s a clue in that line.

I choose to take it in good faith that there has been a screwup somewhere, which is now resolved.

It is in everybody’s interests to have a quick resolution: being proactively is good. Looking for evidence is good. Restoring rights is good. In this case: I think Hublot senior management have done a very good job; Yahoo could be more responsive.

I owe a big thank you to all of my readers and friends readers and friends for your support on this issue – especially those in the watch community. Thank you to the management at The Hour Glass for their support and  lighting fires in places where needed. And thank you to Hublot and Yahoo for taking action promptly in the end.

There are a few valuable lessons for all parties here.

• Photographers should not have to resort to social media and highly placed contacts to get results. I dread to think what would happen if it was somebody else with no network or visibility. You could file a counterclaim through Yahoo’s black box, but that may never surface. Or you would get embroiled in a legal battle for which a) the returns are slim and b) only the deepest pockets can win.
• To those who have written saying I overreacted – firstly, you do not have complete information; secondly, I’ve been in these situations before and this is the only way to get a response out of entities to whom you are basically insignificant; thirdly, reverse the situations and tell me what you would do if your rights and livelihood were threatened.
• At the same time, I agree there is no need to overreact and make assumptions in favour of either party. The copyright claim has nothing to do with their watches. I am doing my best to present the facts objectively here and via other channels, and as evidenced by this post.
• Companies must maintain better records over their IP inventory, and there is no excuse for junior or uniformed staff or third party agents to be handling claims and infringement rights. These are complex legal issues.
• A brand may own the copyright to its name, logo and designs, but distinct derivative works – including photographs – have been proven time and again to be a grey area. They may choose to pursue damages if the work portrays the brand or its products in a bad light, but you’d have to prove malicious intent and quantified damages to gain any settlement. Moreover, common sense dictates that are heavily dependent on positive PR to sell their product should not shoot themselves in the foot, especially when they invite media to help showcase their products, and we do our best in abysmal lighting and suboptimal conditions to still make everything look good. Our reputation is on the line too.
• It is deeply, deeply concerning that false claims can be filed with nothing more than an address and a “digitally signed legal affidavit” – basically, nothing at all if you do not live in the United States or are subject to US law – and that those claims are actioned without further investigation. This means I or somebody else could claim all of your work was mine, it would get taken down, and if you rely on that as your source of income or advertising – you’re basically dead.

Most importantly, we must defend our intellectual property rights. If we do not, nobody else will. One of the reasons I choose to share these occurrences (sadly, far too frequent) with my readership is so you are aware of your rights and know that there is hope for the little guy. Those companies that serve photographers and creatives are our partners – they should be on our side, too. Going forward, the onus of proof has to be on the claimant, and the defendant given the chance to provide counter evidence with perhaps a temporary public takedown as the interim solution. I have offered to provide my and the reader group’s feedback to Yahoo on any potential changes that might be in the works from a photographers’ standpoint – after all, it’s in all of our best interests.

We can and should move on; I only have one final question. Who filed the claim in the first place? Why is Yahoo not disclosing their identity to me? MT