The Libyan Secret Service photo archive - questions for Magnum Photos
I was studying the 28 pictures from the Libyan Secret Service photo archive available at Magnum Photos. They are important images but some things about Magnum's hosting and presentation of them raised questions. So I tweeted three questions to Magnum Photos, and got some interesting responses from Magnum and others. Collected here are those tweets and responses. I'll be updating too...
(The Twitter formatting turned quotation marks into junk, so tweet number three read 'Similar images on Magnum site as "Collection T. Dworzak 2011". Three questions for @magnumphotos... [3/6])
- My questions were noted on Twitter by, amongst others, duck rabbit, Nick Turpin and Image Rights:
Duckrabbit also raised the interesting point that other agencies had attached copyright to images taken by others, and in a post on Syria and social media back in April (http://www.david-campbell.org/2011/04/26/thinking-images-v-15-syria-social-media-photojournalism/), I had noted the same with regard to Reuters distributing social media photos.
- Duckrabbit then noted that, in copyright terms, Magnum would have a strong copyright defence in terms of public interest. I'm not a copyright expert or lawyer, so that may well be the case, though as we will see below, I think the ethical question remains and is more important.
Fiona Rogers was good enough to offer a preliminary response:
- I think the fact that Magnum has worked with HRW to make these images available for public viewing is important and commendable.However, I don't think the public interest purpose trumps the ethical question in particular.
This morning (very early on 13 October) Sophie Wright offered a more detailed response:
- Two points here - why is the backstory not on the Magnum site with all the details of the HRW collaboration, Tim Hetherington's role and Thomas Dworzk's efforts? Photos need context and this story needs it badly. These details should be at the top of the page with the Libyan photos.Second, if the credit is practical, then shouldn't it be something other than "copyright"? The latter clearly denotes ownership, and the credit for the complex production of these images needs to faithfully record who did what and who claims what. Copyright seems to me the wrong term.
