Londonist Photo Pinched By The Evening Standard

Dean Nicholas
By Dean Nicholas Last edited 92 months ago
Londonist Photo Pinched By The Evening Standard

Page eight of yesterday's Evening Standard

Things must be getting tight at the Evening Standard: yesterday they pinched a photograph taken by this writer that had first been published on Londonist, and put it on their website and in the print edition, without credit or permission. The picture, originally used for a post on Monday, accompanied a story about London's most used Cycle Hire docking station.

Now, Londonist is obviously a website that feeds on the news-gathering operation of such publications as the Standard, and we well understand that the modern media environment is one of shared and pooled resources. But we always credit our sources and link back to where stories come from. The Standard's picture editors (or whomever found the photograph) will have taken it directly from our site, and hence know the photograph's origin. A quick email or phone call our way would've been, to say the very least, welcome.

The picture has since been credited on the website (though not in the print version), but the diligent webmasters declined to approve a comment we left which drew attention to the original Londonist post.

Last Updated 26 August 2010


Hey, did you get permission to reproduce that page of the Evening Standard? ;-)


It's a shame now, isn't it? Were they just being lazy?


Cheeky sods. Increasingly common on picture desks, mind:

Have you considered invoicing them? Seriously. Londonist gets enough readers that it's not really in their interests to piss you off...


Lazy and pretty - the Standard story says the bikes were being transported to Waterloo, whereas they were actually being collected from the station for distribution elsewhere. Which they'd have known, if they'd actually been there...


Not surprising, standard towers residents are all too busy giving themselves self congratulatory circle jerks over their 'dispossessed' campaign, aka "Incredibly rich people donate a tiny fraction of their wealth to quell the anger of an under class they perpetuate campaign".


It seems to have become common practice these days, London-SE1 have had pics nicked by the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and Metro recently...

lee jackson

Seriously, the photographer should invoice them. Unless you have *explicity* given away your rights in the image, I'm pretty sure they haven't a leg to stand on.


Why not invoice them and volunteer to donate the proceeds to the Disposessed campaign, or a (non-Standard related) charity of your choice?

It would be *very* hard for them to refuse that. And it raises money for charity too :)


Invoice them for the usage rights. I've done it before for Metro when they used an illustration twice without telling me.

Corporate Photographer

Its going on all the time now, and I am afraid it is only going to get worse. The downside to the ease with which you can access images is the ease that someone can infringe copyright. I found a company in India who had raided my[link=]Corporate photographer London[/link] blog and used all my corporate portraits all over their new website. They took them off when I told them I would not do anything but some of the images were of high ranking IBM people and I would be informing them. But I feel every time we highlight copyright infringement its a positive step to reducing the problem.


I'd be interested to know whether these transgressions are mostly deliberate or accidental. It's easy to imagine a newcomer making mistakes (or not being aware of copyright law) in the high-pressure environment of a newspaper office. It's also easy to imagine picture editors using photos without permission out of laziness or arrogance. I have no idea which scenario is most often the case. Does anyone have any insights?


I hope they didn't just pinch it. Surely they must have had usage rights?