Artists protest that "National Geographic has stealed pictures"

A magazine aiming to "convey the present of the earth to the real" with beautiful pictures taken at various places in the worldNational Geographic"Has been conveying the various forms of nature and social movements of the earth for more than 130 years since its launch in 1888. It is a magazine highly valued for its achievement, but protests that an artist posted his work on the magazine without permission. Furthermore, correspondence by the National Geographic side has resulted in putting oil on fire.

Blyon.com | What happens when National Geographic steals your art?
http://www.blyon.com/what-happens-when-national-geographic-steals-your-art/

It was the artist Barret Lyon who protested against National Geographic.


One day, a book published by National Geographic "100 Scientific Discoveries That Changed the World(100 scientific discoveries that changed the world), "Mr. Lyon noticed that the image used for the cover is his work. This is where the title is placed on the cover, a line with various colors spreading round like fireworks.


AndLyon's siteThe work below is published. The work named "THE INTERNET 2003" was created in November 2003, and it is a map expressing the Internet environment at that time.


"Internet" is exactly consistent with the concept of book "Discovering the world changed". Mr. Lyon licenses this work under Creative Commons'Display - Non-profit"Because it was set, National Geographic requested royalties for commercial use as it used for publications. It seems that it was an insignificant amount as forehead.

In response to Mr. Lyon's appeal, National Geographic accepted unauthorized use and apologized and informed that he would like to finish the settlement. In a letter received from a lawyer "There was no intention to intentionally steal the work in National Geographic, so the royalties will be in the range of 150,000 dollars (16 million yen) that is generally agreed in case of intentional infringement That is, it is reduced to 200 dollars (about 20,000 yen) "," Estimated Mr. Lyon's damage to all images to be 1380 dollars (about 150,000 yen), then double that 2760 There was an intention to pay off the dollar (about 300,000 yen) "and a proposal to do correct credit notation was written.

The National Geographic side finally asked for a proposal saying that considering the obstacle and expense in making a lawsuit in lawsuits, it is most cost effective to negotiate this case, We are showing a posture to compensate for the amount of.


Mr. Lyon, on the other hand, agreed to reduce the amount of money, but presented that "publishing the revised edition" and "expressing an apology through Twitter account" as conditions.

National Geographic refused the publication of the revised edition as "Revision is done only when reprints and new publications are issued", but "If we update our internal records and have inquiries about photos, If there is a chance to publish a new version, I will specify the correct information. " Regarding apologies on Twitter, "I refuse the National Geographic Association publishing the magazine as a correcting Twitter account", but refused as "We set up a settlement agreement document to proceed with payment of usage fee I am willing to do it. "

ByThinkpanama

To this answer, Mr. Lyon is furious. "This is like something like saying someone's car without permission and after returning it after a few days of cycling and saying, 'I will pay the rental fee properly' and I can not accept it at all" It is. Furthermore, "The national geographic collects respect for everyone is the existence of that wonderful intention and people who come to the end of the world to bring in pictures in dangerous areas.And to show defensive attitude while recognizing mistakes It will hurt the brand and make it lost with credit and honesty. "

In addition, "In the era of modern copy-heaven, the presence like National Geographic should pay attention to the existence of a license form like Creative Commons". And, "I am thinking about making a lawsuit not only for me but for all people who suffered similar damage," and concludes with extremely severe condition that it is "Shame on National Geographic".