Ok I just have to get this off of my chest for the sake of trying to settle some people down, and hopefully add a little clarity to my own understanding as well.
A lot of Tucsonans are up in arms over local photographer John Wolfe's decision to seek legal action regarding the use of his copy-written image of a young victim (whom I will not exploit anymore by naming her name in the hopes that she continue to rest peacefully) in various news media as a part of coverage of the tragic events that occurred in Tucson in early January. A local news station reported on the "Controversy" that was sparked as a result and thus a facebook group was formed to encourage people to boycott John Wolfe photography because of his actions. The story done by the local news source explains that Mr. Wolfe obtain the young victims family consent to seek reimbursement, though they admit that they did not intend for Mr. Wolfe to profit. Other media sources admit that their use of the picture was illegal and in violation of copyright law and that they would pay a settlement to Mr. Wolfe. Following the news coverage of Mr. Wolfe's intentions, the charity he intended to donate the funds to decided they would not accept any funds received in the above fashion (probably a smart PR move).
Now lets see, "we" are mad at John Wolfe because he is seeking LAWFUL reimbursement for the ILLEGAL use of a copyright image, because we THOUGHT he was going to profit. In John Wolfe's own words "My intent from the beginning always has been to use the proceeds from my creative work to make a charitable donation in Christina Green’s memory. I sought and received the Green family’s approval to do so. At no time did I intend to profit personally from this tragedy." But we don't want to believe that right? He's obviously just covering up to make himself look better after everyone got mad right? He's just exploiting the victim... right?
Now what about the news outlets that ILLEGALLY used the photo of the victim. Not only did they profit from the use of the image, they will continue to profit in the future. Advertising salesmen will say to their clients "you should by ad space on our website, look how much traffic we received in January!", then they will get a large check in part to the large amounts of us that click on the link and read the story and looked at the picture that was ILLEGALLY used. I will say that Mr. Wolfe may have had some horrible timing and his message was obviously misunderstood. However I cannot in good conscience boycott his business for exploiting this photograph for profit while there are many other outlets that have profited from the exact same photo without lawful use. If you want to boycott the grocery store you had better be prepared to boycott the farmer too.
Hopefully as more information comes out I'll be able to learn more, but based on what's available this is what I've gathered.
Love you guys,
Darren
