Goverment House, Hobart. Rolleiflex 2.8C TLR; Schneider 80mm f/2.8 Xenotar taking lens. Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 black and white negative, in ILFORD ID-11 developer 1 + 3 dilution @ 20C.
I’ve sat on this matter for a couple of years, because Pixsy had been pursuing it on my behalf. But that has ultimately come to nought. So I thought it was time to publicly share the theft of a medium format black & white image I created back in 2012. Instead of involving persons overseas, disappointingly on this occasion, one of my photos was copied and published by a business right here in Hobart: Old Bishop’s Quarters Fitzroy Place Sandy Bay Tasmania 7005.
The photograph in question, (you can see it, above) is one I was quite pleased with when I took it. It was made at Government House, Tasmania, still the official vice-regal residence, during the Governor’s public open day in 2012.
This photograph was made at the end of the day—after the end of the day, actually, because I was, in fact, the last visitor to depart. I stayed until almost 5pm, patiently waiting until the grounds around the building were finally free of people and vehicles, because I wanted to photograph Government House on black and white film, to try and reproduce what it might once have looked like, 100-plus years ago. I’d like to hear your own thoughts on that, but, personally, I reckon I did pretty well—the fluttering of the state flags of Tasmania in the breeze was the perfect finishing touch, I thought.
I recorded this image on a roll of Fuji Neopan Acros 100 black & white negative film with my 2.8C Rolleiflex twin lens. Being recorded on such a fine grained, high resolution film in medium format, through the superlative Schneider 80mm Xenotar lens of my Rollei, carefully hand-processed in ID-11 developer: it is also an image of considerable technical, as well as aesthetic, quality. The detail visible in high resolution scans of the original negative is phenomenal.
As you may have gathered, this particular photograph is one that I went to considerable effort to record, and to get exactly right. It’s a photo I remain quite proud of to this day. I’m also indebted to the then-Governor, His Excellency Peter Underwood (sadly, since deceased) and his staff, because without their indulgence I’d have been unable to tarry far later than the official closing time of the event, to get the shot.
You’ll perhaps appreciate, then, that I was none too pleased a couple of years ago, to discover that the same photo had been appropriated without my knowledge, or consent, by Old Bishop’s Quarters? It had been used on three pages of their website, at different sizes—complete with my original watermarks visible top and bottom, exactly as I’ve shown it, above. You’ll see, below, several screen dumps of the pages of Old Bishop’s Quarters own website, where my photograph was published by them.
First, however, I’ll make the point (for the benefit of any smart-arse readers who might otherwise be tempted to take me to task for reproducing portions of Old Bishop’s Quarters web pages below), that provisions exist under both Australian law—to wit, the Copyright Act 1968—and international treaties protecting intellectual property, which permit some restricted usage of third party content for certain limited purposes, one of which, is “criticism”. A term that covers this particular post, rather nicely.
Here’s my photograph as downloaded and saved by Old Bishop’s Quarters (it was not hot-linked) to their squarespace server:
And here it is on one of the pages of Old Bishop’s Quarters’ site (a page about the “Nil Desperandum Society“, whatever that is):
Note my watermark: “Copyright Brett Rogers 2012 All Rights Reserved“. Doesn’t get much more straightforward, does it?
Here it is again on a page they called “Characters”:
And once more (at the bottom of the page), in thumbnail form:
Despite being contacted on my behalf on several occasions by Pixsy, Old Bishop’s Quarters rebuffed all attempts to negotiate payment for the unauthorised use of my photograph. There has been no apology forthcoming from them. Overall, I am very unimpressed that a local Hobart business would breach the copyright of a Tasmanian photographer without even trying to seek their permission to use their photo (which I probably would have given—if they’d actually asked!).
I’m pretty reasonable to deal with, and in the past I have happily permitted my work to be used for various purposes—often, if the organisation involved is a non-profit, for free. Where, however, a person wishes to use my images on a site used for profit-making activities, I expect—and I think most people would agree, that it’s a reasonable expectation—the image user should pay for such usage.
On being contacted by Pixsy, Old Bishop’s Quarters removed my image from their site. Which is not an uncommon scenario. Whether it’s an attempt to cover tracks, or a misguided belief that removing the content expunges a breach of copyright (it does not), infringers tend to often do this. It does not alter potential liability for damages, if usage occurred without the copyright holder’s consent.
Should you contemplate a visit to Hobart at some point—and I hope you do, it’s a picturesque city with fascinating history—then: if you think that the Arts are a worth supporting; that they enrich society; and that artists, working in various disciplines, deserve fair payment for the value inherent in the art they create; perhaps you’ll be mindful of this post by me, when you’re considering where to stay in Hobart?
Tasmania Film Photography 