# Canon Italy Responds to Social Media Composite Photograph Backlash



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 13, 2018)

```
Canon Italy has officially responded to the backlash from an <a href="https://fstoppers.com/news/canon-italy-posts-landscape-composite-without-credit-stolen-elements-and-taken-211794">FStoppers story</a> over a composite photograph that they posted to social media this week.</p>
<p><a href="https://fujiaddict.com/2018/01/13/canon-responds-about-fujifilm-x-t1-composite-photograph-and-its-not-good-enough/"><strong>From Fuji Addict:</strong></a></p>
<blockquote><p>Ciao a tutti! Grazie mille per i vostri commenti sul nostro post e per aver condiviso le vostre considerazioni! Abbiamo preso questa immagine dal sito web https://unsplash.com/, dedicato alla fotografia senza copyright.

L’immagine è stata scattata dal fotografo @gregpaulmiller con una Canon EOS-1D Mark IV, con le seguenti impostazioni: ISO 100, f/6.3, tempo di posa 2 sec. secondo il sito web Unsplash.com. Vediamo la somiglianza con lo scatto di Elia Locardi, tuttavia le immagini hanno varie differenze identificabili tra cui cambiamenti stagionali ed elementi aggiuntivi, come la gente che cammina o si siede sulle sponde del fiume.

Cerchiamo sempre di coinvolgere la nostra community quando mettiamo in evidenza i contenuti generati dagli utenti e con la pubblicazione di questa foto speriamo comunque di aver ispirato altri a scattare foto straordinarie.</p>


<p>Hi everyone! Thanks so much for your comments on our post and flagging your concerns! We’ve taken this image from a website, https://unsplash.com/ dedicated to copyright-free photography. The image was taken by photographer @gregpaulmiller on a Canon EOS-1D Mark IV, with the following settings: ISO 100, f/6.3, shutter speed 2 seconds according to the website Unsplash.com. We do see the similarity with the image taken by Elia Locardi, though, the images have various identifiable differences including seasonal changes and additional elements like the people walking or sitting on the sides of the banks.

We always try to inspire our community when highlighting user generated content and hope that by posting this photo we have inspired others to take amazing pictures as well.</p></blockquote>
<p>We don’t support their position. Canon Italy messed up and should just own up to their mistake and make sure it doesn’t happen again.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 13, 2018)

Playing devils advocate here didn't they do due diligence? They have the image with EXIF that shows the author and that a Canon camera was used. Before we say 'ah but there are elements identical in another image' this has already been litigated and lost, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/How-an-incredible-coincidence-sparked-a-Facebook-plagiarism-row/ , so if the photographer says 'it is my work' what more can be done?

Not condoning theft or misappropriation, but I think we get a little too bent out of shape sometimes, how do you "stop it ever happening again" if even the EXIF and the word of the photographer can be questioned?


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 13, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> Canon Italy has officially responded to the backlash from an <a href="https://fstoppers.com/news/canon-italy-posts-landscape-composite-without-credit-stolen-elements-and-taken-211794">FStoppers story</a> over a composite photograph that they posted to social media this week.</p>
> <p><a href="https://fujiaddict.com/2018/01/13/canon-responds-about-fujifilm-x-t1-composite-photograph-and-its-not-good-enough/"><strong>From Fuji Addict:</strong></a></p>
> <blockquote><p>Ciao a tutti! Grazie mille per i vostri commenti sul nostro post e per aver condiviso le vostre considerazioni! Abbiamo preso questa immagine dal sito web https://unsplash.com/, dedicato alla fotografia senza copyright.
> 
> ...



Great picture! Now that looks like a camera I'd buy.


----------



## jd7 (Jan 13, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Playing devils advocate here didn't they do due diligence? They have the image with EXIF that shows the author and that a Canon camera was used. Before we say 'ah but there are elements identical in another image' this has already been litigated and lost, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/How-an-incredible-coincidence-sparked-a-Facebook-plagiarism-row/ , so if the photographer says 'it is my work' what more can be done?
> 
> Not condoning theft or misappropriation, but I think we get a little too bent out of shape sometimes, how do you "stop it ever happening again" if even the EXIF and the word of the photographer can be questioned?



I haven't been following this story closely. Has it even been proven that an image has been used without authorisation? Or is it just a case of two photographers taking very similar images? The Canon Italy statement makes it sound like the latter. Anyway, like PBD, I'm finding it hard to see what Canon has done to deserve criticism here.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 13, 2018)

I don't buy Canon's story either. The clouds are complex and match perfectly. they may not have been aware of it, but a good look would certainly verify the issue.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 13, 2018)

Ok after looking at the original and marketing image over at DPReview, the composite image theory is pretty solid. There's no way you can have the same clouds and seasonal changes.

Regardless, Canon's marketing team didn't specifically do anything wrong, someone else had to have made the composite image.
If they can get the composite removed from the photo sharing website I guess that would remove Canon's license to use it.


----------



## jd7 (Jan 13, 2018)

9VIII said:


> If they can get the composite removed from the photo sharing website I guess that would remove Canon's license to use it.



Well, *if* the photo infringes Locardi's copyright, neither the person who uploaded it to the sharing website nor the sharing website was able to give Canon a licence to use it insofar as Locardi is concerned. In other words, if the photo infringes Locardi's copyright, it seems likely neither Canon nor the sharing website has a licence (insofar as Locardi is concerned) and he is already able to claim against them as well as the person who uploaded it to the sharing website. Of course, at least assuming Canon and the sharing website didn't know about any infringement, you would expect they would be entitled to compensation from the person who uploaded it to the sharing website if they have any liability to Locardi.


----------



## meywd (Jan 13, 2018)

If its indeed a composite then the composite has been made by the image author, the person who is the source of the image used by Canon Italy, now the strange thing is that the user has disappeared from the mentioned website unsplash.com, and I think its no coincidence, however with the power of google, and saved images that don't disappear when you simply delete/hide your account, you can find it here:

http://images.unsplash.com/photo-1508901038105-aca6c28a8cf6?ixlib=rb-0.3.5&q=80&fm=jpg&crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&w=1080&fit=max&s=5880218676270df397f84ca239e9be3f


----------



## amorse (Jan 14, 2018)

Looking closely at the two images, the accused image really does look like a composite. This link to the original story has a sliding comparison with the two images overlaid - https://fstoppers.com/news/canon-italy-posts-landscape-composite-without-credit-stolen-elements-and-taken-211794

If you look closely at the water there are a few other indicators that something funny is going on. In the accused image the water looks different at a quick glance, but it is actually identical throughout much of it with mostly the water edges masked to a different image - the centre of the river is identical, with some colour tone changes. 

You can tell it's composite by looking at the dome - the dome is lit in the accused image, but unlit in the original, yet both images have no light reflection from the dome on the river (the original image's lighting makes sense while the accused image does not). Further, in the original image the bridge has no lights on it, while the accused image does, yet both images have no reflection from bridge lights on the river (again, the original image makes sense while the accused image does not). Bottom line, it seems like the sky is duplicated, as well as much of the river (with some masking around the edges). Even if elements weren't stolen or used without permission (which seems unlikely), it is definitely a composite.

I agree with the post - this is a bad idea on Canon Italy's part, but they're caught in the middle here. They used an image to promote their product under the *assumption* that it was actually produced by their cameras, and now they're doubling down despite being caught. I have to believe there are better strategies to get images for promotion of the brand than downloading free to use images and trusting the exif data. Even a reverse image search would have shown that something was up here - this whole mess was entirely avoidable.


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 14, 2018)

Sounds like if there is a misdeed, it was on the part of gregpaulmiller, the “photographer” who loaded it onto Unsplash. I suppose it could be Elia Locardi who stole it, but the former seems more likely. 
Canon used the image from Unsplash in good faith, and according to good practice. 
However, Canon finds itself now in the position of 1, being totally unprofessional in taking a stock image to begin with, 2, in not rightly condemning what now appears to be image theft in one direction or the other, and 3, in not just owning a simple mistake anyone could have made.
The whole thing is just embarrassing.


----------



## LDS (Jan 14, 2018)

Canon answer is very unprofessional and stupid. It could just fuel outrage.
They could have simply acknowledged they were deceived by the EXIF data, they don't back appropriating someone else's image, and taken down the post.
Instead some marketing man or woman looks unable to admit a mistake was done, even if in good faith, and they are just making thing worse, clutching at straws. Also, how could a composite image using pieces of a stolen one, could be inspirational? Like an old Venetian say says, 'the patch is worse than the hole'.


----------



## weixing (Jan 14, 2018)

Hi,
Basically, it's impossible to have two image took at different time to have the same cloud formation. Unless the two image was taken side by side at the same time and after one photographer took the shot, the lighting came on and the other photographer took the shot... will be very surprise if this is the case.

Have a nice day.


----------



## michi (Jan 14, 2018)

This is obviously a composite. I don't have a problem with Canon Italy using this image thinking it is ok to use. But once the issue of the composite, it not being a Canon camera etc was discovered, they should have said, oops, we apologize, and taken the image and post down. Nothing to it. Nobody would have complained.
The explanation they posted later is pathetic. If Canon doesn't stand behind their photographers copyright, I don't know who will. I hope Canon headquarters takes care of Canon Italy's missteps.


----------



## monkey44 (Jan 14, 2018)

An interesting anecdote here. I shot a guy sliding into second base ... and the next day, saw my photo in the local newspaper - which I freelanced with often. I had not given this image, and thought maybe I'd accidentally WIFI'd it in with some other stuff ... So, called the editor.

He said, XXXXX turned it in ... weird. SO I call her and we overlaid the images - very tiny difference, one hand slightly above the other. You couldn't tell without the overlay. So, we had a good laugh about that one, but she got paid, and I didn't, of course. Was pretty funny to look at both together. She'd shot the same image from about ten feet away ... we just didn't know it ...


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jan 14, 2018)

I agree with others here - not exactly impressive handling of the aftermath of the situation, whatever the original cause.

Hopefully, some serious lessons learned - with all those excellent Canon Explorers out there, you would have hoped that Canon might simply turn to one of them for a shot or two. I've met a couple in my time, and they seemed delighted by the exposure that being used by Canon gave them (rather than demanding megabucks for any shots used). Let's hope Canon decide it's a better idea to go to trusted sources in future.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 14, 2018)

StoicalEtcher said:


> ...- with all those excellent Canon Explorers out there, you would have hoped that Canon might simply turn to one of them for a shot or two.



They do, they also do things like this as customer engagement, same as companies like National Geographic, have you seen the non pro images posted there?

When people see 'readers' photos they think 'I have one like that' or 'I could have taken that' and they become more engaged, just looking at images posted by pros doesn't have the same effect.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 15, 2018)

StoicalEtcher said:


> I agree with others here - not exactly impressive handling of the aftermath of the situation, whatever the original cause.
> 
> Hopefully, some serious lessons learned - with all those excellent Canon Explorers out there, you would have hoped that Canon might simply turn to one of them for a shot or two. I've met a couple in my time, and they seemed delighted by the exposure that being used by Canon gave them (rather than demanding megabucks for any shots used). Let's hope Canon decide it's a better idea to go to trusted sources in future.



they do that for promotional materials, however the social media feeds tend to pull images from the general canon community which I happen to think is a great thing.


----------



## LDS (Jan 15, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> they do that for promotional materials, however the social media feeds tend to pull images from the general canon community which I happen to think is a great thing.



Just, in this case, it backfired spectacularly, you can't really trust any "community" blindly.

And you need to be able to handle any mistake properly. Otherwise you can get comments like this:

"_Guy takes part of my Fujifilm photo, uploads it to a copyright free website. Then Canon shares it all over their social media. And now, Canon’s official response is that it’s not my photo? And the differences are just a “seasonal variation.”

LOL, really? As if this story couldn’t become more awkward. 

But seriously, the greater part of this story and by far the largest issue here, is the fact that Canon is using a free image resource like Unsplash to fuel their social media rather than tapping into their large community of photographers. That's incredibly insulting to both their own consumers and to the photography community itself._"

(Locardi on his Facebook page).


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 15, 2018)

Hi Folks. 
The way I see this, someone needs to be fired for this, not for making the mistake, that would be cruel who has not slipped up occasionally. 
They should be fired for not taking responsibility, for not putting their hand up and saying oops I’m sorry and removing the offending item, for digging in and making excuses, for not knowing that when you are so far down the hole you can’t see anything but sky it is time to digging! :

My tuppence and probably overvalued at that! 

Cheers, Graham.


----------

