Who cares? They disclose the fact that the photo wasn’t taken with the phone right on the page. It’s for illustrative purposes, not to show the exact quality of the phone’s functions. The author of this blog also just outed a paying client. If they paid, they can use it however they like (within the terms of the licensing agreement). This is a great way for the author to ensure they never sell another photo to a large company.
I think even a minimum level of honesty in an ad requires that pictures that illustrate what the camera can are taken with this camera. I know lying is common in advertising but we shouldn't accept it and point that out.
They hide the note in very small text a long way down the page – way past all of the big, attention grabbing pictures, knowing that most people aren’t going to read down that far and consciously discount everything they saw.
Do you have a citation for the assertion that this was a paying client? She clearly says the opposite in the post.
The article says nothing about being paid but does say this at the end:
“Since I’d made my first sale on EyeEm and saw the image on Samsung Malaysia’s website right after that, I didn’t even assume that they’d stolen the image. I mean, why would they? It’s not expensive for a huge company like that to buy one stock photo. Although, to be honest, I think that they should have paid more for a better retoucher. But just to make sure, I got in touch with EyeEm, asking whether Samsung bought the image from them.
A wonderful lady from customer support told me that the sale wasn’t registered on EyeEm yet. However, she explained that sometimes buyers have subscriptions with Getty Images, meaning that they will be billed later for their photos. “Photos can be used months before we get sales data for the photo,” she added, and promised to keep me updated.
After this, I contacted Getty to check whether the sale was made through their website. I never got a reply.”
Your quotes from the article don't support your original claim that she claimed that Samsung did not pay her for her photo. Just the opposite. I think you are reading the text incorrectly. To paraphrase what I think she is saying: "My photo was bought on EyeEm via Getty Images. I don't know who bought my photo from Getty Images but it was probably Samsung".
That’s why I was asking whether there was a subsequent confirmation. It’s definitely possible that they bought it but it’s easy to find photographers who’ve been ripped off by companies which are big enough to know better and given that the main story is an ethical lapse, a second one is hard to rule out.
What point is there in using the photo if not to trick viewers in to thinking its a photo from the phone. What exactly is it illustrating? Its deceptive and wrong. I have no trust for a company that tries to trick its users like this.
The point is illustration of a photographic technique. If you simply say "The camera has a background blur feature" that doesn't mean much to most ordinary consumers or help them understand why they might want that feature. If you say "Here is a photo with background blur" and "Here is a photo without background blur" they can instantly understand its value. The fact that they deliberately modified the photo to remove background blur should tell you there is a message they are trying to communicate here beyond "here is what our camera can do".
Any reasonable person expects when they are seeing images in reference to the phones abilities that the photos would actually be from the device itself. It would be very easy to just take photos with the device and use those but instead they chose to deceive customers knowing that most of them would trust it.
Interesting. So you normally get a feel for how a 16MP camera works by looking at low resolution photos? Personally, I go find full resolution photos posted by countless users and blogs who critique tech products. Do you also get upset when your fast food doesn’t look exactly like the image on the website? How about when your hotel room doesn’t have the exact same gloss as that photo on their website?
Again, they fully disclosed that the photo was not intended to show the quality of the camera. How can you claim they’re being deceptive? You are choosing to interpret the photo in a way that was never intended.
Is there any level of disclosure that you would regard as not full? As in, let's say the disclosure is in 6pt font at the very bottom of the page, below all the marketing material. In grey. And 50% transparent. Is it enough that the content is included somewhere in the source of the page, and however it's presented doesn't matter?
If she wants full control over her work, she should not sell it for stock photo.
I think if I were to buy a stock photo then find out the original photographer publicly complaining / shaming my work, I would be so pissed. I might just complain to Getty to have her removed / banned.
