A Tale of Two youtube Channels

Can there be such a thing as an epistolary blog posting? Sure! Here’s one that played out in February, 2023.

First up, an exchange with someone from the youtube channel Murder Murder News.

Hello —

Earlier today I was doing a reverse image search for some of my Jane Britton portraits, and I noticed that you’re using three of them in your youtube video, without attribution. All these images have appeared in print publications, always with attribution, as per my licensing agreements with the publications. 

/ link to a video that has been taken down /

This is not OK.

I’d like you to re-edit the video and whenever my images are used there should be text along the lines of “Photograph by Don Mitchell.” 

Don

A short time later, this unsigned email arrived:

A few things regarding copyright law. Firstly, my background is as a CEO of a software company, so I know quite a bit about copyright law from working closely with attorneys. I’m happy to engage one of those attorneys just for fun! I can’t imagine you own the rights to Jane’s photos, but I will look into it because I’m curious as to who the original photographer may have been. Do you have permission to use them if they aren’t public domain? The rights would have died with them, and the photo is commonly used on monetized sites without accreditation. Aside from that, we have a non monetized YouTube channel and are not telling Jane’s story for profit, so copyright laws don’t apply to non-monetized social media. We honestly think monetizing from someone’s story is pretty gross. The intent of our content is to change the conversation in making sure victims have a voice. I am looking into your crime writing now because this threatening email has rubbed me the wrong way and I would love to make sure our listeners have a heads up if your work is exploiting victims. 

A paragraph dense with bullshit. I replied:

Careful reading is a big plus (whoever you are…typically I expect people to identify themselves when writing emails — don’t you?). I’d have thought that as the CEO of a software company you’d have learned that. Or maybe you have people reading your emails to you?  

“…as per my licensing agreements with the publications” should have given you a hint that my inquiry was a serious one.

I was the photographer. I have the negatives. I respond to requests for publication by licensing and billing entities who want to use my images. I am not suggesting that you pay me, only that you behave in an ethical manner.

If you need more evidence, consider returning to where you grabbed the images. Probably this was the Boston Globe, most likely the Sunday edition with a story about Becky and her book. They paid me for the cover image (see the attachment) and for the inside image. Every image the Globe used was properly attributed to me, except for one in the November 2018 issue on the day of the press conference, which was wrongly attributed to the DA’s office. I contacted the Globe, demonstrated that I had the original negative on my computer, and they changed the attribution immediately on the website. 

I’m also guessing that you didn’t take the trouble to figure out who I am. Didn’t you listen to your own work? I was Jane’s close friend. I’m one of those who found the body. I’m a central figure in Becky Cooper’s book (as she is in mine).

So by all means go ahead and “look into it.”

Also, I have no idea at all where you get “rights would have died with them.” The newspaper and publishers — sure. I licensed them for one-time uses. But me? My rights aren’t going away for many years, and if you really do know copyright law you should know that. 

Contra your assertion, you do seem disinclined to actually do research (two or three minutes with Google before responding to my email would have shown you the attributions) so I’m attaching a series of emails I exchanged with the Globe in 2020. Since you “know quite a bit about copyright law,” you can probably conclude that if a major newspaper was willing to pay me for a license, then I do own the rights. 

So, a summary:

— my Jane pictures have appeared on (and in) every edition of Becky’s book (US, UK, Netherlands), except for the cover of the UK paperback edition. 

— the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, and a handful of UK newspapers have published my pictures, with full credit and with payment.

Easy way out: edit your youtube video, add credit, done. That’s all I’m asking for. Was money mentioned? No, of course not. Was there a threat? Or course not.

Where I come from, “threatening” isn’t a word that describes something as mild as “I’d like you to re-edit….” But I guess eye of the beholder and all that. 

And…seriously. Attorney threats are so very, very third grade. I laughed. 

I think I’ll forward this exchange to Becky. It will amuse her.

Don

And in a few minutes,

We removed the video from our channel. The story had very little interest anyway. Best. 

And that was the end of my interaction with the MurderMurder assholes, whoever they were. I never learned the person’s name.

I’m still astonished that the person didn’t even do a quick Google search. My emails have my full name, and a link to my book Shibai: Remembering Jane Britton’s Murder which I would have thought an important clue that I wasn’t some random would-be scammer or troll.

So much for the asshole end of things.

Now let’s see what a serious, ethical, friendly response looks like – the “Good Guy Youtuber,” whose channel is called “Crime Zone.”

Hello —

I was doing an internet search for my Jane Britton images and ran into your youtube video

/ link that’s no longer active /

I see that you’ve used five of my Jane images but have not attributed them to me. I attach the ones in question which you seem to have lifted from the Boston Globe article (that’s my photograph on the cover of the Sunday magazine). I am the photographer and I hold the copyright; the Globe paid me to license those images.  Consider a quick edit of your video to add my name to the images the first time they appear. I’m not all that upset about this, but it seems to me that’s the decent thing to do. 

Also, if you’re interested in a memoir about the murder that interlocks closely with Becky Cooper’s book, check my signature.

Don

In a few minutes,

Hi there Don,

My name is Nigel, I’m one of the co-creators of Crime Zone. First of all, just wanted to say sorry for the lack of attribution. I’m not sure if YouTube will let us actually re-edit the video after the fact, so for the time being I’ve unlisted the video until we can get another version made and re-uploaded with the proper attribution. 

Also, thank you for reaching out to us directly, we really appreciate you taking the time. As a show of goodwill is there maybe anything you’d like us to link in the description of the new upload? Maybe somewhere else people can find your work? Let us know. 

• Nigel 

Wow. I replied,

Hi Nigel —

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I appreciate it. Just stick my name on those images, or do it in some summary manner. That’s plenty good enough for me.

Your offer is very kind but honestly, I’d feel as though I was trying to get something out of you. Doesn’t seem quite right. 

I’ll tell you what would please me, though. Considering that you’re immersed in true crime, I’d love to know what you think of my book about Jane’s murder. It’s really about how the murder affected me over nearly fifty years.

Again, thanks for the response. 

Don

And there things sat until the end of May, which this email arrived:

Hey there Don,

My name is Nigel, I run a true crime YouTube channel called Crime Zone. We spoke back in February when you reached out about the images of yours we used in our Jane Britton video. The reason I’m writing again Don is because we’ve FINALLY (haha) gotten around to making another version of the video, and when I was going back through our last exchange I noticed that you mentioned that we had used five images but I only see four in the attachments. I want to make sure that we get the attribution completely right this time, so I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind letting us know which one that fifth image is so that we can make the necessary changes before re-uploading. 

Thank you!

— Nigel 

I replied

Hi Nigel —

You are one honorable man. Seriously. 

The fifth image is the one that was the cover of the Boston Globe magazine article. It’s based on one of the “straight” ones but with some editing to zero in on the eye (the Globe did that). It’s at about 4:31 in.

I’ve been meaning to write something on my blog (I don’t post there much) contrasting the way you responded to my email with the way the folks at murder murder murder did. They were just awful. 

I’d better get to work. You deserve it. 

Don

And Nigel’s final email:

Hey Don,

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! I will definitely go through and check for that final image. Also, haha you’re too kind, but really it’s us that should be thanking you! You were extremely nice about the whole thing considering it was OUR mistake, and we really appreciate the fact that you reached out to us directly. The last time something like this happened, let’s just say the person had NO interest in talking to us. 

Anyway, I’m glad we could get all of this sorted out finally. Just in case you’re interested, I think we’re planning to put the video back up the second full week of June, probably the 15th. Also, I’ll be sure to check out the blog! I already went onto the photo blog you have in your email signature, and I really enjoyed the pictures there. Glad to see that you’re still doing lots of photography! 

Take care!

• Nigel 
   

The new video did go up,

and Nigel was very generous with his credits. If you go to the end, you’ll find what was (to me) a big surprise.

Well…I don’t think there’s much more to say about this. The difference between the two responses is enormous. What still bothers me is that the Murder Murder News folks didn’t even take quick and easy steps to identify who I was, and why the copyrights belonged to me.