Pilfered – A Cool New Online Mag With A Provocative Name
Patrick Hoelck is a well respected commercial photographer, artist and now, film director. He is the creator and captain behind a new online magazine, Pilfered.
Now in the world of advertising, photographers and directors are asked to present a visual interpretation of how they would approach a concept or creative brief. This, in addition to an estimate, is what gets the money. the job. the work. the deal.
To make this presentation, they use images from all over, and not limited to magazines, videos, Flickr, and anything else that may help illustrate their approach.
Patrick and his team have spent countless hours, days, weeks, putting together these style boards, and figured…hmmm, wouldn’t it be great if there was a repository of all of these efforts. And maybe other folks would want a resource of inspirational photographs.
And so Pilfered was born. When I first heard about it, just the name kinda tweaked me.
Pilfered as in “to steal”. Got it, not happy about it. Didn’t everyone on Facebook just get majorly outraged about ownership of their images?
Readers are asked to submit images that inspire them, not necessarily their own, and let the mag know where they come from. Publication, site, etc., with credits. If they didn’t know, like if it was from an ad where photog credits were not clear, the images was classified as “pilfered”
ooohhh, naughty.
OK, I do understand the editorial rights and the magazine was not intended to be sold. On the credits page there were some photogs credited.
After some deep discussion with Patrick fans on FB, I figured it was best to ask the man what was up.
After all, on his photography site, there was a big section on licensing and copyright of his images. So why come up with a mag called Pilfered, deliberately going against what he wants his work to be?
As they describe it:
“PILFERED is a place where art buyers, photographers, artists and designers alike submit their favorite visuals pilfered from the web to share with one another. Founded on the spirit to inspire and aid in communicating ideas and concepts, PILFERED Magazine aims to assist in speaking the thousand words – visually.
Its founder, artist Patrick Hoelck, and his team (Nate “Res†Harvey & Mia Van Valkenburg) spent hours in the past surfing the web to put together presentations for various commercial ad and editorial jobs. Patrick quickly noticed the hours it took to gather the images and felt it was time to have a massive image collective shared by the people for the people to make this process easier and a lot more fun. His initial description of PILFERED was “It will be the of wikipedia of imagesâ€.
Teaming up with new media and advertising creative director RUDJ, the two hope to build PILFERED into a destination for creatives to share, discover and participate in the dialogue of a new, exciting and forever changed landscape.
• Content on PILFERED is submitted from around the world and carefully edited by an in-house team, as well as a new monthly guest editor to keep issues cutting edge, fresh and informative.
• Contributors will be credited if their submitted images are chosen for a given issue. As the monthly grows, PILFERED’s goal is to provide exposure for photographers, designers and artists alike.
WELCOME TO PILFERED MAGAZINE – By the people, for the people.”
When we first met, he understood what the issues were, and felt that with a tiny staff, getting credits was too tough, but he would try harder.
And he did. Does.
The mag is beautiful and shares some great work. Photographers have told me that to be in his mag is a huge boon to their career.
But riddle me this: if there is no photo credit, HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW IT’S YOUR WORK ?????
©dwebster2009
We visited Patrick at his office today to get a better sense of who this cat was.
Pretty frickin’ cool history.
He’s directed some of the best music videos, and shot most of the top celebs.
But the path was kind of bass-ackwards from what you may think. He went from motion to still. Not the usual path.
He learned from Herb Ritt’s partner all he needed to know to get him started in photography. And that relationship occurred from standing outside smoking many cigs, and a meeting of the minds.
The studio has 2 Epson printers high atop cabinets, ready to make the latest promotional book. Prints are stacked on the wall, in layers, as are the huge collection of photo books. His assistant sits 15 ft away typing into her laptop, and you know she is keeping things in his world in a collected manner.
As we discussed his first photographic works, where everything was Tri-X shot at 200, he reached under our couch and pulled a print out to illustrate his style at the time.
Yes, he speaks in visuals.
This place was an epicenter of his world, his mind. And he knew exactly where everything was.
It may have been made tragically easier as a fire in 2001, destroyed all of his work, negatives, everything.
But he rebuilt, grew and continued to press forward.
This man’s energy and enthusiasm is boundless. He loves what he does.
His stories are fascinating, and we’ll bring you those in a video shortly.
And his first feature is breaking soon. Check out the trailer:
Now at the top of the article you may have felt this was going to become a blast on a cool new on-line pub using ripped off images.
So did we.
But we know now that the leader of the team, never intended that to happen. As concerned as he is for his copyright being honored, he wants the images included in the mag to be credited. And recently he added a call to all to see if your image has been included, to shout out either your credit line, or your wish to have it removed.
Quite honestly, with the people that check this pub out, you would want to keep it in. But get that credit you are due.
So we advise you to go Pilfered, see if any of your images are included (check those back issues too), and do what you gotta do.
And in the meantime, engage and enjoy the purity of the layout of this fine new on-line photographic experience.
Wait till you see the video interview. Very cool stuff.
So, what do you think? In this current tornado of rights arguments and Facebook owning or not owning your posted materials, where does this sit in that spectrum?
Add you comments below, and don’t worry if it says there was an error. It came through. Our tech dudes are working on it.
Grab RSS Feed
Great concept, idea and design. The vision is modern and pointing into the future : huge FREE (spirited) network of images to enjoy and play with..
This is just one more example of how content moves, gets shared, gets published, gets pilfered. We are all giving stuff away, or having it taken. Assumes a great sense of honesty and acknowledgment when it comes to credit and payment. Ideally everyone will learn there’s a two sided responsibility. The creator has to spell out rights. And the user has to make an effort to use content fairly.
THANKS FOR THE PROPS fellow internet soldier… Gisela and Edward above share our sentiments…we must move dialogue from ‘me’ to ‘we’…the web is a powerful tool… to unite, inspire and share ideas. It thrives on WE. The copyright mentality is now a copyleft online…if i can get it, it is mine … to share, to comment on, to remix, to do whatever i like with it…this is what SHIFT, APPLE, 3 is… this is what every social network is, video platform is, this is the excitement and buzz about the endless potential of this new printing press is…i publish therefore i am.
PILFERED is the Robin Hood of the web.
RUDJ
“…a cool new on-line pub using ripped off images.”
‘Cool’? Get a grip. What’s cool about ripping off image? What’s cool about being so desperate for approval that you’ll bend over for ‘creatives’ whose idea of creativity is taking without asking or paying?
Where is the respect for the photographers you cutting-edge boho thieving ‘sharers’ can’t even be bothered to ID let alone ask?
Hoelck clearly knows better where his own copyright is concerned, and that makes him cynical rather than merely stupid.
‘Great concept… FREE spirited’ Gisela? FFS take up shoplifting you airhead, it’s more honest.
http://copyrightaction.com/forum/pilfered-magazine has this right.
Tony…i can see why you are so upset mate, your work is really really cool http://tonysleep.co.uk/frestonia30th-5
(fart-nose) ( | )
@RUDJ. Have you any idea what you’re celebrating? Have you any idea why copyright came into being? It was to provide a mechanism whereby creators could eat, because without it only rich people could create, or patronise others to create, and culture would be distorted by the unopposed voices of the wealthy. Go read Thomas Macauley’s 1841 speeches to Parliament,. He said everything worth saying.
In the allegedly shary-carey world you think you welcome, only rich kids can play at creativity. Two-thirds of the world are locked out. The destruction of copyright is the enslavement of the poor, who can never hope to support themselves from what they create – because you feel entitled to take it from them. It is a truly baby-out-with bathwater solution to corporate greed that uses copyright to enforce monopoly. In fact you play straight into their hands : Yahoo, Google, the aggregators and distributors on whose services you depend for your radical thievery,take the economic value for themselves.
Some revolution.
I love this mag. keep up the good work!
“PILFERED is a place where art buyers, photographers, artists and designers alike submit their favorite visuals pilfered from the web to share with one another. Founded on the spirit to inspire and aid in communicating ideas and concepts, PILFERED Magazine aims to assist in speaking the thousand words – visually.”
And that’s exactly the point. Pilfered is there to inspire and aid in communicating ideas. To take this out of context and attack “Pilfered†is just a waste of creative energy and web space. I think it’s a huge compliment to all photographers, past and present, that this forum exists to display their art in a community in which it will be appreciate.
It is not against the law to share ideas that will make us better artist. Places like Pilfered educate by showing us a small part of our photographic history and culture. Are we supposed to get all of our inspiration from “Britain’s Got Talent�
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the creative community as well as the legal system here in the US. These images are not stolen. I have an extended background in the legal area of commercial photography, and legality only applies when an image is being used for advertising (including internet advertising), point of sale, direct mail, brochures, collateral materials, out of home, billboards, bus shelters, wild postings and kiosks. Properly credited editorial and educational postings are perfectly legal.
You’re condemning Pilfered for no reason. Should we go into every museum in the world and take down every piece of art that doesn’t have an estate attached to it? It’s the same principal. What is art if it’s not to be shared? Nobody is selling anything here. Pilfered is not about to slap your image on a box of laundry detergent. Does Pilfered have a shopping cart on its site? NO. Why denounce a website of collected images to inspire us instead of attacking advertising agencies that steel images and or use them after the expired usage dates?
What photographer doesn’t want exposure? We do what we do to have people see our work and be affected on some level. I’ve never met a photographer that wanted to hide their images in a closet till the day they died. The images displayed by Pilfered have already been shared online, so how is it offensive in anyway to recognize them as innovative and inspirational? It is a shame your post was even written.
Photography, Art and Music are the only things filtering positive energy in this world. Shame on you for wasting everyone’s time on petty non-existent issues. I think if you had an image on Pilfered and got a call from Wieden+Kennedy saying that the creative director saw your work and wanted to hire you for a Nike campaign, you would be singing a different tune.
I think that I speak for all the artists in support of Pilfered when I say go back to your snobbish condescending world and leave commentary to the real artist.
Bella
@Bella,
Sigh… Stop waving your arms answering points I’m not criticising and answer the point I am : USE WITHOUT ASKING, USE WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION.
That’s what stinks here. It’s contemptuous of the very people whose work you claim to promote. So much is unattributed Pilfered looks like nothing more another big fat parasite feeding off photographers’ hopes and aspirations.
I suggest you ask a real lawyer their opinion about your peculiar views of US copyright law Fair Use exemptions.
Calling Gisela Getty an airhead? You might want to research the people your lashing out at.
BEST
Bobby Sleep
@Tony…hello…the answer to your question is yes I totally know what I and others are celebrating by creating PILFERED Magazine online…i was hoping i wouldn’t have to spell it out again fellow internet collaborator. You are viewing the web in an old way, it is not the printing or publishing world as we all once knew it…it is a new form of printing press, a new form of credit through inspiration and commentary and discourse like the one taking place here with all these wonderful and passionate comments, by Bella, yourself, Gisela etc…and we have PhotoInduced to thank for it. The web is the new mechanism, not the old one…for the rich and for the poor, or the lucky enough to have a computer to express themselves and feel a sense of support or community through others. Tony I do not feel entitled what so ever, I believe it is you who feels entitled to tell me and others what we should do or what I should read written in 1841. We all value your commentary, but please understand the importance of what was then, this is now… and that revolutions are not all blood and war.
Man cool images, I really like them. Play nice everyone
@RUDJ
You’re right about that. This particular revolution is one of seduction, of those who confuse ‘free’ with freedom. All that’s happening here is a concentration of wealth and power and viewpoint into the hands of a new generation of aggregators and distributors, Google, Yahoo, Getty and a thousand others who feed off creators. They are replacing the older forms, the publishers, film and music companies, whose monopoly misuse of copyright the exploited public are only too happy to repay with theft.
In the new model, creators’ copyright is an inconvenience, an inhibition to aggregation from which value can be realised. The new ecology is dog-steal-from-dog, beneath the veneer of sharing as a cultural right.
Don’t get me wrong. I utterly support and celebrate sharing and the democratisation of access and expression that Web 2.0 faciilitates, the same as you. But I see the collateral damage too. Some media are able to adapt as old business models have been destroyed, eg musicians have managed to escape their reliance on CD sales and now support their work through self-publishing, merchandising and live performance. ‘Real artists’ major value was always in originals anyhow. But photography is an disaster area because it’s primary asset always was its reproduceability. Those who control that own any value, and that’s no longer the people who make the work, but those who distribute it. Even microstock is in trouble now, increasingly eclipsed by free. ‘Free and good enough’ is completely superseding good by the standards of the medium itself.
Pilfered’s target audience and contributors are, for sure, believers in this seduction. The promise of recognition here is dangled commercial opportunity, exposure to AD’s and buyers; that alone allegedly differentiates it from any other rights-abusing publisher. But one can, after all, look at pictures around the web without it, and if sharing inspiration was the intent a list of bookmarks would do the job ethically.
One may as well play the lottery as chase this myth. Photography as a profession is being murdered by photographers clambering over each other and themselves, anxious for a byline that says ‘you’re good’, as deluded as sub-prime bankers who thought their models worked. Yes, there is still a high end, but crowded with more and more people chasing less and and less work. Even Liebowitz is in the hole.
So in Photography 2.0 the whole ecology has been wrecked. It’s no longer possible for people to build careers and sustain themselves whilst they hone their vision and craft and minds. Famous for 1/60th sec is a good as it gets, and onscreen long enough for some ad exec to pillage the idea and build himself a reputation.
If people want to go along with this, fine, it’s their choice, as it has been all along. But that makes it even more important to bloody well ask them, and to credit their work if they agree.
@ weenie
As you so astutely observe, I have NFC what ‘cool’ is. However, I think we can agree that an image of pissed old hippies is unlikely to appeal to the ad industry despite the unexploited product placement opportunities.
@redda
Someone’s got to do it.
Look, there’s a simple moral point here. So far nobody has even attempted to answer it.
@Tony Sleep – Why all the hostility?
Your argument is “USE WITHOUT ASKING, USE WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION” and then you continue your battle by insulting people that support the mag.
This mag actually does abide by fair use doctrine under US Copyright Law – read carefully and you will see that too, there are new amendments with regards to digital transmissions. Clearly, there is no ill will behind the mag – stop demonizing it.
On a side note, I gotta say, you are quite the writer – you should use your powers for good.
Tony Sleep – mind blowing and eloquent comments on copyright of images. I have rarely read a better argument. What is really sad is that many who oppose you here don’t appear to have a good intellectual grasp on the issues. I don’t say this to condemn or demean them, it’s a common, shared “whoopie, it’s on the web, I downloaded it, it belongs to me” attitude. I suspect that those who have devoted their lives to perfecting their craft (whether that be photography, painting or illustration) are perhaps best equipped to understand the logical and disastrous end result of the stealing of other peoples images.
I tend to forget that US citizens have a different standard of politeness than UK, where let’s just say, passionate debate tends to be less deferential. Or maybe it’s fear of concealed handguns in the US.
In the context of photography, rather than art, this is a life and death struggle. Pilfered is only a small incursion, it seems particularly egregious that senior, well-known photographers don’t think they have a duty of care toward less established colleagues. I’m not referring to the creative intention, but what sort of example is it that use without asking or attribution is OK?
I think you’re mistaken about fair use legality. Any photo yearbook or anthology could make the same claim to education exceptions. The new digital provisions are undermined by a redistributable PDF and removal of creators’ metadata. I still haven’t seen any defence of use without asking or attribution, possibly because it’s indefensible, probably because nobody cares.
Clearly I haven’t struck any resonances with anyone’s conscience. I’ll shut up now.
Hope they post a whole bunch pilfered from Getty or Corbis: they’ll be looking at some big bills for stripping metadata, unlicensed use, creation of orphan works, theft, lack of attribution etc etc etc.
Interesting..
[...] first feature film with Scott Caan, who starred/wrote/ produced it called “Mercy”, and he stirred up the photo pot quite a bit with his online magazine “Pilfered” (yes, there is some nudity). So we [...]
Basically, the message is “we want to use your stuff and our rights to have it should supercede your rights to be asked first or to say ‘no’, And if we’re not sure who it belongs to that means we can just take it anyway.”. So, it’s the “new web?” Why not the new “real world?” How about if I take some art pieces from your wallet, you know, those portraits of George, Ben, et al., without asking you, simply because I want it and I think it’s for the greater good. I’m sure those of you supporting this concept won’t mind if I take your car for a couple of weeks. I can’t figure out who it belongs to or I’d so ask first and give credit for helping me out with transportation. Maybe someone cool and influential will see me driving it and want borrow it, too!
Bad enough that those commissioning art try to pay less and less, not a living wage even before trying to buy and maintain the equipment needed to create it. But to be told the work is worth being shown to prop up the website creators ego but the actual creators of the works are not important enough to be asked first nor have their copyright respected – they should feel honored to have their work stolen? This from supposed creative professionals?
And, what about the subjects of the photographs? Do they also have no rights simply because you “want it”? They gave model releases to the creating photographers to use their images. They knew they should be able to assume by law that the images were in the creative control of the photographer in whom they placed their trust. They didn’t give permisson for some supposed Robin Hood to steal their likenesses to promote an agenda based on selfishness.
Straight up, without advance permission it is stealing. Ask first and give the payment and/or credit required or don’t use it, period. If you can’t figure out who to ask, don’t use it. Just as with the idea of borrowing your car or money from your wallet, if permission wasn’t asked and given in advance, it’s stealing. Your can try to spin it with whatever BSspeak you want but your words convince no one but yourself. I’m sure the car thief has a great line of justification as well. He or she is only expressing themselves through the art of carjacking after all.
The creators of that site are sociopaths with no moral conscience.
June Iverson: “Ask first and give the payment and/or credit required or don’t use it, period. If you can’t figure out who to ask, don’t use it.”
Simple, moral, legal and so easy to apply. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
Anyway shameless Pilfered mag is now backtracking in face of the outrage from the photo community. From their updated homepage: “we are officially re-imagining our perspective”.
Good riddance.
[...] permission or compensation.” One founder said Pilfered was a modern Robin Hood (see the third comment on this third-party blog that still posts some of the Digital Utopian rhetoric of the founders) although Robin Hood stole [...]
[...] conversation about Pilfered can be found at the Copyright Alliance (here), PhotoInduced (here), the Copyright Zone (here), amid others. Â It appears they intend to keep the site going, though [...]
Glad I found your article on yahoo when I was surfing the web. Good STUFF!
hi and appreciate the info – I have definitely picked up new things through here. I however noticed a few technical issues browsing this website. I had been thinking about if your website hosting is alright? Not that I am filing a complaint, but sluggish loading times might probably influence your position in google and can hurt your high quality articles on this site. Anyway I will be putting this Rss feed to my reader and can look out for much more of your helpful posts..
[...] conversation about Pilfered can be found at the Copyright Alliance (here), PhotoInduced (here), the Copyright Zone (here), amid others. It appears they intend to keep the site going, though [...]
Hello there, I discovered your site by way of Google even as searching for a comparable subject, your website got here up, it appears good. I’ve bookmarked to my favourites|added to my bookmarks.