Ricoh vs. Ming

[sleist]

As a reader and supporter of his blog AND a GR owner (largely due to Ming) I will be watching to see how this plays out.


Name and shame: ?Pentax Ricoh Indonesia? stole my image ? Ming Thein | Photographer

 

[Overread]

Not sure if this isn't a bit of overreaction at this stage - at least against the camera manufacturer since the photographer states that they don't know if the shop who used the image is part of the host company or just a retail outlet. I'd have at least waited for formal contact from the HQ before "naming and shaming" since the manufacturer might not be affiliated at all (wouldn't be the first time a rouge site called itself "official"). It's unfair to run in guns blazing when you don't know the full picture.

 

[sleist]

Not sure if this isn't a bit of overreaction at this stage - at least against the camera manufacturer since the photographer states that they don't know if the shop who used the image is part of the host company or just a retail outlet. I'd have at least waited for formal contact from the HQ before "naming and shaming" since the manufacturer might not be affiliated at all (wouldn't be the first time a rouge site called itself "official"). It's unfair to run in guns blazing when you don't know the full picture.

This occurred to me as well, but at what point do companies stop being responsible for the actions of subsidiaries acting in their interests with their corporate logo no less?
How long would it take for Pentax/Ricoh to have lawyers send a cease and desist to me for using their logo without permission?

Plus, this is a camera company. Their customers are photographers. This is like stealing money from your customer.
If a camera company can allow this to slide, then they deserve to go out of business.

I agree that we need to see how things evolve here, but a part of me feels that the quick and harsh reaction was justified given the situation and players involved.

 

[Overread]

Do you really think Canon/Nikon should be blamed for every switch and bait store or scam site out there?

It really depends totally on the relationship between the manufacturer and the website, if there is even an official relationship going on. Just because a website claims things doesn't mean that they are true, plus many will stretch the truth out to sound more impressive than they actually are.

Without more information its impossible to say who is in the wrong here; or where the blame should lay. Typically most manufacturers won't be keeping a close eye on their distributors unless they are in-house distribution setups; sure they'll react to public feedback on their distributors but they are unlikely to do much more unless its very small scale and niche market (ergo they've only got two or three distributors to keep an eye on).

 

[Braineack]

People in Indonesia dont care about US laws.

 

[pixmedic]

I will tell you the issue "I" have with this, and their response...
its the same bullcrap excuses that every photo stealer uses...
sorry, we didn't know. riiiiiight.
they think noone will notice, or care, and when they get caught, they think that just taking the picture down fixes everything.
never-mind the fact that someone elses image was used for commercial purposes, and the people that did it, as usual, made zero attempt at any sort of compensation whatsoever.

im not saying i would have jumped the gun and outed them quite yet...but why shouldn't the original photographer have done so?
the company basically got busted and said, "oh hey, sorry we got caught using your nice picture for our own advertising...i guess we will just take it down now...its all good"
its possible that to the photographer that actually owns that image, it is in fact, not "all good".

I would be interested in seeing if the Pentax main branch has anything to say on it.
i am going to guess that nothing is going to be done about it, and i have no clue at all if that guy has any recourse at all should he feel like pursuing it.

 

[sleist]

Just posting an update. Ricoh seems to be acting review the situation.

Quoted from Ming's blog:

Update at 20:30 GMT+8: I received a call from Ricoh Malaysia on behalf of Pentax Ricoh Japan: they’re aware of it, senior management is meeting first thing in the morning and I should receive a formal reply shortly thereafter. This is very encouraging news: it means they’re listening. I must also commend Rissa and her team at DSC World/ Pentax Ricoh Malaysia for taking the initiative to escalate the issue to HQ to begin with without any intervention on my part – it is clear they are doing a good job in looking after the brand. I am hopeful for a positive outcome – not least because I’ve already bought 5 lenses in anticipation of the 645Z which would otherwise be useless. Let us give them a fair chance to reply. Thank you all for your support, and I will keep you updated here as events unfold.

 

[tirediron]

As my mother used to say, "If you don't know whose it is, you sure as heck know whose it ISN'T!"

 

[sleist]

A final update:

Ricoh Pentax update: confidence restored, resolution and conclusion ? Ming Thein | Photographer

 

[vintagesnaps]

I have a Ricoh GXR, when I saw this thread I wondered who was Ming? It's hard to gauge a situation in another country that may have different laws than in the US. Making photos public on a website it would probably be best to register the copyright to be able to go to the company directly with any suspected violation.

There are so many products being sold sometimes by a store (although this was a distributor and I don't know how large that business would be) but I think it's possible something like this could happen on an affiliated site and not necessarily be noticed. You read about camera stores in the Brooklyn area that have a reputation for pulling a bait 'n switch, they're always on the move, changing locations, etc. In my area it's the stores that pop up here and there selling cell phones and other electronics that don't necessarily seem all that reputable and I could see how a manufacturer wouldn't know how their products were being promoted by some of these stores or websites.

Good thing the company addressed and resolved it so that any affiliates know that wasn't acceptable and won't be allowed by the manufacturer.

 

[jowensphoto]

*hangs head in shame*

I used to work for Ricoh and oddly enough, they have it posted EVERYWHERE on internal sites, memos, etc that it is "among the top most ethical places to work" according to some so-called reputable source.

They were super ethical when they allowed the manager who PULLED MY PONYTAIL in front of other employees got to keep his job.

/rant

 

[Derrel]

A final update:

Ricoh Pentax update: confidence restored, resolution and conclusion ? Ming Thein | Photographer

Nice letter. But how about a f*****g CHECK to go along with it? I'm pretty disappointed that he did not press for monetary compensation.

 

[sleist]

I think he made his point. He also may have gotten paid and just did not disclose.
I'm glad he took the stand he did and I'm a bit confused as to the crap he took for going too far too fast with his condemnation.
His main business is product shots so this was a direct attack on his bottom line.
Plus, the photo had been used for months and this was a camera company.

 

[pixmedic]

A final update:

Ricoh Pentax update: confidence restored, resolution and conclusion ? Ming Thein | Photographer

Nice letter. But how about a f*****g CHECK to go along with it? I'm pretty disappointed that he did not press for monetary compensation.

later down the post he says

"This has never been about money: it’s about respecting the photographer, and their customers. No compensation was offered and none was asked for. All I wanted was a public apology and acknowledgement of photographers’ rights. This has been duly given, and I am both satisfied with the outcome and impressed with the response of the Ricoh senior management. If anything, my confidence in the leadership of the company is increased because they handled a potentially disastrous situation very well."

still...it really would have been nice for Ricoh Pentax to at least offer him some bit of monetary compensation for the months of free usage the distribution company got out of it. somehow i doubt that ricoh pentax's team of lawyers would have been so forgiving if the situation had been reversed.

as long as the guy is satisfied with the end results, thats all that really matters.

 

[Derrel]

They stole his image, and they never payed another commerical shooter to make an image for them. Apparently, they do not have anybody in-house that can even shoot a decent image. The precedent he sets is that a large camera/imaging company can STEAL a watermarked image, with a logo right on it, and use it for eight months, not pay a cent, and then "buy its way out" of a jam by writing a nice letter of apology.

Not a good way to handle it. Allow a deep-pockets custromer to buy you off with a sheet of letterhead and .0005 cents' worth of printer ink.

After making such a huge deal about THEFT, not making it clear that monetary damages needed to be payed is a pretty lame way to say the matter has been resolved. Allowing a large, multi-national corporation to steal an image and then NOT making them PAY for the stolen merchandise makes zero sense to me. But hey, maybe their thank-you can pay the bills where he lives. Maybe all he wanted was publicity.