Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
then open in external browser
and click "Open in External Browser" 
Lady Gaga’s new song “Stupid Love” leaked onto the Internet last weekend. The singer wasn’t happy. As the recording was going viral and social media started buzzing, Gaga called out music lovers who had listened to the unauthorized release.
“Can y’all stop,” she tweeted, sharing two photos of a girl wearing a ski mask while listening to music. The message was crystal clear: those who were listening to the track or spreading it were promoting music piracy. However, the pics she had chosen had “Shutterstock” watermarks all over them. The company noticed it. The company spoke up. And all hell broke loose on Twitter.
More info: Twitter
RELATED:
After her song leaked onto the Internet, Lady Gaga responded with a short, clear message
Image credits: ladygaga
According to findings by the market research firm MusicWatch’s Annual Music Study, there were 17 million stream-rippers in the U.S. in 2018. That number went up by 2 million from 2017. The term “stream-ripping” refers to the type of music piracy where users transform a file from a streaming site like YouTube or Spotify into a downloadable copy. Currently, this is one of the most popular ways to pirate recordings.
Since the Napster era, a lot has changed in the music industry. But the pirates adapted. And although streaming services like Spotify offer a free tier, piracy allows individuals to play songs offline. Experts estimate that 46% of stream-rippers pirate music for this very reason, while 37% simply want to own songs they don’t like enough to pay for.
So we can understand Lady Gaga’s disappointment.
However, she used pirated pictures in her tweet and Shutterstock was quick to point it out
Image credits: Shutterstock
When it comes to the photographer behind the stock photos, his name is Richard Nelson, and he doesn’t seem to mind not getting paid for the usage — he even Tweeted out a version of Lady Gaga’s message without the watermarks for the singer to use.
“[Lady Gaga] making one of my old stock photos viral,” he wrote enjoying the attention. “Hahaha. I just had to share.”
However, the whole situation had ignited an online debate. So far, most of the photographers seem to side with Shutterstock: copyright is copyright, and not just for musicians — it needs to be respected and defended for all artists, including photographers.
And Twitter immediately exploded
Image credits: bloodyfarah
Image credits: itscatalin
Image credits: sardonicheight
Image credits: GagaNews1986
Image credits: MicahBBurke
Image credits: ImRichardNelson
Image credits: TS7Track3
Image credits: LadyGagaVegas
Image credits: stanningaga
Image credits: LGMonsterFacts
Image credits: sbstryker
Image credits: sckberry
Image credits: sbstryker
Image credits: FAMEKILLED
Image credits: fabbgrat
Image credits: familiaespos
Image credits: minotaurmonsta
Image credits: TheluxurySoul
Image credits: EsteValencia
People discussed the issue on other platforms as well
Oh, and in case you’re wondering, yes, Bored Panda bought these images
Image credits: shutterstock
Image credits: shutterstock
What do you think ?
WilvanderHeijden 5 years ago
It's ridiculous how some people think that stealing isn't stealing when the thief is rich and famous. "Oh, she just used that picture in a tweet, so that isn't stealing." and "Oh, we'd loved if she stole some pictures from our agency. Free publicity!!!"
ShireenAin'tWoke 5 years ago
The fact that people think you can use a picture with a watermark on it without paying for it is astounding. Unless the artist or website is royalty free, you need to pay for it.
Rissie 5 years ago
I guess some people didn't get the irony of stealing pictures while asking to stop stealing music. Shutterstock did see the opportunity to mention this in light of it being their business also... It's just a bit stupid to not pay a small amount of money to so done that actually makes their daily bread with it by someone who has an unnecessary amount of money to "raise awareness" to play nicely :)
HAHASAIDTHEKLOWN 5 years ago
she´s just being controversial for marketing purposes, it is her MO
Load More Replies... WilvanderHeijden 5 years ago
It's ridiculous how some people think that stealing isn't stealing when the thief is rich and famous. "Oh, she just used that picture in a tweet, so that isn't stealing." and "Oh, we'd loved if she stole some pictures from our agency. Free publicity!!!"
ShireenAin'tWoke 5 years ago
The fact that people think you can use a picture with a watermark on it without paying for it is astounding. Unless the artist or website is royalty free, you need to pay for it.
Rissie 5 years ago
I guess some people didn't get the irony of stealing pictures while asking to stop stealing music. Shutterstock did see the opportunity to mention this in light of it being their business also... It's just a bit stupid to not pay a small amount of money to so done that actually makes their daily bread with it by someone who has an unnecessary amount of money to "raise awareness" to play nicely :)
HAHASAIDTHEKLOWN 5 years ago
she´s just being controversial for marketing purposes, it is her MO
Load More Replies...
Related on Bored Panda
91
53