Lady Gaga Calls Out Music Pirates With Pirated Photos, Shutterstock Calls Her Out
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
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
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!!!"
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
It's funny how they only cared because the tweet went viral and she is famous though. People use images like such all the time on twitter, and I highly doubt a single one is paid for.
It would have been a waste of time to speak out on a post that did not go viral. Their point is to get their message out.
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.
That watermark is just a giant "STOLEN" stamp.
Maybe the watermark should actually say "stolen from Shutterstock".
Kind of analogous to having the words "lady gaga" on the .mp3 file make sharing it OK?
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 :)
she´s just being controversial for marketing purposes, it is her MO
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!!!"
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
It's funny how they only cared because the tweet went viral and she is famous though. People use images like such all the time on twitter, and I highly doubt a single one is paid for.
It would have been a waste of time to speak out on a post that did not go viral. Their point is to get their message out.
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.
That watermark is just a giant "STOLEN" stamp.
Maybe the watermark should actually say "stolen from Shutterstock".
Kind of analogous to having the words "lady gaga" on the .mp3 file make sharing it OK?
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 :)
she´s just being controversial for marketing purposes, it is her MO