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!!!"
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.
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
Load More Replies...So basically for some people exposition is still a way to pay for things, I understand that fans try to defend their idols, but they need to realise that other artists are asked to work for free all the time in exchange of some kind of exposition and it's wrong !
Exposition can be a way of paying for things. Nothing wrong with that. But it is rather rude (and sometimes illegal) to make that decision for others without their permission, consent or knowledge.
Load More Replies...The way LG is handling this issue seems too clumsy to be accidental
Interesting. So many possible truths. Innocence or naivety? Or calculated and sneaky manipulation?
it is her MO. just like she attached herself to madonna, and her work, to be seen.
Load More Replies...she raids numerous artist´s work and cultures. what drugs is she on ?
I'm all about artists being paid for their work. Whether it be music, art, photos, cartoonist, lyricist, poets, no matter the individual price or value of the pieces of art, whichever type they may be. They work to hard for thieves to steal from them. I've had my poetry ripped off, it's a unpleasant feeling. As long as there are people tho, there will be someone taking what's not theirs.
Good on ya for posting about this. As a photographer I'm really bummed the guy decided to give her the photo. She wins. (although he probably can't even do that because Shutterstock probably has exclusive rights but doesn't want to go after one of their own photogs because they don't want the bad press. F**k Lada Gaga. Not a chance I'm paying for her music after this.
It is totally stealing and she should totally pay. The same is true for me and loads of others with old Napster and Limewire music, but I'm pretty glad the world has been mostly forgiving about this kind of music and entertainment theft with individual would-be consumers like me and harder on big commercial entities like Lady Gaga. It makes discovering new music easier, more accessible and less of an unknown financial risk. I wish I had a rock solid piracy defense, but while I would argue buying music normally is not as good a deal as it should be and piracy probably improves on that, I really just want the music conveniently free to get more joy in my life for less. Morality and current law just doesn't gel well with the way the net's technology is so naturally and advantageously used. I realize that's no excuse.
she uses these type of things for attention, it is her MO. her catalog is built on thievery, why would she care this is theft too.
Load More Replies...This is especially sad if you consider that Shutterstock is screwing their authors enough anyway
nobody is forcing designers or photographers to post their work for sale.
Load More Replies...As much as I admire Gaga, that is a pretty stupid thing to do. To be fair, everyone uses stock photos without paying and yet nobody cares. However, as an artist / creator she should have known better. Yes, she did this to herself.
her catalog is built on thievery why would one admire someone like that
Load More Replies...Someone once stole a joke of mine on this very site. I called them out, and got downvoted straight back to Hell. So I am with Shutterstock on this one.
first let's look at all the images posted that have their own copyright. Sponge bob? Image does not need a watermark for protection. And not all sites that say images are free, are really free, a lot of images get reposted without permission. And Bored Panda, you bought the rights to reproduce the image, you don't own it and no, you can't do whatever you want with it. Check the Shutterstock contract.
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!!!"
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.
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
Load More Replies...So basically for some people exposition is still a way to pay for things, I understand that fans try to defend their idols, but they need to realise that other artists are asked to work for free all the time in exchange of some kind of exposition and it's wrong !
Exposition can be a way of paying for things. Nothing wrong with that. But it is rather rude (and sometimes illegal) to make that decision for others without their permission, consent or knowledge.
Load More Replies...The way LG is handling this issue seems too clumsy to be accidental
Interesting. So many possible truths. Innocence or naivety? Or calculated and sneaky manipulation?
it is her MO. just like she attached herself to madonna, and her work, to be seen.
Load More Replies...she raids numerous artist´s work and cultures. what drugs is she on ?
I'm all about artists being paid for their work. Whether it be music, art, photos, cartoonist, lyricist, poets, no matter the individual price or value of the pieces of art, whichever type they may be. They work to hard for thieves to steal from them. I've had my poetry ripped off, it's a unpleasant feeling. As long as there are people tho, there will be someone taking what's not theirs.
Good on ya for posting about this. As a photographer I'm really bummed the guy decided to give her the photo. She wins. (although he probably can't even do that because Shutterstock probably has exclusive rights but doesn't want to go after one of their own photogs because they don't want the bad press. F**k Lada Gaga. Not a chance I'm paying for her music after this.
It is totally stealing and she should totally pay. The same is true for me and loads of others with old Napster and Limewire music, but I'm pretty glad the world has been mostly forgiving about this kind of music and entertainment theft with individual would-be consumers like me and harder on big commercial entities like Lady Gaga. It makes discovering new music easier, more accessible and less of an unknown financial risk. I wish I had a rock solid piracy defense, but while I would argue buying music normally is not as good a deal as it should be and piracy probably improves on that, I really just want the music conveniently free to get more joy in my life for less. Morality and current law just doesn't gel well with the way the net's technology is so naturally and advantageously used. I realize that's no excuse.
she uses these type of things for attention, it is her MO. her catalog is built on thievery, why would she care this is theft too.
Load More Replies...This is especially sad if you consider that Shutterstock is screwing their authors enough anyway
nobody is forcing designers or photographers to post their work for sale.
Load More Replies...As much as I admire Gaga, that is a pretty stupid thing to do. To be fair, everyone uses stock photos without paying and yet nobody cares. However, as an artist / creator she should have known better. Yes, she did this to herself.
her catalog is built on thievery why would one admire someone like that
Load More Replies...Someone once stole a joke of mine on this very site. I called them out, and got downvoted straight back to Hell. So I am with Shutterstock on this one.
first let's look at all the images posted that have their own copyright. Sponge bob? Image does not need a watermark for protection. And not all sites that say images are free, are really free, a lot of images get reposted without permission. And Bored Panda, you bought the rights to reproduce the image, you don't own it and no, you can't do whatever you want with it. Check the Shutterstock contract.
91
53