Detroitfunk calls it quits

**MSUguy** · August-19-15, 09:40 PM

If any one thing killed dETROITfUNK, it was WDIV/Click On Detroit.On Sunday August 16th 2015, I went to read stories about the anniversary of Flight 255 crashing on Middlebelt Road near I-94.

To my shock and surprise, I found a Click On Detroit article with one of my photographs – complete with my copyright watermark on the bottom. It took me several hours to get it taken down, and the guy on the phone promised an editor would call me in the morning to explain and apologize. Nobody ever did that. I went downtown to WDIV to give them a modest invoice of one hundred dollars, and was sent away by security after they talked to the web editor.

I eventually talked to WDIVs News Director. She chuckled at the idea of paying my invoice and said she would look at it, and send it upstairs to see what they say. Gee, thanks a lot. It isn’t like somebody can give you back a photograph they already enjoyed the use of, that is like shoplifting a candy bar and eating it and giving the wrapper back to the shop keeper after you get caught red handed.

Well, damn that sucks one of the best sites about Detroit is gone.

http://detroitfunk.com/in-the-final-analysis/

**southen** · August-19-15, 10:03 PM

Boy do I know his pain. Sad when stuff like this happens and it pushes a creative person into a position where they must choose to accept it and continue, or just stop doing what they love.

**KJ5** · August-19-15, 10:49 PM

I'll miss DFunk. I'm glad he did for as long as he did. I noticed his comments on his site had been getting crankier and crankier the last couple of years and the pace of his postings more erratic so I'm not surprised he's calling it quits.
Maybe we'll get to see a Detroit Funk coffee table book or two. Seems like the type of thing that might interest Wayne State University press. I'll spring for one. Seems like the least I could do after looking at his photos for free on the internet.

**TheUsualSuspect** · August-20-15, 09:04 AM

http://detroitfunk.com/

I spend most of my web-surfing Detroit-time right here on DetroitYes, but I do enjoy occasional sojourns to NailHed's website, as well as others.

I jumped onto the detroitfunk website today, to learn that it was just recently closing shop. Now, as a private project...it's the owners property to do with what they will. I miss these historical resources though, when they disappear.

The reasons behind the closure are most distressing. I'll let you read and judge for yourself.

TheUsualSuspect

**ScienceFair** · August-20-15, 09:26 AM

Very sad, it's been a great site for a long time. More disappointing is the BS that Dfunk has been going through with hack corporate digital media.

**dtowncitylover** · August-20-15, 09:27 AM

Wow that is disappointing. But it's nice to see someone not selling out their principles.

**hybridy** · August-20-15, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Wow that is disappointing. But it's nice to see someone not selling out their principles.

truth. best of luck in future endeavors to the folks @ detroitfunk

**TheUsualSuspect** · August-20-15, 10:03 AM

I sent the good people at clickondetroit [[local4@clickondetroit and newsrelease@clickondetroit) an e-mail containing a small piece of my mind. A small piece is all I can afford...there is precious little remaining.

Randy can do with his website what he chooses. I'd like to see the people at clickondetroit own up to their error and pay the guy.

**Johnnny5** · August-20-15, 11:34 AM

I like the site and will miss it, but IMO he's looking at this the wrong way. While he should definitely go after those who have stolen his work without permission or compensation [[apparent WDIV), the criticism of "wealthy corporate entities" is just a case of supply and demand and realizing that the fair price of your work is only what someone is willing to pay for it. Sadly, as many artists and photographers know, sometimes that isn't much and sometimes it's nothing at all.

**stromberg2** · August-20-15, 12:18 PM

Very sad. He's a great photographer. I'll miss Dfunk terribly.

**subsidized** · August-20-15, 01:57 PM

I'm not sure I understand the tantrum. The big kids won't play nice so he's packing up his toys and going home? If he wants those people to take him serious, he should have a lawyer do the talking for him. Can't afford a lawyer? Crowdfunding and fundraisers amongst his site's users got him a new camera, who's to say it wouldn't work for this?

**Jimaz** · August-20-15, 02:23 PM

He posted here under the name of Mauser.

**southen** · August-20-15, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by subsidized

I'm not sure I understand the tantrum. The big kids won't play nice so he's packing up his toys and going home? If he wants those people to take him serious, he should have a lawyer do the talking for him. Can't afford a lawyer? Crowdfunding and fundraisers amongst his site's users got him a new camera, who's to say it wouldn't work for this?

Because the fees you can look to receive for a story like the one on WDIV would net you maybe a couple of hundred dollars. Attorneys will tell you it is not worth it, which has happened to me, and the companies know this. They get away with it because the effort to fight it 99% of the time isnt worth it.

Furthermore you don't get into art or photography to lawyer up against corporations, you do it to create. Having people take advantage of you with little recourse is the quickest way to sap you of that creativity and the joy you have doing something.

It is only a tantrum if you are clueless to what goes on in these situations or are someone who has never created something in their lives.

**mikefmich** · August-20-15, 07:58 PM

As someone who creates a lot of copyrighted material, I understand your pain & frustration funk.
I've enjoyed your site over the years, I hope you would reconsider.

**Lowell** · August-20-15, 08:17 PM

Sad news in indeed. Great photography and commentary. It's no mistake that his site has long topped the DetroitYES links page. Hopefully he is just taking a break, and I can understand that, and will be back or at the least bring his archive back online.

**KJ5** · August-20-15, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

I like the site and will miss it, but IMO he's looking at this the wrong way. While he should definitely go after those who have stolen his work without permission or compensation [[apparent WDIV), the criticism of "wealthy corporate entities" is just a case of supply and demand and realizing that the fair price of your work is only what someone is willing to pay for it. Sadly, as many artists and photographers know, sometimes that isn't much and sometimes it's nothing at all.

So "supply and demand" excuses stealing someone's work without their knowledge and then refusing to compensate them? How about I go shoplift at 7-11 and then claim "supply and demand"?

**Richard** · August-20-15, 11:09 PM

My question is if one is walking down the street and takes a picture of a public building that anybody could really do and put a watermark on it does it then become proprietary?

In theory one using Google earth then re-posts the image is that not proprietary?

I would think if I was a professional and somebody posted a photo of a public building that had my watermark on in a newspaper that had say 500,000 viewers you would have basically just handed out 500,000 business cards at no cost.Or if one felt that the photo was worth $100,it just cost that amount to advertise your services for the one maybe two days at best.

Maybe a potential customer sees the photo and says ...... wow that guy is pretty good,so good that the newspaper used his photo as a reference or he is providing the photos to the newspaper.They did not know the story behind it but they may want to use the services for a paying gig.

If one reads the newspaper online without paying for it are they not doing in essence the same thing?

Even if one new customer was pulled out for a 200 photo shoot it would have been a 200 gig off a photo that was basically just sitting there not earning.If that is not the point then neither would being upset about it be.

It is not easy converting a hobby into a business and a lot of times it kinda takes the fun out of it because then you have to deal with people and no matter what you do somebody is going to want something for nothing and have little knowledge or respect for ones skills.

You just gotta kinda brush it off and move on because its not going to change.

**southen** · August-21-15, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by Richard

My question is if one is walking down the street and takes a picture of a public building that anybody could really do and put a watermark on it does it then become proprietary?

Yes. For starters that is disrespectful towards the photographer and their work. Second, if it were so easy any one of the people who lifted his work could have simply taken the shots. They didnt.

Originally Posted by Richard

I would think if I was a professional and somebody posted a photo of a public building that had my watermark on in a newspaper that had say 500,000 viewers you would have basically just handed out 500,000 business cards at no cost.Or if one felt that the photo was worth $100,it just cost that amount to advertise your services for the one maybe two days at best.

Maybe a potential customer sees the photo and says ...... wow that guy is pretty good,so good that the newspaper used his photo as a reference or he is providing the photos to the newspaper.They did not know the story behind it but they may want to use the services for a paying gig.

Nope. That is what amateur photographers and those starting out do. It also depends on what is being featured. Do you think you are going to get a lot of spin off business when WDIV steals a shot from a plane crash? A lot of people in the market for that type of work? I used to accept credit for my work years ago in hopes that it would lead to more business. It didnt. My business came from those searching out the type of work I was producing, it wasn't from corporations doing me a "favor" by featuring my work for credit.

OR maybe the person that sees the photographers work decides they can steal it as well. Kind of humorous to think that the average Joe would reach out to purchase work while a respected news organization is out there stealing it.

Originally Posted by Richard

If one reads the newspaper online without paying for it are they not doing in essence the same thing?

Sure, but only if the photographer is covered in paying ads like a nascar driver when they work, otherwise the comparison makes absolutely zero sense.

Originally Posted by Richard

Even if one new customer was pulled out for a 200 photo shoot it would have been a 200 gig off a photo that was basically just sitting there not earning.If that is not the point then neither would being upset about it be.

Controlling your own property is reason to be upset. So by your logic, I should be thrilled to possibly make $200 off a stolen photo down the line while a multi-million dollar corporation makes many times that based on the clicks it gets from stealing said photo?

What do you do for a living? Mind giving me free service in exchange for the possibility of future business from someone else? I mean, Im sure just about anyone could do your job, whatever it is. It can't be so valuable that you are above the free publicity that giving me a free-bee will bring you right?

Making a business out of photography doesn't take the fun out of it, dealing with the sentiments in your post do. Just because you can take a pretty picture of a sunset with your phone doesnt mean photography is easy and certainly doesnt mean it should be free.

**Johnnny5** · August-21-15, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by KJ5

So "supply and demand" excuses stealing someone's work without their knowledge and then refusing to compensate them? How about I go shoplift at 7-11 and then claim "supply and demand"?

Did you read the entire post on Detroit funk? If not, please take a look again. The first part of it is complaining about the apparent theft of his work. Which is why I said "While he should definitely go after those who have stolen his work without permission or compensation [[apparent WDIV),". Much of the rest of the post is about those companies that contact him with interest in using his material, but don't want to compensate him for it, or don't want to compensate him "fairly". That's where the supply and demand part comes in.
It's frustrating to work so hard on something and then find out the market for that work isn't what you had hoped, that's something a lot of people can relate to.

**Baselinepunk** · August-21-15, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by southen

Because the fees you can look to receive for a story like the one on WDIV would net you maybe a couple of hundred dollars. Attorneys will tell you it is not worth it, which has happened to me, and the companies know this. They get away with it because the effort to fight it 99% of the time isnt worth it.

Furthermore you don't get into art or photography to lawyer up against corporations, you do it to create. Having people take advantage of you with little recourse is the quickest way to sap you of that creativity and the joy you have doing something.

It is only a tantrum if you are clueless to what goes on in these situations or are someone who has never created something in their lives.

He should take'em to small claims court, then.

They would win the case and chances are, CPD WDIV's lawyer would get lost at lunch on their way to defend the case and DFunk would win by default, anyway.

Then, when CPD WDIV doesn't pay the judgement, D-funk could call Channel 2 and have Robbie-baby put CPD WDIV in the Hall of Shame.

Then, D-funk could file a lein on CPD WDIV.

And then I would shout it from the highest building in Detroit that CPD WDIV uses the work of the "creative class" in this town with out any compensation -- that should go over pretty well in hispterville.

If anything, it would provide a sense on not getting fucked with.

**Ray1936** · August-21-15, 11:13 AM

I've posted hundreds of photos of grave markers on Findagrave dot com. Many of those who also post have notices on their individual links that the photos are not to be used without permission. On mine, I've publicly stated that anyone who wants to copy my photos are more than welcome and there's no need to quote the source. But that's me; and it's just a fun hobby.

**southen** · August-21-15, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Baselinepunk

He should take'em to small claims court, then.

They would win the case and chances are, CPD WDIV's lawyer would get lost at lunch on their way to defend the case and DFunk would win by default, anyway.

Then, when CPD WDIV doesn't pay the judgement, D-funk could call Channel 2 and have Robbie-baby put CPD WDIV in the Hall of Shame.

Then, D-funk could file a lein on CPD WDIV.

And then I would shout it from the highest building in Detroit that CPD WDIV uses the work of the "creative class" in this town with out any compensation -- that should go over pretty well in hispterville.

If anything, it would provide a sense on not getting fucked with.

Other people put more value on their time than you do I think.

**Margarite** · August-21-15, 02:03 PM

Hi Ray,

Findagrave is my hobby, also. And I give permission to anyone that asks to use the photos wherever.

Originally Posted by Ray1936

I've posted hundreds of photos of grave markers on Findagrave dot com. Many of those who also post have notices on their individual links that the photos are not to be used without permission. On mine, I've publicly stated that anyone who wants to copy my photos are more than welcome and there's no need to quote the source. But that's me; and it's just a fun hobby.

**rb336** · August-21-15, 09:11 PM

That is why I don't watch WDIV. bunch of scum-sucking, self-important leaches.

**G-DDT** · August-21-15, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

That is why I don't watch WDIV. bunch of scum-sucking, self-important leaches.

Yes, I agree. I find them manipulative [[and all the more transparent about it) and grotesque. I used to shake my head at every stupid technical error they make [[especially when it works against giving full say to the people they are interviewing in a report). Yet, what really disgusts me is when they go on the offense to attack certain celebrities and politicians -even if I didn't care for said politician/celebrity, I usually end up siding with them, knowing that they must have done something right somewhere to have WDIV jump down their necks.