Did The Gap Steal This Car Photo From Flickr?

by Julia Rubin | 11:06 am, February 1st, 2011

The past few months have been rough for Gap. First there was the logo debacle, then the FEED bag controversy and now brand president Marka Hansen is stepping down. Unfortunately for Hansen, another scandal has erupted on what is to be her last day at the company.

This is what we know: a guy named Chris Devers took a picture of an old Jaguar and posted it to Flickr. Gap printed a picture of an old Jaguar on a baby onesie. The pictures appear to be one and the same. Though we were a bit skeptical at first, Devers diagrammed out the similarities and now we’re pretty convinced the image was stolen. It basically looks like Gap found the image, ran it through a Photoshop filter and called it a day.

Devers is currently waiting for Gap to respond to his well-founded claims:

I have various thoughts about what’s going on here — for example, the mind-boggling idea that some unknown factory in southeast Asia somewhere is cranking out thousands of $16.95 tshirts with my photo on them on behalf of the Gap, and yet they never attempted to contact me about their use of my work — but I’m trying to keep most of my thoughts to myself until Gap has a chance to respond.

Check out our side-by-side below. What do you think?

[via Jezebel]

Chris Devers Chris Devers Flickr Chris Devers Gap Flickr gap Gap car onesie Gap controversy Gap copy Gap Flickr Gap stolen designs

http://dearwinnie.com Chelsea Rae

I wish I knew more about creative property rights as they apply to images (especially those changed in anyway).
Anonymous

Why do companies feel they can mass-produce and sell work of photos found on the internet? Zara has done it many times without permission of fashion bloggers, and Gap now with this photo. WTF. Seems not right they’re making a profit out of someone else’s photography. What ARE the property rights here?
SOF

If it’s your picture, it’s your photo rights. Doesn’t even matter if there is a person in the photo. That’s right, your wedding photos are the property of the photographer, not the bride and groom. You may own prints, but the work is legally the photographers unless they sign over a release.
Jayson

Tricky. When the 2010 winter olympics were held in Vancouver BC, anyone who posted a photo of any olympic venue, friends in front of signs depicting the olypics, or just enjoying the sights of the city photo’s, they were quickly contacted by the IOC that the IOC had exclusive rights to any photo’s taken at the olypics, the person taking them had none. If the person/s tried to sell them, they would be sued by the IOC. Even the wording Vancouver 2010 winter olympics could not be used.
Guest

Hmmm…I was able to repeat the photoshopping in 12 minutes and I am no photoshop whiz.
Jayson

Good lord. Excuse my spelling errors of the word olympics.
ELI

well i think the picture is crappy, this is not photography
Hello

In Australia it’s the other way round for weddings, the client (B&G) owns copyright unless the photographer gets them to sign it over. It’s the same for all domestic photography in Aus.

Did The Gap Steal This Car Photo From Flickr?

Most Popular Articles

Follow Us

Tips

Style Dish

Login

Style Sheets