The Unseen Cost of a Stock Photo
A Picture of Betrayal: The Story of Ellen Tamati
"Still hurts, still angry ... bloody traumatising." These were the powerful words from a distressed Ellen Tamati, shared with the multimedia outlet Aukaha News. Her story quickly gained national attention after her face was featured on a billboard for a cause she vehemently opposes.
The campaign, run by the pressure group Hobson's Pledge, advocated against Māori council wards with the slogan, 'My mana doesn't need a mandate.' For Ellen and her whānau, seeing her image used to promote a view so contrary to their own was a profound shock. "She was brought up in that generation that got the reo beaten out of them and ... they're using her image against her to promote an opposite view. I'm angry," her daughter expressed.
Following a public outcry and over 140 complaints filed with the Advertising Standards Authority, the billboards were taken down. As columnist Matthew Hooton noted in the Herald, perhaps next time the campaign should feature one of its actual supporters.
How Did This Happen? The Fine Print of Stock Photos
The central question is how a private moment became a public political statement against its subject's will. The Spinoff’s Ātea editor, Liam Rātana, explained that Tamati was photographed at Waitangi by a travel photographer who then licensed the images to major stock photo websites like iStock by Getty and Shutterstock.
Hobson's Pledge leader Dr Don Brash told TVNZ they purchased the image from a regular supplier, assuming they had the rights to use it. However, the image was designated for 'editorial use only.' This critical distinction means it can be used for news or human interest stories but not for commercial or promotional purposes like an advertising campaign.
The responsibility for designing the ads fell to The Campaign Company, an organization run by Taxpayers Union founder Jordan Williams. This isn't the first time the company's work has faced scrutiny; a previous campaign for the Sensible Sentencing Trust was flagged by the Advertising Standards Authority for its misuse of another party's branding.
A More Ethical Approach to Stock Imagery
Could this situation have been avoided? According to photographer Erica Sinclair, yes. She highlighted that a platform like Truestock, a New Zealand-based co-operative, has clear agreements in place to prevent such misuse.
Tanmay Desai, the CEO and founder of Truestock, explained that traditional stock libraries are often filled with American-centric photos that don't represent New Zealanders. Truestock was created to provide authentic local imagery while offering photographers a much fairer commission of 50%, compared to the 15-30% from international giants.
Crucially, Desai clarifies the licensing lines that were crossed in Ellen's case. "With the editorial license, a photographer can capture people and you sell it as an editorial image... What you can't do is sell that image for commercial use." He emphasizes that with any stock library, the onus is on the client who purchases the image to adhere to the license agreement. Truestock avoids this gray area by not selling images under an editorial license at all, focusing only on creative or commercial licenses with clear clauses about appropriate use.
The AI Alternative: A Solution or a New Problem?
While Ellen Tamati's story highlights the misuse of a real person's image, another recent case raises questions about images that aren't real at all. Waatea News used an AI-generated picture of a family to illustrate a series on food poverty, stating it was done "to protect the Mana of real life whanau."
While the intention to protect individuals' identities is valid, the solution has drawn mixed reactions. Desai acknowledges the good intent but questions the approach. "There are heaps of ways to authentically represent what's happening out there... rather than relying on AI," he suggests. This presents a new frontier in media ethics: in our quest to avoid harming real people, do we risk losing authenticity altogether?
