The delicate balancing act between showcasing the horrors of Rhino poaching and the need to ‘shock’ people into sitting up and take notice of the plight of Rhino’s in South Africa often leads people to trample over the rights of others in a misguided attempt to profit off of the situation. Often legitimate owners of copyrighted material are ‘coerced’ into ‘donating’ video and images that they do not want to make public owing to the shocking horror of said images or video.
Trampling on the rights of legal copyright holders and hitching one’s respected brand to such an action is NOT what one would expect of retailers such as Woolworths or extreme adventurer, conservationist, Woolworths MyPlanet Ambassador and 50/50 presenter, Braam Malherbe. Both of which can boast of long experience with creative people and their rights over copyrighted content.
On 11 February 2011 local videographer Rainer Schimpf accompanied by local photographer Mike Holmes raced to the Kariega Game Reserve to document the aftermath of a horrific attack and de-horning of a White Rhino. (See: Can You Even Begin to Imagine This Rhino’s Pain?)
Much debate ensued about the future use of this horrific footage and eventually it was released for extremely limited use by Carte Blanche and a portion of the footage was donated to the Wilderness Foundation. Rainer explains; “It was my free decision to do so based on the fact that those two 2 institutions give wide support to Rhino conservation. Due to the delicate nature of the footage I decided that it must not be used recklessly by any other institution nor NGO since abuse of the message and misrepresentation was likely.”
An edited and low resolution version of the HD video was published on YouTube by Schimpf.
During March 2011 an approach by Woolworths MyPlanet Ambassador Malherbe to use the HD footage was refused.
The Wilderness Foundation used the low resolution footage to publicise their petition against Rhino poaching. See: Forever Wild – Save the Rhino and, as an ethical organisation with deep Port Elizabeth roots, agreed to refer any queries about use of the footage to Schimpf.
So, we now have one Port Elizabeth organisation and one PE individual fighting to protect the Rhino when along comes Woolworths and Braam Malherbe who set up a Facebook site to promote the Woolworths ‘Save the Rhino’s with MyPlanet’ initiative. Basically this initiative hinges on shoppers applying for a card and choosing the EWT MyPlanet Rhino Fund as their charity of choice. Every swipe of the card in a Woolies store and other nationwide partners, results in an “up to 1%” donation of the value of the purchases towards rhino conservation!
We will reserve any discussion on the vague “up to 1%” donation computation.
Crucial to this Facebook campaign was the display of an edited and unauthorised display of Rainer Schimpf’s video of the Kariega Rhino taken on 11 February 2011. Links to this video were readily shared by the creators of and visitors to this page.
Long story short:
- Neither Braam nor Woolworths asked permission of Schimpf to use the footage.
- They effectively ‘poached’ the footage and used it to make money for a ‘charity’ that will not directly benefit the Kariega Game Reserve, the Wilderness Foundation or Rainer for his copyrighted material.
- Donations to MyPlanet are only effective when goods are purchased at Woolworths or partners.
After the first lawyers letter to Woolworths they removed the footage from their Facebook page.
Further litigation to enforce his rights will cost Schimpf an arm and a leg leading him to say; “Once again we have a ‘David against Goliath’ situation despite the evidence that Woolworths is clearly at fault. It is so sad that these ‘Poachers’ have misguided their customers with the impression that they are doing something good.”
Schimpf’s attorney, Salomé le Roux says; “[the video] definitely appears to be an unauthorized reproduction/copying and adaptation of your original footage as it is not the same video as the authorized one on youtube.com or even a link to that video. Copyright in a cinematographic film is infringed whenever the film is reproduced, published or adapted without the permission of the copyright owner.”
One has to question whether the ongoing Rhino slaughter has now become yet another way for big business to turn a buck.
You know you want to comment so let us know what you think below.
Alan Straton
Latest posts by Alan Straton (see all)
- Why Digital Equity Is South Africa’s New Frontier for Women’s Empowerment – By Matebe Chisiza-Asukile and Natasha Mboyisa - 25 September 2026
- New Champions Rise at the 2026 Street Lines Skate Tournament - 23 September 2026
- When Manufacturers Have a ‘Beef’ Then Both Suffer - 23 September 2026
- How Much Are You Worth per Year to Your Bank? - 23 September 2026
- Better Business Processes. Stronger Workplace Skills. Smarter AI. Greater Business Productivity. - 23 September 2026
I’m forced to not use ALLOT of really bad words right now. So yes, this is probably one of the more pathetic things I have seen a company do in-order to effective increase profit… by riding on Rhino Poaching. 1% REALLY!!! wow!!!, that’s amazing (note Woolworth, that’s what sarcasm looks like in text)
Perhaps we should all join a body like SAFREA to help us protect our copyright interests.
This comment was emailed to me:
If you are walking along the street and pick up a bag do you automatically assume that it is yours for the taking?
NO – you attempt to find out who the owner is and return it.
So too with anything that is published – that doesn’t make it public domain for anyone to use as they see fit.
Just because Google / YouTube / Vleisboek / Twitter / MyPE displays it does NOT mean that it is yours for the taking.
If you steal goods from a shop because; “they are displayed and that makes it public domain” and then give those same goods to a charity, LESS a handling fee, it is still STEALING.
This Reply was emailed to me to my reply above:
But you are still missing the point – they are doing all of this to help the rhinos.
If I picked up a bag with a wad of cash and then gave that cash to the world wildlife fund, in order to save the panda bears – that is ok. Because I am doing something good. I am not using the money for my own selfish means. That is what WW is doing – they are using the video to promote the plight of the rhino in order for them to help the rhino.
The fact that the person who took the video isn’t interested in letting others see the video – that is the problem here – he should be using the footage to highlight the trauma that these rhino’s are suffering.
In this contest WW wins as far as I am concerned.
Possibly, the person who took the video only let it go to the people who were willing to pay the most money for it – maybe he wasn’t happy with what WW was offering him in exchange for the video – so he was putting his own materialistic needs in front of saving the rhino – and WW thought f.ck that – we want to save the rhino, so we will use it for the greater good!
“In this contest WW wins as far as I am concerned.”
No! Why did they remove the video after receiving notice? WW Could have easily taken the budget they spend on one prime time commercial and made a short film or commercial to power their campaign.
“Possibly, the person who took the video only let it go to the people who were willing to pay the most money for it ”
WRONG!!!!!!!!
The video was GIVEN to Carte Blanche, The Wilderness Foundation and MyPE, not sold.
Further more if “WW thought f.ck that” Then why not make it something worthwhile. How many people have that card? Is 1% really going to make that much of a diffirence?
As far as I am concerned this is just another corporate giant putting their “own materialistic needs in front of saving the rhino”
If you are walking along the street and pick up a bag do you automatically assume that it is yours for the taking?
NO – you attempt to find out who the owner is and return it.
So too with anything that is published – that doesn’t make it public domain for anyone to use as they see fit.
Just because Google / YouTube / Vleisboek / Twitter / MyPE displays it does NOT mean that it is yours for the taking.
If you steal goods from a shop because; “they are displayed and that makes it public domain” and then give those same goods to a charity, LESS a handling fee, it is still STEALING.
This comment was emailed to me:
What’s the difference between Woolworths stealing someone’s hard earned and valuable IP and using it to “entice” customers to spend money in their shops and the sale of counterfeit DVD’s, clothing, the sale of illegal abalone etc? Its simple. Woolworths is using stolen goods to pull at the public’s heartstrings and con us into spending more money at their stores to “save” the rhino. Rainer, I would support a FACEBOOK campaign calling on the public to stop buying from Woolworths to force them to acknowledge their illegal and shameless act.
“What’s the difference between Woolworths stealing someone’s hard earned and valuable IP and using it to “entice” customers to spend money in their shops and the sale of counterfeit DVD’s”
Why not just create a video themselves? Why not at least give credit? Why remove the video when they receive a lawyer letter?
I know piracy and illegal use of content takes place all over the world, but, once again this is big company using someone else efforts to power their campaign, they have the ability to do it themselves.
Cormac McCreesh said on his Facebook page:
Here’s an interesting one – is it theft, exploitation or caring for the environment. Sounds like and looks like theft to me …
I was incorrect – the video can still be found here on Vleisboek: http://www.facebook.com/video/?id=214878073177
Woolworths have finally removed the Rhino Video off of their Facebook Site.
Which brings me to another question – What is the legal position if the video was uploaded to Facebook, removed from the Woolworths Channel, BUT then Facebook decides to use the video as is their ‘right’ in terms of the terms and conditions that you agree to when uploading anything to Facebook?
Dear Woolworths, does the left hand KNOW what the right hand is doing?
On 17 August Woolworths attorneys wrote to Rainer and stated:
As I stated earlier – I was INCORRECT when I said that the video had been removed from the Woolworths Facebook site as I found it here – ttp://www.facebook.com/video/?id=214878073177 – TODAY, 19 August 2011.
See screenshot image below.
And on another note – a salutary lesson for business that use Facebook and NOT their own web sites. If you had been using your own web site and not sharecropping on Facebook it would have been far easier to remove content that is part of a dispute such as this one.
Keep your eye on the proverbial ball.
We would like to see money going to the the most active group trying to save the rhinos.
So Rainer in the next letter to Woolworths arrange a meeing whereby you make your footage available to them, with very specific details as to who the nominated beneficiaries (who are doing the most to benefit the Rhino’s) should be, failing which etc etc..
Turn it into a win win situation for the rhinos. They (Woolies)have after all indicated that they want to give something back – and no nobody is going to boycott Woolies! So use this to the benefit of the rhinos.
Have any of you taken note of just how many action groups out there are claiming to do their bit to save our rhino’s? Rather focus your attention on perhaps getting these groups to work together for one common cause.
I am not going to spend more money at Woolies just because a small amount is going to go to the rhinos – my spend will be the same.
Use your copyrighted David strength and work with Goliath…David did slay Goliath after all.
Keep your eye on the proverbial ball.
We would like to see money going to the the most active group trying to save the rhinos.
So Rainer in the next letter to Woolworths arrange a meeing whereby you make your footage available to them, with very specific details as to who the nominated beneficiaries (who are doing the most to benefit the Rhino’s) should be, failing which etc etc..
Turn it into a win win situation for the rhinos. They (Woolies)have after all indicated that they want to give something back – and no nobody is going to boycott Woolies! So use this to the benefit of the rhinos.
Have any of you taken note of just how many action groups out there are claiming to do their bit to save our rhino’s? Rather focus your attention on perhaps getting these groups to work together for one common cause.
I am not going to spend more money at Woolies just because a small amount is going to go to the rhinos – my spend will be the same.
Use your copyrighted David strength and work with Goliath…David did slay Goliath after all.
Keep your eye on the proverbial ball.
We would like to see money going to the the most active group trying to save the rhinos.
So Rainer in the next letter to Woolworths arrange a meeing whereby you make your footage available to them, with very specific details as to who the nominated beneficiaries (who are doing the most to benefit the Rhino’s) should be, failing which etc etc..
Turn it into a win win situation for the rhinos. They (Woolies)have after all indicated that they want to give something back – and no nobody is going to boycott Woolies! So use this to the benefit of the rhinos.
Have any of you taken note of just how many action groups out there are claiming to do their bit to save our rhino’s? Rather focus your attention on perhaps getting these groups to work together for one common cause.
I am not going to spend more money at Woolies just because a small amount is going to go to the rhinos – my spend will be the same.
Use your copyrighted David strength and work with Goliath…David did slay Goliath after all.
Keep your eye on the proverbial ball.
We would like to see money going to the the most active group trying to save the rhinos.
So Rainer in the next letter to Woolworths arrange a meeing whereby you make your footage available to them, with very specific details as to who the nominated beneficiaries (who are doing the most to benefit the Rhino’s) should be, failing which etc etc..
Turn it into a win win situation for the rhinos. They (Woolies)have after all indicated that they want to give something back – and no nobody is going to boycott Woolies! So use this to the benefit of the rhinos.
Have any of you taken note of just how many action groups out there are claiming to do their bit to save our rhino’s? Rather focus your attention on perhaps getting these groups to work together for one common cause.
I am not going to spend more money at Woolies just because a small amount is going to go to the rhinos – my spend will be the same.
Use your copyrighted David strength and work with Goliath…David did slay Goliath after all.
This is atrocious behavior by a prominent group like Woolworths and they should not get away with their behavior!
What people don’t understand is that someone had to actually WORK to get that footage and therefore has every right to say who can and cannot use it!!
Alan, I had a good giggle (not a funny haha giggle, but more of disbelief) at the email sent to you. Just goes to show the ignorance I mentioned in my copyright article.What Rainer should do, is set up a Facebook page, with a petition that everyone can sign asking Woolworths to disclose the financials relating to the donations to Rhino conservation as a result of their campaign and in addition, Woolworths to make a direct and significant cash contribution/donation to the Wilderness Foundation and Kariega Game Reserve.
Only then could they be remotely absolved from their despicable behavior.
Faebook comment on Woolworths ‘poaching’ by Gordon Hiles: “Disrespect of copyright in any form is unacceptable, especially if it is done by persons or organisations that should know better and in particular if the perpetrator is to benefit financially.”
Get the November 2011 Noseweek – MyPE and Yours truly are quoted in an article here: http://www.noseweek.co.za/article/2614/Turning-rhinos-into-fast-bucks @Martin_Welz