Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Posterous)   Girl takes picture. Newspaper publishes picture without permission. Newspaper to girl, "We were too busy to ask for permission. Deal"   ( lovelikesalt.posterous.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Portland Press Herald, school of pharmacy, graphics software  
•       •       •

19411 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Aug 2012 at 9:31 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-10 01:05:02 AM  
Girl: Lawsuit.
 
2012-08-10 01:19:51 AM  
I'm no lawyer, but that seems like a major breach of journalistic ethics

/not that journalism has any ethics these days
 
2012-08-10 01:24:27 AM  
Don't put your pictures on Flickr.
 
2012-08-10 01:30:04 AM  
Well according to copyright math, every copy is punishable by a $150,000 award to the plaintiff, and with a circulation of 47,326, so the newspaper owes a mere $7,098,900,000. And, as we all know from the RIAA, there's no such thing as this "Fair Use".
 
2012-08-10 01:30:30 AM  
That behavior is not why journalists are more hated than lawyers.

Ever have first-hand knowledge of something that got reported by the news media?

Was it ever reported more than half correct?

That's why.
 
2012-08-10 01:49:08 AM  

Asa Phelps: That behavior is not why journalists are more hated than lawyers.

Ever have first-hand knowledge of something that got reported by the news media?

Was it ever reported more than half correct?

That's why.


Good point.
 
2012-08-10 02:35:31 AM  

Asa Phelps: That behavior is not why journalists are more hated than lawyers.

Ever have first-hand knowledge of something that got reported by the news media?

Was it ever reported more than half correct?

That's why.


This is absolute correct, but the scary part that engenders my actual hate for journalists is how the very next day I will read the next article and buy the whole thing uncritically.
 
2012-08-10 02:49:24 AM  

propasaurus: Don't put your pictures on Flickr.


This. Once you put something online, any expectation you have to exact control over the material is laughable.

FTA: Two factors played in our decision to use your photo: (1) We could not, by deadline, determine who the photo belonged to, and (2) we ultimately decided it was in the public's interest to publish them.

The first part of that is probably bullshiat, the second part...I agree. Maybe. If something is vital to a story, and that story is important enough, I am willing to forgive a good deal more than copyright infringement.
 
2012-08-10 06:37:39 AM  

propasaurus: Don't put your pictures on Flickr.


Flickr is fine. Make sure you don't turn off the setting that keeps people from sharing them or right clicking and saving them.
She's a whiny biatch.
 
2012-08-10 07:47:55 AM  

propasaurus: Don't put your pictures on Flickr.


Ding. Sucks to be her, but once she put it on there without any sort of copyright she gave up her rights to the image.
 
2012-08-10 09:34:58 AM  
i291.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-10 09:37:44 AM  
I wish the concept of blogging had never been invented.
 
2012-08-10 09:38:24 AM  

cretinbob: propasaurus: Don't put your pictures on Flickr.

Flickr is fine. Make sure you don't turn off the setting that keeps people from sharing them or right clicking and saving them.
She's a whiny biatch.


It's entirely trivial to bypass "no right click saving"
 
2012-08-10 09:39:06 AM  
Why do people care so damn much about things like this? Oh no, something that I did for fun, someone else found use for and used! If you didn't care that you weren't being paid, and you shared it for the whole world to see on flickr, then why are you upset that someone took something you shared with the world and put it in a story?

I agree that they SHOULD have let you know and they definitely should've at least posted some damn photo credits (really, they didn't even do that?), but c'mon.

If I took pictures that were published by any media outlet, I'd be stoked. Hell, I've actually done it for free for some friends who work in the press.

As for why they're hated - try writing a half-dozen stories per day on completely different subjects outside your field of expertise, trusting people that you're told are "experts." That's what happens when you cut 80% of employees at a newspaper because actually telling news stories with lots of background and nuance isn't profitable. Keep hating lawyers more than journalists - at least they make money. My friends who work for some small-town newspapers because they actually love journalism make about $20-25,000/year with the constant threat of being the next one cut.
 
2012-08-10 09:39:22 AM  

SilentStrider: propasaurus: Don't put your pictures on Flickr.

Ding. Sucks to be her, but once she put it on there without any sort of copyright she gave up her rights to the image.


Completely wrong. At no point do you ever give up rights to your image, short of signing a contract giving the copyright to someone else. All rights begin at creation of the image and, unless otherwise noted, are reserved. "All Rights Reserved" is a redundancy (that she had it marked as)

There is legislation in the works called "Orphan Works" that would make this legal. It is being bitterly opposed by most people who are not big media companies as it would make it perfectly legal to claim "well we couldn't figure out who owned it so we published it kthxbye"

While this is a small battle, the paper sucks. Blogspot School of Journalism it seems.
 
2012-08-10 09:39:32 AM  
Before I google it, I'd just like to say that I've never heard of Bob Carlson or his suicide or any of the other shiat that this blogger presumes everyone knows about.
 
2012-08-10 09:40:07 AM  

SilentStrider: propasaurus: Don't put your pictures on Flickr.

Ding. Sucks to be her, but once she put it on there without any sort of copyright she gave up her rights to the image.


[Morbo] Copyright does not work that way! [/Morbo]

Link
 
2012-08-10 09:40:07 AM  
Is that fair use? they seem to be making a profit from her photos...
 
2012-08-10 09:40:36 AM  
I enjoy the irony of people biatching online about people biatching online.
 
2012-08-10 09:40:43 AM  

TheDirtyNacho: "well we couldn't figure out who owned it so we published it kthxbye"


I mean, if you get it from the flickr, at least say "courtesy of flickr user ______"
 
2012-08-10 09:41:24 AM  

liam76: Is that fair use? they seem to be making a profit from her photos...


Realistically, if it's a newspaper it's not making a profit.
 
2012-08-10 09:41:45 AM  
Bloggers are worse than journalists and lawyers.
 
2012-08-10 09:42:22 AM  
Ditz takes pictures with disposable camera, considers herself a media mogul.
Newspaper "steals" her picture to print with a related story.
Ditz gets menopausal, threatens to invoice the newspaper.
Newspaper fails to really care.

Great non story here guys.

Normally I'm rooting for "the little guy" but her half assed attempt at complaining, threatening, and getting compensated makes me think shes just an attention whore ditz.

/Your blog SUCKS.
 
2012-08-10 09:42:51 AM  
I approve the name of the blog. Salt rules!
 
2012-08-10 09:44:22 AM  

Asa Phelps: That behavior is not why journalists are more hated than lawyers.

Ever have first-hand knowledge of something that got reported by the news media?

Was it ever reported more than half correct?

That's why.


This is worth keeping in mind for all you younger FARKers. Journalists are idiots. Look at your incoming freshman class at Big State U. It is all pre-med, pre-law, and astrophysics majors. The bottom of the barrel is journalism. The people who major in journalism are the ones who couldn't pass engineering calculus, comparative vertebrate anatomy, English 101, or even psych 101. They are the stupidest people to ever graduate, except, of course for climate "scientists", but that goes without saying.
 
2012-08-10 09:45:04 AM  
Wait, so journalists are evil now, too? Holy hell, Fark, take a deep breath.
 
2012-08-10 09:47:03 AM  
She could win the market value of the photo. Sorry, ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha, no punitive damages unless the photo was registered with the copyright office within 90 days of first publication (posting to Flickr counts, so she's probably out of luck). So a lawyer won't touch this case. Can't take it to small claims court, as copyright is a federal issue. We really need to update our copyright laws.

A full day passed, and I did not hear back from the Portland Press Herald. I sent a follow up email the next day.

Wrong answer. Should have contacted the paper's ISP and filed a DMCA take-down request.
 
2012-08-10 09:47:19 AM  

SilentStrider: propasaurus: Don't put your pictures on Flickr.

Ding. Sucks to be her, but once she put it on there without any sort of copyright she gave up her rights to the image.


Incorrect. Copyright is automatic. Unless she waives copyright, it is binding. Now, you can register your work, but it is automatically copyrighted.

The crux of this is that her pictures are the story. Her pictures show that the Reverend guy was at campus events after 2006. Since her pictures are proof of the story, they can use fair use to publish them. Just like how you can use clips of a movie in a movie review, because the media itself is the story.

They should apologize though. They made her into a story, and she should talk to a lawyer.
 
2012-08-10 09:47:22 AM  
Oh right, the boy-raping State Police Chaplain. He had two kinds of authority to rape little boys with - police authority, and God's authority. So, he done raped a LOT of little boys. Kinda explains Maine a little for ya'.
 
2012-08-10 09:47:46 AM  
I guess I live under a rock.
 
2012-08-10 09:47:46 AM  

ElwoodCuse: It's entirely trivial to bypass "no right click saving"


I'm no lawyer, but I imagine things work out easier in court if you can point to efforts you took to protect your intellectual property, even if they are pointless and trivial to bypass.
 
2012-08-10 09:48:07 AM  

propasaurus: Don't put your pictures on Flickr.


I have sold about a dozen photos from my Flickr account, making anywhere from $100 to $500 each, published in small time magazines, advertising, etc. When you upload a photo you can mark any type of copyright you want. The fact that anyone can take the image is besides the point; if anyone with money takes the picture you can sue them. Any pro working in media is not going to risk getting sued over a photo when it's cheap and easy to get the licensing rights.
 
2012-08-10 09:48:31 AM  

SilentStrider: propasaurus: Don't put your pictures on Flickr.

Ding. Sucks to be her, but once she put it on there without any sort of copyright she gave up her rights to the image.


Not true. You own the copyright the moment you click the shutter.
 
2012-08-10 09:49:06 AM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: Well according to copyright math, every copy is punishable by a $150,000 award to the plaintiff, and with a circulation of 47,326, so the newspaper owes a mere $7,098,900,000. And, as we all know from the RIAA, there's no such thing as this "Fair Use".


Yes but actual content producers cannot sue, the association that Flickr belongs to sues, using your math, and then uses the money to sue more newspapers. The association also sends the photographer a letter explaining how they are looking out for her.
 
2012-08-10 09:49:41 AM  

IAmRight: TheDirtyNacho: "well we couldn't figure out who owned it so we published it kthxbye"

I mean, if you get it from the flickr, at least say "courtesy of flickr user ______"


This. At the very least, particularly from a professional journalist.

Whilst I'm not particularly outraged (after all, they're not my photos), I agree with the blogger that the Herald is certainly being unethical.

And since it's a farker, I'll certainly take the time to pen them an email and let them know they suck. I've a feeling that'll be water off a duck's back for a journalist though ;)
 
2012-08-10 09:50:08 AM  
What is she complaining about? Everything on the internet is public domain. Heck, she should pay them for doing the color correcting and cropping.
 
2012-08-10 09:50:41 AM  

SilentStrider: propasaurus: Don't put your pictures on Flickr.

Ding. Sucks to be her, but once she put it on there without any sort of copyright she gave up her rights to the image.


No. You do not give up your copyright just by allowing the public to view your pictures.
 
2012-08-10 09:50:47 AM  
I had a photo on flickr of...an object. A seller on ebay ripped it off and posted it in their ad. This generally isn't something bad, because it's the same object they wanted to sell and they didn't want to take it out of the package. However, I had All Rights Reserved on it and nothing better to do that day, so I sent a message to the seller telling him to take down the photo because he stole it online. Hilarity ensued. He used nothing but swears and lied as I refuted everything to prove it was mine. He eventually took it down and then reported me to ebay for "harassing" him, and I reported him for stealing my content. In the end, we all looked like idiots.
 
2012-08-10 09:52:13 AM  
Post photos with a very distinctive watermark. Even if it's pirated they'll have the devil's time trying to remove that.
 
2012-08-10 09:52:57 AM  
F you, pay me.
 
2012-08-10 09:54:35 AM  

AMonkey'sUncle: Post photos with a very distinctive watermark. Even if it's pirated they'll have the devil's time trying to remove that.


And, if they remove a watermark, there are additional penalties.
 
2012-08-10 09:54:57 AM  
My favorite part of this is how the newspaper is all like "LALALA couldn't find the photographer" but the story itself says "photos taken by the former administrative assistant to Rodney Larson, dean of the School of Pharmacy." Does that dean have so many admins they couldn't narrow it down? Seriously, if no one on your newspaper staff is capable of using google, you probably shouldn't be a newspaper.
 
2012-08-10 09:55:25 AM  
As a former photo editor, I'd say send them a reasonable bill. But if you're not willing to take it court, move on. I'm not up on digital rights as far as Flikr goes, but I think their main defense would be that the pictures were used more as evidence than as art, making them fair game. The paper might be willing to pay, but if it goes to court, I think the paper wins.
 
2012-08-10 09:55:37 AM  

SilentStrider: propasaurus: Don't put your pictures on Flickr.

Ding. Sucks to be her, but once she put it on there without any sort of copyright she gave up her rights to the image.



That's right up there with, if you post a song on YouTube with the brilliant disclaimer "no copyright intended!" you aren't infringing.

What other ridiculous and false notions have been perpetuated by the internet?
 
2012-08-10 09:56:49 AM  
Girl? What is she, twelve?
 
2012-08-10 09:57:11 AM  

bluecrabscribe: What is she complaining about? Everything on the internet is public domain. Heck, she should pay them for doing the color correcting and cropping.


Ha, I remember that story. I wonder what happened to that crazy lady?
 
2012-08-10 09:57:11 AM  
The paper's failure to comply with her request to take down the pictures is the more egregious of their offenses. She has every right to be pissed off about that.
 
2012-08-10 09:59:07 AM  

Dear Jerk: As a former photo editor, I'd say send them a reasonable bill. But if you're not willing to take it court, move on. I'm not up on digital rights as far as Flikr goes, but I think their main defense would be that the pictures were used more as evidence than as art, making them fair game. The paper might be willing to pay, but if it goes to court, I think the paper wins.


Bingo. If she were serious she'd work on finding out how much it cost the paper to have a lawyer deal with it versus just giving her a few dollars to make her shut up, and send them an invoice that is enough below the lawyer cost that they wont defend it on principle or whatever.
 
2012-08-10 09:59:15 AM  

IAmRight: Keep hating lawyers more than journalists - at least they make money.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-10 09:59:19 AM  

Asa Phelps: That behavior is not why journalists are more hated than lawyers.

Ever have first-hand knowledge of something that got reported by the news media?

Was it ever reported more than half correct?

That's why.


It's almost as though people experience the world differently, and their accounts of events they witnessed will differ accordingly. There's also context and perspective - yours may be different from the media's (I've been to protests where nothing special happened, but they're reported on like Forrest Gump's swim in the reflecting Pool).

// ever read eyewitness testimony research?
// sure, some journalists embellish or act unethically - cf TFA - but to paint with that broad a brush...?
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report