|
|
they sure are
this pic is all rights reserved
consumerist.com/consumer/united-airlines/united-offers-wa...
edit to add, yeah, this is worthy of being peeved about.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ah, I forgot to link to the post where they admit they steal the images.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
People should block them, or better yet Fotki should.
www.flickr.com/people/consumerist/ <--- block them.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
their defense of it is quite offensive.
i'd love to see staff comment on this, it's clearly flickr users being exploited, as well as tos violation.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
blocked. thanks for pointing this out.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Editor of Consumerist.com Ben Popken on linking to flickr photo pages (taken from his comments here):
"I have now removed the link because we realize that this policy would be more trouble than it's worth. If people want credit, they can ask for it. If people want their photo down, they can ask us. Otherwise, we'll just go back to using the best photos we can find in order to illustrate our posts. If you guys want a bunch of ugly ass retarded stock photos all the time, you're in the fucking wrong place."
"Credit is more [trouble] than its worth because then we would have to deal with people bitching all day that we didn't spell their name correctly, or they want their name and not their Flickr ID and so on and so forth... when my time is better spent looking for the next post to write. The next post that will save you time or money, or reveal some corporate skulduggery or whatnot. What is the greater good? To use the best photo possible to illustrate the post and move on!"
"I know, let's make drawings of everything.
We are careful. We choose nice photos.
If musicians and producers used the same notions of copyright today back in the day, there would be no hiphop.
Consider us the Paul's Boutique of consumer knowledge."
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
well, with that mentality, they should have no problem with any of us taking their articles and re-posting them (crediting ourselves, natch) wherever we want.
for the sake of the hiphop.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks Adam for point out my photo being used on Consumerist this morning. They were contacted twice and finally responded (though no explanation was given) and removed the photo. I'm going to be keeping an eye on that site. Those people are shady.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I took a quick look and found that the following stories also have flickr users' photos that state "All Rights Reserved" :
here and here
... and the following stories for which the images requre attribution :
here, here, and here
I posted a short note on the flick users' pages.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
well done MacJools
abmarfia, don't let this be the end of it.
send them an invoice.
make noise with flickr and yahoo.
contact advertisers who have ads on the site to let them know.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
All the photos I looked at had a Blog This button, and consumerist is linking back to the Flickr page as per the Community Guidelines. So why is this wrong? Isn't consumerist a blog?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This really looks like something Flickr staff may want to participate in. Hopefully one of those folk (and just because an image is "all rights reserved" doesn't mean they didn't secure permission) who does find their image used against their will can file a "report abuse" and/or a takedown notice to get it in front of staff eyeballs.
[edit: and not counting the images that are properly linked to flickr. does anyone have links of the images they mentioned were no longer going to be linked or attributed?]
[edit again" Brenda, the article about the airline has an image with no link, and the comments are quoted where they've decided not to include links anymore. That would seem to be in violation of the Blog rules as well as Flickr's TOS. plus they're just fucking snarky about it.]
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It seems they've deleted the post heralding their awesome photo stealing skillz. They may even be retroactively adding the links back in. As of this post, these (at least) do not have links to their flickr pages:
Here, here, here, and here.
I'd say that linking back is fine for credits worth, but Popkin's brazen "shrugging off" of artists rights is appalling, especially for a Gawker Media blog.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I found the comments still posted here:
consumerist.com/consumer/airlines/emirates-airlines-oks-c...
as well as that image of the plane has no link.
I am a little shocked to discover, however, that hasn't anything to do with Yahoo.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What a hoot! THEY syndicate and THEY have all these rules with Creative Commons licensing!!! See: gawker.com/advertising/legal/
I'm smelling double standard!
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We're checking into it - unfortunately, they download the photos and then upload them to their own server, so we can't block their site from serving Flickr photos.
It is definitely a bizarre attitude coming from a publication that is ostensibly out to protect "the little guy" ...
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So have any of you guys gotten resolution on this? I am very upset that a commercial group is making money off my photos without asking if they could use them and without crediting me.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks stewart, I write for blogging.la and I'm very unhappy about this lack of professionalism from Gawker. I have emailed their editor and I am waiting to hear what they have to say before I am forced to seek other action.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here is the photo on mine they're using:
consumerist.com/consumer/wifi/la-citywide-free-wifi-by-20...
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Stewart, I saw that too (caching the images locally). Otherwise the folks who object to their images could have thrown up some "f$%k Consumerist Thieves!!" replacements and gotten their attention.
What's weird (aside from their attitude, but maybe that's just the one guy) is that it isn't very hard to find proper CC images here. They need a valentine's themed image?! An airplane!? come on, why risk stepping in it when the options are so plentiful?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
thanks for weighing in on this stewart,
you can't block them from using flickr photos that they've uploaded to their servers, but perhaps it's time to give the yahoo lawyers something to do.
and indeed, their attitude is like salt in the wound.
unacceptable.
hope to hear what comes of the checking into it when you're able to share.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks to MacJools for pointing it out to me that they are using one of my photos.
consumerist.com/consumer/1+800+flowers/1800flowers-delive...
Of course those people never asked. My images are All Rights reserved.
Any ideas on what we can do about this?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
eeque: I'm a bit confused by that one. Your CC license allows sharing, and even if not, you allow blogging via the "blog this" link, and they're linking back to your image properly.
hkvam: same thing with yours. You allow blogging via the "blog this" link. Discussion in the past has gone that you are reserving your rights, but are allowing blogging, thus it is bloggable. And the blog rules for Flickr are linking back to your image, which that one does.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
They just now changed that... which works for me.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
eecue: changed what? it wasn't linking back before?
hmn. I wonder if they're frantically replacing the links on all of their images in light of this..
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@The Searcher: Ok, thank you. I always thought of blogging as personal and not commercial. Guess I'll go right back to my settings now and change this since I am uncomfortable with the idea of my work being used to illustrate writings that I might disagree with; ethically and politically. So this got me thinking....or actually crawling a bit out of my bubble of fairyland ;)
edit: They werent linking back to my image earlier on.
Heh....I am seeing frantic copy/paste action of proper URLs.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
hkvam edited this topic 64 months ago.
|
|
|
They just changed it to link back now, it didn't earlier. I emailed them just a few minutes ago. In reality Consumerist is not just a blog, they are a commercial entity and thus they do not get to use my images without first contacting me. Either way, proper photo credit would solve this problem and I would be happy.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Consumerist favorites:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/consumerist/favorites/
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
Andrew G Davis edited this topic 64 months ago.
|
|
|
eecue
i've had very similar thoughts
www.flickr.com/forums/ideas/32339/
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@hkvam: I would contact them ASAP and tell them you want the photo removed. This worked for me. And you can remove the "blog this" button by going into your preferences, if you don't want to allow your photos to be blogged in the future. (it should be noted, that I do not allow blogging, but this did not keep consumerist from using one of my photos this morning)
@Steward: thanks for looking into this. Please let me know if you need anything from me.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I find this part of the above links page in a way funny: "All commercial uses of feeds (e.g. websites generating revenue through advertisements including AdSense) must strip all images from the feed to ensure copyright compliance with our third party photographic agency licenses."
Further down is this (refers to the sources of their photos): "Images published on Flickr or other public photo sites, with an implied license for use under the Creative Commons license associated with such sites"
I wonder if someone were to contact someone at Gawker Media rather than Consumerist if this would change the perspective as they are NOT limiting to photos licensed under CC and they are themselves advertising on their site.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Or is that quote saying that, Flickr at large, and all images posted on Flickr, since it's a public photo sharing site, are in their view sharing an "implied" CC license?
[Edit]
yah, in reading their image terms of use (and to be fair, their terms are very protective of image holders' rights overall), the point on Flickr reads (same as above):
"Images published on Flickr or other public photo sites, with an implied license for use under the Creative Commons license associated with such sites"
Then they go on to say that:
"If you think we have published an image or text that infringes your copyright, we will address your concerns; however, if the image falls into one of the categories listed above, we believe that our use of the image is legitimate and we will not remove it from the site."
So they seem to have made the rule that any image on Flickr is under some sort of general, Implied global CC license, and thus usable and legitimate. I think they need a bit of a lesson on that point.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 64 months ago.
|
|
|
Show your concern by digging away:
Digg: Consumerist using Flickr photos without attribution
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thank You andrewgd for the heads up.... I've written to the editor and filled out an abuse report so we'll see what happens. There are ways to deal with this kind. Let's stay tuned......
consumerist.com/consumer/insurance/10-insurances-you-dont...
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ the searcher
that's how i read their statement as well
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Now that you point it out I guess it can be read like that. If that is so I assume that "all rights reserved" means nothing to them? That along with the fact that they are, in at least the instance with the airplane photo, attempting to bypass Flickr's security?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have also posted about this on Blogging.la and eecue.com:
blogging.la/archives/2007/02/consumerist_lack_of_photo_cr...
and
eecue.com/log_archive/eecue-log-651-Consumerist_Lack_of_P...
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher: "You allow blogging via the "blog this" link ... thus it is bloggable. And the blog rules for Flickr are linking back to your image, which that one does."
I'll take two small exceptions to this:
1) "thus it is bloggable" - the 'blog this' links is provided as a convenience. The feature was initially designed to make it easy for people to blog their own photos. Most people seem to like it when others blog their photo as well, as long as their is a link back, and that's why the feature is on by default. But it's a leap to get from there to any implication that anyone other than the photographer has any kind of right to use that image on any blog.
2) "the blog rules for Flickr" - that's true, but it's fallacious to assume that it's the only consideration (by analogy, I need to have a driver's license to drive, but I can't get drunk and drive around on the justification that I do, in fact, have a license).
The link-back-to-Flickr rule is there as part of a trade off: we allow people to reference image files hosted on our servers and pay for the bandwidth in exchange for some exposure. And it works for users too, but that bare level requirement from us shouldn't be regarded as any kind of contract implied or explicit on behalf of people who use Flickr.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I was able to have one of my client's photos removed this morning, but I didn't realize until reading this thread that Consumerist is a habitual offender. I'm surprised that a site such as theirs - which I read occasionally - would participate in this kind of theft of intellectual property. It is especially odd considering that lots of publications simply create groups where readers can submit their own photos for publication consideration... why wouldn't they just do that and stay on the ethical side of the question? Very disappointing.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
jlizak: I'm sure there are plenty of flickr members who would love to submit photos to these types of publications if they setup such a group, assuming of course there was proper attribution and an agreement with GM over how the photos will be used. However, they have made it clear that they don't care to do things that way and are more concerned with the convenience that theft provides them.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Keep an eye on this post.
consumerist.com/consumer/psas/sorry-flickr-236709.php
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Stewart: I much prefer your interpretation to mine, and there's no way I'm going to hunt for the forum or group post where discussion put the assumption the other way (that having the "blog this" button visible meant it was allowing the use), but I'm not the only one operating under that assumption/confusion. Hell, that "FlickrFight" site, they think as long as a photo is "public" that it designates a license allowing for use.
What's frustrating I guess is how easy it is to search for only the proper CC licensed images (under advanced search). I know its not yours or Flickr's job to educate the planet on rights and licenses, but man. the planet could sure use some education.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What bugs me most about my photo they use is that my photos on Flickr have a copyright notice in the lower right corner. That has been stamped off the photo they post on their site.
The image they are displaying is an image they have on their server titled something completely different from my image. The linkback is only a rollover on the image; that is, the image itself isnt coded according to the blog this.
So, someone took a few seconds of time to actually remove the ©hkvam '06 on the photo. Why bother and then embed a rollover link to the photo's page on Flickr?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Stewart - and even if people don't mind their photos being blogged, and even if they're linked back properly, doesn't there still have to be some kind of attribution on the page where the photo is displayed? Even the most generous license still requires attribution, and from what I saw, there was absolutely none given anywhere.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
hang on, people. They're starting off their post with "We are a retard jerkface." so maybe there's a mea culpa in there or something.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
self-flagellation is a start, but they need to do it right here.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
well, they did link directly to it here. not entirely their fault we keep posting and sending it up there a ways:
consumerist.com/consumer/psas/sorry-flickr-236709.php
I think they got it mostly right, how about you all?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sorry, Flickr
We are a jerkface.
We've been using Flickr photos, but haven't been giving people linkbacks or attribution. Understandably, this recklessness has angered many in the Flickr community. For this, we are sorry.
In previous posts, we have expressed cavalier disregard for copyright with regards to Flickr. These comments were infantile and we regret them.
We have felt that the best catalogers of commercial life are the consumers themselves. By illustrating our posts with the highest quality photos we can find, we can better a larger audience, some of whom will contributed tips and information, increasing the depth and breadth of knowledge we're able to share with our readership.
How about this:
• We will properly use Creative Commons search to find any and all Flickr pictures that we may use.
• All Flickr pictures will get attribution in the form of their Flickr user name. That name will get linked back to the source image on Flickr.
• If anyone doesn't like us using their picture, they can email us at tips@consumerist.com, and we'll take them down or change the credit. This has always been our policy.
• If you would like to submit photos for use on The Consumerist and gain exposure through linklove, join our Flickr group and add photos to the pool.
Once again, we are sorry. We welcome feedback on this policy from Flickr users, admins, and the internet at large in the consumerist comments or tips@consumerist.com. You can ask at that email address for a comments invite as well.
We'll also be monitoring this forum for feedback.
Sincerely,
---
BEN POPKEN
EDITOR
CONSUMERIST.COM
ben@consumerist.com
AIM: benpopken
718-306-9088
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I would like to be able to, in any photos I submit to the Consumerist pool, be able to say in my Description:
Consumerist, you can use this photo for web purposes only, please give me attribution in such and such way, etc.
If you wish to not use the photos unders those terms you can remove it from the pool, would this be acceptable Ben or are you looking only for CC attributed photos and linking them back in your own way? Any images submitted I would retain the rights to but I would grant Consumerist the right to use them.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
wow, dbthayer, that was cool! what else can you do? Quick, ask for a million dollars!
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
They eat crow.
consumerist.com/consumer/psas/sorry-flickr-236709.php
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mullentine, yes, you can submit photos to our pool and specify in the description how you would like to be attributed.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
hkvam:
What bugs me most about my photo they use is that my photos on Flickr have a copyright notice in the lower right corner. That has been stamped off the photo they post on their site.
Note this quote from the US copyright statute:
(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice.— Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.
See
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000...
for the full text of that section of the statute, which governs criminal offenses, not just civil infringement. (Civil sections still apply, of course.)
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What a truly despicable stance for a commercial entity to take. I doubt any of my photos got sucked up by the Consumerist, but I'm not going to look.
No matter how many mea culpas ensue, Gawker will be on my "don't visit" list for a long, long time. Especially in re: HKVam's copyright removal. That's just low.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have to say that cheeky self flagellation doesn't really make up for some of the particular cases here, esp hkvam's, but at least they've changed their policy.
I'll be very interested in hearing any follow up that the photographers' who had work swiped care to share, as well as any further word from Stewart.
One thing that pleases me is the hive mind power that was in play here.
Passionate, civilized, and unrelenting.
Well done people!
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hey Ben,
I tried to email you a couple of times about crediting my photo properly, I am guessing my email is going in to your spam folder... here is what I was asking:
Hello Ben,
Thanks for the public apology. Can you do me a favor and add the following credit to this photo:
consumerist.com/consumer/wifi/la-citywide-free-wifi-by-20...
as:
Photo by Dave Bullock
Thanks!
-Dave
....
A. David Bullock
eecue : programmer / photographer / admin / human
eecue.com/ -
anything is possible
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hi Dave,
I've added in the proper attribution. Sorry your email didn't get through... where did you send it?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We've been using Flickr photos, but haven't been giving people linkbacks or attribution. Understandably, this recklessness has angered many in the Flickr community. For this, we are sorry.
More than that, you've actively removed a copyright notice from an image, presumably to obscure attribution. Any comment on that, The Consumerist?
There's a difference between neglecting to attribute, and actively modifying the content to avoid attributing.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That wasn't to avoid attribution. I felt the notice marred the otherwise pristine beauty of the image. The offending photo has been removed from our site.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The offending photo has been removed from our site.
Really?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That's in the cache. The photo should be disappearing from the actual blog post shortly.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I find the reasoning here very interesting esp. since there was a comment here linking to Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notices files. So what was this? Aesthetic Removal? Makes no difference to me why you removed it; you downloaded an All rights reserved image not belonging to you and you removed the copyright notice. Two wrongs do never make a right.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The photo should be disappearing
Ah, so "has been removed" means "will be shortly removed", ok.
Whether it will has been removed or not, or whether the intent was to obscure or to "improve", the question is whether you understand that you not only blogged without attribution, but you also actively modified other people's fully copyright works without permission. Do you still think this is perfectly acceptable? If so, you might want to add an explicit notice in the group where you solicit now photos, stating that they might be edited as you see fit to "improve" them.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
GustavoG: Editing photos for editorial use is nothing new, it's actually pretty common.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hi Willie,
That's Ben's post and I've forwarded your request to him. He'll take care of it for you right away.
Yours,
Meg
On 2/14/07, One-Million wrote:
Meghann Marco,
Please remove my Mexico Travel Insurance photo from your site immediately. You have used this photo without proper permission and courtesy.
Willie Stark
ONE/MILLION
--
MEGHANN MARCO
ASSOCIATE EDITOR, THE CONSUMERIST
CONSUMERIST.COM
marco@consumerist.com
AIM: meghannmarco
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What part of "we're sorry we were doing the wrong thing" aren't some of you seeing here? They admitted wrong, and offered a list of things they plan to do going forward. Within that list is a pretty clear understanding (to me at least) that they need to collect only proper CC-licensed images going forward, and to properly credit those images per the license.
gustavo: just because the image is still sitting on their server somewhere, and you can still deep-link to it, doesn't mean they haven't corrected the article post in question. which they seem to have. and certain CC licenses allow alterations, some don't. So in the future, they could still crop willy nilly potentially.
hkvam: however many wrongs it doesn't take to not make a right, what are you looking for now? After the image is removed, and an apology given, what else do you want? Isn't the right that maybe your image was largely responsible for bringing this whole thing to light, as well as make the Consumerist aware of their actions and correct them for the future?
I'm sure there's a puppy there at the Consumerist's office somewhere we could all kick, do some more venting, but what for?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@The Searcher: I am not looking for anything, I am just stating the way I see this versus the way The Consumerist sees it. Open discussion, exchange of opinions.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What part of "we're sorry we were doing the wrong thing" aren't some of you seeing here? They admitted wrong,
They admitted part of the wrong, and I asked about another part. Pretty straightforward.
just because the image is still sitting on their server somewhere, and you can still deep-link to it, doesn't mean they haven't corrected the article post in question. which they seem to have.
The article still included the image when I posted: I wouldn't have posted otherwise. In any case, the author of the photo in question has expressed disapproval of the unauthorized edit and use. It would have been courteous of them to actually delete the image from their server(s), not just let it be "in the cache". As I type this, the image is still there, despite the copyright owner's objection.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
hkvam: yah I get it. it just sounds like they said we "did this wrong," and then you're telling them "don't you see you did this wrong?"
gustavo: yah, but it came off as misleading, like you were trying to catch them with a misleading link, but that was the timing since when I checked it was gone from the article. Even so, his image is cached on dozens of servers across this mighty intertubenet, so them having it still sitting in what is otherwise a non-public folder location, isn't violating anything even if it's still apparently rude to you.
Discussion moving forward is cool, I just hate to see things break down into a whipping session, when it seems like positive steps have been taken all around.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 64 months ago.
|
|
|
(Posting made obsolete by simultaneous editing. Nevermind.)
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
GustavoG edited this topic 64 months ago.
|
|
|
oy. yes, OK, they did something else wrong. But they probably did DOZENS of things wrong that none of us have yet caught. So even though they've arrested their behavior, apologized for it, cleaned up the wrongness, do you now want to go after all the things we missed, whether or not they've since been fixed?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
do you now want to go after all the things we missed,
........no, I asked about one aspect that most definitely wasn't missed.
From one very well defined aspect, to the imaginary dozens of things nobody has caught... really, really nevermind........
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i emailed ben and tips at consumerist.com
thanks for the update. =]
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
gustavo: sorry. but it appeared that your first comment on the copyright notice being cropped was about two hours after Consumerist's apology, so it just seemed to me to be kind of moot. certainly it's an issue, and I don't want to make light of that, for you or the owner hkvam. But it seems that their path to proper use-ness would in the future either take that under consideration, or also moot it, since they plan to only use the proper CC licensed images.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
gee..
and no one's even brought up model releases yet...
(edit to add that i'm being both serious *and* a consumerist puppy kicker)
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What a bunch of whiny vengeful timewasters some of you guys are. I only visit the Consumerist from time to time. Tell me, have you any of you whiners dealt with another organization that issued a pretty frank apology, and then by all appearance, seems to try to fix the "wrongs" as quickly as possible? This forum is obviously being monitored by them as well as they responded almost immediately to any of your feedback here. So, give it a rest already.
edit: ok, so I just also realized that they had inkling of this coming back in December, and only today they've issued their mea culpea. Shame on you as well Consumerist, for it were Wal-Mart, Lycos, or Evil Giants Corp., you'd be relentlessly shame them for the delay.
However, I also never read "we're a jerkface" apology from any of the EGCs, so please, give it a rest already with all the excessive whipping.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
g00fball edited this topic 64 months ago.
|
|
|
say's the suspiciously empty free account holder who showed up just today...
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
adam: if the murmuring of potential stock photo sales here on Flickr ever becomes reality, the issue of model releases will suddenly be front and center.
I don't even know what the deal is with those (even for illustration). why do stock sites have some images with no releases and some with? How is it allowed to not have a model release, is it if shot in public? or not even then?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
they plan to only use the proper CC licensed images.
Is this unambiguous? Is it clear that they won't edit CC-licensed images with the NoDerivs clause?
I tried to elicit a response from The Consumerist on this issue to make sure they're aware of this and that they agree they can't just go ahead and edit photos without having the permission to do so. Not all CC photos allow editing.
I was trying to get a clarification on what the apology included, so it most certainly wasn't moot. If you pillage and burn, and then explicitly apologize for pillaging...
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Gustavo: Your point is well taken. We'll put up a notice in our pool that lets members know that by posting, they agree to let us resize, crop, change brightness/contrast, etc, or otherwise adjust photos for publication, based on our aesthetic preferences,and using our editorial discretion.
If anyone has any malingering changes they want to see made, feel free to contact me directly via email: ben@consumerist.com, AIM: benpopken, or phone: 718-306-9088
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Gustavo: As regards the NoDerivs clause, we are aware of it and will abide by its limitations.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarifications.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wow - that "Ben" dude is a real ass.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Andrew, Ben just has a sense of humor and a specific way of dealing with things, and which is usually to be an ass to big companies to fight for the everyday man. Did he and the Consumerist make a mistake, sure and he's (as g00fball stated above) making amends and trying to correct any issues as fast as possible.
I have to acknowledge and appreciate someone giving this community any of that type of effort and attention.
Overall I feel that assuming The Consumerist does what they propose from here on out, than any errors in the past are far outweighed by the new attention to this issue, and the great job they do as a site in general...
Just my 2cents.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
bryskyd - No, I've been a reader of consumerist.com for some time now and I've read Ben's posts in the UAE thread and I still come to the conclusion that he's an ass. The "consumerist.com" website as an entity might be backpedaling and apologizing for all it's worth, but Ben is still an ass.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hello,
I am the person whose gashed up head was in the shot used for the verizon piece on the consumerist site (As well as the poster of the photo to flickr). I don't want to stir any more flames here, but I was actually happy to see the image get seen widely in this context.
I initally had a funny feeling about seeing it used this way until, on further reflection, I realized that the spirit of my posting it was in line with the sentiment of the article. Something like 'Hah hah verizon pwns my head'. I think I might feel differently if I wasn't such a rabid believer in the synthetic nature of information.
I know a lot of people make money as professional photographers, My pop has been a pro photographer my entire life. He took the official portraits of the last several mayors of Chicago: Daley, Byrne, Washington, & Daley. I remember when Harold Washington died, for weeks every time I stepped onto a CTA bus I saw people hawking copies of my dad's official portrait for $20-30 apiece! He was a municiple employee, so he never made a dime for it (he was, in fact, forbidden to). I know it felt funny at the time, but nowdays, I see that same portrait in the big Harold Washington library and feel incredibly proud.
And on later reflection in life I think of the fact that the people who were ostensibly ripping off my pop were all homeless folk. Given that my father has been volunteering at homeless shelters & the like for most of his life, I think of the whole situation as a happy piece of zen. He released a piece of information into the environment and it was syntesized into a modest profit for people who were (mostly) in need...
I certainly wouldn't begrudge the professional photographer their rights to control their work, however I just wanted to weigh in that I wasn't upset about its use in this circumstance. In fact, if it were something I disagreed, or made me look like a jerk, I probably would be upset.
Long & short of it: I'm OK with it being used without my consent.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
crmudgen23 edited this topic 64 months ago.
|
|
|
This is an interesting thread, and I'm intrigued that no one has mentioned the possibility of suing The Consumerist, Gawker or Mr. Popken and others associated with the site for copyright infringement...
Separately, I'm curious just what type of enterprise The Consumerist is -- and just what types of CC licenses they think they can use. For example, is The Consumerist a commercial enterprise, such that they cannot use CC noncommercial-licensed images? The site features advertisements and has a page dedicated to ad rates, so I suspect it is a commercial site.
But I've discovered the CC definition of "commercial" is different from my own concept, and narrower. CC defines noncommercial as "you may not use the work in a manner primarily directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation..."
I am not sure what the terms "commercial advantage" and "private monetary gain" mean. What about a non-profit organization, such as the Getty Foundation or one of the mega-churches? These may not be commercial enterprises under the terms of the CC license or the Internal Revenue Code, but I'd have a problem with them using my work for free (an academic worry, to be sure, as they're not beating down any doors for my stuff, but I'm just saying... :-))
And what about the phrase "primarily directed" at monetary gain? Someone's sideline labor-of-love could be raking in the dough, but not primarily directed at that. I'd have a problem giving them my images for free. I guess my definition of "commercial" is anything that is either intended to or does make a profit or net income. I suppose this means I should not use the noncommercial license...
Where does The Consumerist fall in the spectrum? They look like they want to be commercial.
Do they think they have the right to use CC-noncommercial-licensed images? It sounds like it, just like it appears their earlier practice was to ignore copyright, consider it "impliedly" waived, or claim "fair use" in circumstances that I really don't think constitute fair use (e.g., they weren't commenting on the images at all but using them simply as images on display).
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
monkeytime | brachiator edited this topic 64 months ago.
|
|
|
Really interesting to see what photos are CC licensed and which aren't. For this latest post about Orville Redenbacher, I ended up going with a screengrab from a commercial. There were 4 CC photos under the search "Orville redenbacher," none of which had any appeal. There were 25 photos non-CC licensed, some of which I would've considered using. This one is pretty cool, for instance. It would be neat to see more people will open up their photos in exchange for link-love.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That wasn't to avoid attribution. I felt the notice marred the otherwise pristine beauty of the image.
Sorry, but that goes against the entire point of putting the notice there in the first place.
And while the apology on the site was long past overdue, it still rings hollow in light of the flaunting of your disregard for the licensing of the photos you used, and the "in your face" attitude that some of your posts contained.
Amazing how attitudes can change when you catch the attention of someone like Flickr (and Yahoo!).
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There were 4 CC photos under the search "Orville redenbacher,"..." TC, all but one of those photos are CC-licensed "noncommercial." Am I correct then that you consider The Consumerist a noncommercial enterprise?
I'm not trying to be difficult here, just understand the situation. I've come to like The Consumerist over the last few months, but I think your previous practice was rather shady and renders you due a bit of extra scrutiny going forward. Plus, the parameters of the "noncommercial" license have been on my mind lately.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wow, that's messed up. I blocked them too. Thanks for the heads up.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
SAME THING HAPPENED TO ME!
www.flickr.com/search/?q=consumerist&w=46062480@N00
I had to write them to let them know that they used my photo without my permission! They finally gave me credit though for my photo.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Gawker.com has done the same thing, repeatedly using my friend's photos from a reading series I run without any attribution or acknowledgement whatsoever. It's particularly annoying, considering that two of the pictures they swiped were of Gawker alums and one of the current editors has also read at my show.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
TC, if you see a photo you like that doesn't have a creative common license, why not just send that person a message asking if you can use it? I understand that takes more work, but if your goal is to get the best images possible, and there are no good CC images available... well, why not? Laziness will earn you no sympathy here. Had you asked me yesterday for the use of my image (and offered me credit on your website as you're doing now), chances are I would have given you permission, but you didn't.
As far as lawsuits go, monkeytime, I'm not an expert on copyright law, but I believe a photographer would have to claim a significant loss of income as a result of the infringement, which most people whose images were stolen probably could not. In other words, it wouldn't be worth the hassle, especially since the infringing has stopped. But I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this?
@apollonia666: your friend should contact Gawker and tell them to remove his photos. According to their "Image Terms of Use" they apparently think that all images posted on flickr are under a creative commons license, which is simply wrong.
EDITED FOR TYPOS.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
Andy Marfia edited this topic 64 months ago.
|
|
|
I'm sure someone at Gawker blew someone at Yahoo!, and this is all bought, paid for, and perfectly acceptable to the Flickr! overlords.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ abmarfia: I'll have to give pinging photographers with good photos a shot.
I haven't done so not out of lazinesses... but expediency. It's hard to crank out 12 posts per day sometimes. And there's a definite push, almost psycho-chemical, towards getting the information out there as fast as possible.
Some of our posts are more informational and not time-based, so perhaps I can stand to wait for rights clearance from people.
We got 3.25 million page views last month and will probably get 4+ this month. Hopefully some photographers will think that exposure works out to a valuable equation.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
As far as lawsuits go, monkeytime, I'm not an expert on copyright law, but I believe a photographer would have to claim a significant loss of income as a result of the infringement, which most people who's images were stolen probably could not.
This isn't true. Copyright law in the US allows the victim to seek either actual damages (which, as you say, would be negligible) or statutory damages which are limited to $150,000 per infraction if you can prove the defendant willfully violated copyright ($30,000 otherwise, but since the person violating copyright in this case publically stated that he didn't care that he's violating copyright because it's too much effort not to, that shouldn't be a hard case to make). Plus attorney's fees.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@The Seacher: lol!
@The Consumerist:
if you are really interested in rehabilitating your reputation, I suggest you stop talking about yourself and your petty problems, and start advocating intellectual property rights.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ abmarfia
I believe the only loss of income that needs to be established is what you would have charged, and what a comporable Rights Managed (*not* royalty free) image would cost at a Getty, Corbis etc.
[edited to add, but mayhaps wobble is more-righter than me]
@ The Searcher
I certainly hope Flickr doesn't become a stock source.
If someone wants to use their photos here to gain exposure and link to their work on any of the micro payment stock sites (look them up, I'm not going to shill for anyone) that's fine.
All in all, there are the rights to an image, and then the rights to a person's likeness, property releases, trademarks etc.
Depends on use. In the case of the Consumerist it is fairly straightforward editorial/illustrative use. If it was for a soda ad bill board, a whole other story.
which brings me to
@ monkeytime
The whole cc non commercial use thing does seem fairly limited to non commercial as in not to be used for direct advertising (i.e. a soda ad, direct mail etc) and doesn't seem to address use by a commercial entity. I've made all of my photos All Rights Reserved as a result, although I'm very open to those who just ask me first.
@ Ben/The Consumerist...
The Consumerist uses a considerable amount of photography, and the degree to which it truely enhances the site is pretty clear. If you are too busy/lazy to do proper photo research perhaps a dedicated intern is in order?
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It would be neat to see more people will open up their photos in exchange for link-love. You could always ask. I generally don't mind when my photos are used (in fact, I quite like it), as long as I'm asked and attributed. That way I'm aware of the usage.
Posted 64 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads