Heh, I'm seeing the scuttlebutt regarding the "death" of Snapped Shot. We may be down, but we're definitely not out for the count!
Just to prove the point, let me illustrate exactly who would be happy if this blog were to go away. Hopefully properly, this time (Christoph, otoc: I'm counting on y'all to catch this one if I do it wrong! ;) )—
"Why yes, I am most delighted to see that my media agency --er, I mean the evil Zionists' media agency has shut this pesky blog down!"
(REUTERS/Thaier al-Sudani)
(REUTERS/Thaier al-Sudani)
Image is significantly less than the full "wire" resolution? Check.
Link leads to wire source, rather than "local" file? Check.
Proper credit given to original photographer? Check.
Let's just see how this little trial balloon looks.
Update: Heh, 2 of the 3 IP experts I pinged suggested that I might be pushing it, and Rooster suggested that I was flat-out crazy. Fair enough—I've popped the trial balloon... for now. ;)
Update: 5-Mar-2007, I think it's safe to bring back the "Parody" material, including the ever-popular Rage Boy Photoshops. Most of that stuff was submitted in response to the contest, anyway, so it should be safe to display.
Comments:
#2 otoc 04-Mar-2008
lol, Brian, let's make this a public learning forum.
For this image above, where you are using as a visual aid to the comment and not deal with the site, look at google, the big commercial site, for a standard of thumbnail size. I think you need to downsize it.
http://images.google.com/images?q=Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad&gbv=2&ndsp=20&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&start=0&sa=N
On the other hand, since we are talking about what a service may or may not allow, send them a request and ask them to look at it, explaining we are putting it as Fair Use for educational purposes. :)
For this image above, where you are using as a visual aid to the comment and not deal with the site, look at google, the big commercial site, for a standard of thumbnail size. I think you need to downsize it.
http://images.google.com/images?q=Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad&gbv=2&ndsp=20&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&start=0&sa=N
On the other hand, since we are talking about what a service may or may not allow, send them a request and ask them to look at it, explaining we are putting it as Fair Use for educational purposes. :)
#3 Phillip Salzman 04-Mar-2008
Wow, what have I missed? It seems like only a few days ago we were having to upgrade the server because of increased traffic, and now the A.P. effectively changes course of snappedshot.com completely?
I'm very interested in how *I* feel about this issue. I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU (ok, so I don't actually CARRY the card), I'm a member of the Professional Photographers Association (who is currently fighting to protect the established copyright laws), and I'm a huge free-speech advocate (hence why I love hosting this site.)
Now the ACLU and free-speech sides of me say: Damn right! Keep on truckin'
The Photographer part says: You're taking food off the table
But in reality you weren't. The A.P. isn't losing money on their photographs, small outlets like snappedshot, even if it wasn't a commentary site, don't have a profit center built allowing them the luxury of paying for content. The photographs that were chosen were already well used. They were distributed vastly and are of political nature.
Ugh, I've confused myself, I just need to go to bed. Too much self-contradiction hurts the brain...
I'm very interested in how *I* feel about this issue. I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU (ok, so I don't actually CARRY the card), I'm a member of the Professional Photographers Association (who is currently fighting to protect the established copyright laws), and I'm a huge free-speech advocate (hence why I love hosting this site.)
Now the ACLU and free-speech sides of me say: Damn right! Keep on truckin'
The Photographer part says: You're taking food off the table
But in reality you weren't. The A.P. isn't losing money on their photographs, small outlets like snappedshot, even if it wasn't a commentary site, don't have a profit center built allowing them the luxury of paying for content. The photographs that were chosen were already well used. They were distributed vastly and are of political nature.
Ugh, I've confused myself, I just need to go to bed. Too much self-contradiction hurts the brain...
#4 mikep 05-Mar-2008
"The Photographer part says: You're taking food off the table"
This has not been proved and would have to be in a legal case.
This has not been proved and would have to be in a legal case.
#5 captainfish 05-Mar-2008
I dont see how using a low-res version or a cropped version of an image is OK with copyright, whereas using a full size image is not. This makes no sense to me.
The image is the image. If it is ok to use a cropped image, then it would be "fair use" to use an image who image was cropped 1/8th inch all way around?
Again, this is confusing. This is like saying a photocopy is ok to use, but the photo is not.
The image is the image. If it is ok to use a cropped image, then it would be "fair use" to use an image who image was cropped 1/8th inch all way around?
Again, this is confusing. This is like saying a photocopy is ok to use, but the photo is not.
#6 Phillip Salzman 05-Mar-2008
yeah, I was being dramatic. It was late, and I was sleep deprived. I personally think criticism is what keeps from doing unethical things... such as editing the photos, or lying about their meaning. Much of the art and photography industry is based off of someones critique, which makes me wonder why A.P. wouldn't want their stuff done that way too... w/o a license.
#7 jimzinsocal 05-Mar-2008
Goodness. I hate to see images Brian wants to use as a critique or parody or educational reduced to the form we see above. Yes we see the image in its original form when we select the image...but sheesh.
It's not entertaining...its not immediate and the extra click causes the image to lose any impact the original may have provided [value].
I'm going to keep pestering about this...not that it makes a difference where I work...another site...because we use software that enables members to post pictures that the "site owner" may not wish to be responsible for...so far as copyright stuff.
That may be something for Brian to consider.
The "Blog" format that is typical puts it all on "the guy" verses the simple
"disclaimer" thats attached to "forum" formats. Thats a real consideration.
Im not suggesting anything with this.
I would never steer anyone into a difficulty.
But when I read this? I wonder to myself.....what I might do if faced
with what Brian is needing to endure.
http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=80692&topic=10523
It's not entertaining...its not immediate and the extra click causes the image to lose any impact the original may have provided [value].
I'm going to keep pestering about this...not that it makes a difference where I work...another site...because we use software that enables members to post pictures that the "site owner" may not wish to be responsible for...so far as copyright stuff.
That may be something for Brian to consider.
The "Blog" format that is typical puts it all on "the guy" verses the simple
"disclaimer" thats attached to "forum" formats. Thats a real consideration.
Im not suggesting anything with this.
I would never steer anyone into a difficulty.
But when I read this? I wonder to myself.....what I might do if faced
with what Brian is needing to endure.
http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=80692&topic=10523
#8 jimzinsocal 05-Mar-2008
^^let me add. Where Im from? Were a tech site with a healthy section that deals with politics etc.
We form relationships with other sites when we can and attempt to cement those relationships with visible [even if non pc support] stuff that says..."we get you...and will fight with you"
So thats the deal.
I have no "personal" interest in Brian's deal.
He's simply a good guy we've met along the way that deserves some support.
And clear thinking advice
We form relationships with other sites when we can and attempt to cement those relationships with visible [even if non pc support] stuff that says..."we get you...and will fight with you"
So thats the deal.
I have no "personal" interest in Brian's deal.
He's simply a good guy we've met along the way that deserves some support.
And clear thinking advice
#9 captainfish 06-Mar-2008
regarding your new AP-friendly pic:
Brian, perfect example of how the AP sees you and your site.
(chuckle)... it is sad sad state when a conglomerate the size of AP with its vast money reserves stooping to crushing a meager critiquing site like yours. Wonder how many other sites got their love letter? hey.. can you use an image of the AP's label, or the AP's building as the placeholder for your linked-images??? snicker)
Brian, perfect example of how the AP sees you and your site.
(chuckle)... it is sad sad state when a conglomerate the size of AP with its vast money reserves stooping to crushing a meager critiquing site like yours. Wonder how many other sites got their love letter? hey.. can you use an image of the AP's label, or the AP's building as the placeholder for your linked-images??? snicker)
#10 otoc 06-Mar-2008
Actually you can. The AP logo is a trademark and there is no confusion in if using it anyone above the IQ of a rock would think this site is trying to steal business away.
I think it would have to be used in some form of obvious satire, or criticism of the situation.
I'll have to search on a case I remember reading up on.
I think it would have to be used in some form of obvious satire, or criticism of the situation.
I'll have to search on a case I remember reading up on.
#11 otoc 06-Mar-2008
http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-ap-sues-moreover-and-verisign-for-stories-copyright-infringement/
#12 otoc 06-Mar-2008
hit wrong button, otoc bad.
The above link is a report on AP filing suit against Verisign for copyright violations.
AP states they are a not-for-profit and that Verisign harvested and sold headlines and partial ledes to their stories. Interesting read and now I'm feeling better about taking a conservative stance with my advice on this matter. They are creative.
Still looking for the AP trademark though I don't know if you'll want it!
The above link is a report on AP filing suit against Verisign for copyright violations.
AP states they are a not-for-profit and that Verisign harvested and sold headlines and partial ledes to their stories. Interesting read and now I'm feeling better about taking a conservative stance with my advice on this matter. They are creative.
Still looking for the AP trademark though I don't know if you'll want it!
Is there legal opinion, or knowlegable opinion on the issue of using (for criticism & satire) *an* image, of a collection of images (representing a portion of the copyrighted work) vs. part of an image with respect to fair use?
That seems like it would be useful to know...but I'm sure you're ahead of little ole me on this but, it seems to me that using one, or even a handful of images, from a wire service -collection- of photos would be legitimate under fair use...I think you have room to work. But the question is, does AP? And do you want to risk it?