Copyright Infringement :::
 

Online blogger confronts a newspaper editor who published his work without his permission... and get's paid :thumbsup

I saw that yesterday and thought it was pretty cool. It is funny how they guy gets pissed at the blogger for pointing out the facts to him. In the end after his threat of having his lawyer handle it he knew he was wrong and wrote the check.

Kudos to this guy for standing up to the paper.

yeah anyways the oregon times? lol..

that looks like a small village newspaper. I want to see a blogspot blogger confront NEW YORK TIMES when they steal their work.

Me too. I love how the rules always apply to the "little people" only

lol, and very funny to see the old man trying to be a rude guy... LOL.

Good one:thumbsup

My favorite part is when the lady says to the blogger that he just earned an easy $500 and they guy explains to her that isn't the case because he spent the time reading the report and writing the piece that they then just copy and pasted.

Yea, I thought that dude handled it beautifully. I only wonder if things would have turned out differently if that camera had not been there. It looked like that old man got up in the other guys face a few times. He stared right into the camera a few times to. He knew he was being recorded and I bet that played in to things. He had no idea I'm sure that this video would be plastered all over the net LOL.

On one hand I feel sorry for the old man. Those small town papers make very little money. But on the other hand, anybody who steals the work of others for profit should pay.

If only it was that easy to get paid from tube sites that profit from the work of others :Oh crap

Wonder if the same effect would be had should many of us walk into tube owner's mother's basements with an invoice :)

Just for the record, most of the tubes are sponsored by the very sponsors you are promoting and they don't even do it under the radar any longer.

I find that promoting programs who actually fight them convert better for me, but most were even initiated by the better sponsors (used to be better sponsors I should say)

Yeah, I'm sure having the camera there did help the guy get a positive outcome. A few times both the guy and the woman asked what the camera was for.

Had their been no camera I don't know if he would have taken a swing at him, but he likely would have thrown him out of the building without paying him.

I know the blogger is in the right here, but I don't think they're worth a damn for the most part. Sometimes you'll find the same article on 3 different blogs, so someone is being a lazy fuck.

That old guys got some bad attitude

If the blogger is putting it on the Internet for all to read unlimited, how is he still claiming copyright?

We put out galleries and the pictures go all over the Internet, we except that, we put them out there.

Our films we have behind a wall for paying costumers only, that is where our income is from.

Going after a Mum and Pop newspaper - pathetic.

imagine a scenario if many people in this forum have posted a pic or used a picture they didn't own as an avatar, and if the photographer that took that original pic showed up at their place of work or home with a video camera and demanded big money for it, same concept isn't it?

:1orglaugh your ignorance is hilarious!

No, I dont' think it's the same thing.

Imagine if "you" spent a few hours doing research for a story and then spent a few hours writing the story. You posted it on your website to share with the world. Then you find out that an editor pirated your story, changed a few words around and printed your story in his newspaper without your knowledge or approval. That newspaper makes money from ad revenue. I think anyone caught up in this situation would expect a payday, I know I would. Had the newspaper approached the guy upfront and asked for permission, he probably would have granted permission as long as he got credit for his work. The old man fucked up and got caught - easy as that. That's a hard lesson to learn but he deserved to pay for stealing someone's work.

Are you joking?

He's claiming copyright because he owns the copyright...

:1orglaugh :thumbsup

not sure I'm understanding your point exactly, so are you saying you are ok with people stealing your photos as long as they are not trying to make ad revenue from them?

No, I'm saying if somebody steals my photos, profits from them "and" get's caught red-handed, I expect to be paid. It's never good for anyone to steal my photos but it's doubly bad if they do it and profit from it.

Well within his rights, but was kind of a dick move to post the video on the internet. What's the law on filming on a private business property? They should have asked him to turn the camera off.

:thumbsup

It is almost always the other way round the blogger is taking copyright material from newpapers which are being sold and put on the Internet for nothing. As many posts here.

The other point is if you are making the material freely available, it is difficult and illogical to ask to be paid for it later. The only mistake the guy did was not credit the source.

Hey look, I just copied your words and infringed you copyright.

Or did you put your work in a public setting for all to use ? Obviously setting no value or restrictions to your original and great work ?

The blogger wanted to share his thoughts with the world, the newspaper helped him.

Of interest, did he have "copyright, Do not copy or use in any form blah blah " ?

This post is my copyright and I consider of such unique value do not copy or quote in any way.

Not really, no.

There are several provisions allowing for permissible use of copyrighted works, and one is 'fair use' which allows for reviews as well as creation of new works among other things. One provision of fair use is that the size of the content being used must be minor compared to the original copyrighted work - such as a single frame still or image being used for a lot of avatars, but also a lot of the gifs you see. However, if the avatar in question represents the entirety of another copyrighted work such as a famous photo or painting, then that could be considered a violation of the original works copyright. But then other factors would come into play, such as does the avatar reduce the original works value and the authors ability to market it.

If the offices are open to the public and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then it's completely legal. If the newspaper guy had asked him into his office to hold the conversation behind closed doors, then that would be a different matter altogether.

I don't think it can be 'splained any clearer or more concisely than that. :thumbsup (so I won't even try) If anyone here still can't grasp the concept or understand what's going on after reading this then chances are good they never will.


"There isn't a life preserver big enough when ignorance is freely and willfully being wallowed in"
~ CD Smith.

You do raise an interesting point, but it's not the one you intended.
First, your quote attributes the original author, as well as being used in the same media which is itself a collaborative effort.

But what about sites like ThereIsNoMoneyInPorn that scrapes content from popular webmaster forums, including GFY - whose copyright, if any, is being violated? Who owns the content being produced here - GFY or the individual posters? I honestly don't know, but think it's an interesting topic to explore with an expert in copyright law I know.

Well, it does take a bit of common sense to grasp this concept and some folks here are completely lacking in that area :winkwink:

You know its funny you should say that because the people that steal and the people that assist them in stealing, dont see it that way.

When I DMCA I send to the site owner, the host, the Domain registrar, and any of the companies that they are promoting, to stop them. And 9 times out of 10 I get the same answer.

" It has nothing to do with us, we dont own or operate the site "

No advertising means no stolen content.
No hosting means no stolen content
No domain means no stolen content

Yet it is none of their business as long as they get paid.

You answered your own question. He put the article out there to READ. Not to copy and claim as their own.

The Mom and pop paper could have easily credited and him posted his URL. He may not have been happy at first but it would have been traffic and then he would have worked out some sort of deal for future posts. Instead they took it as their own.

I think you are right that they should have credited him, and even better asked him.

They keep trying to convince us of that pretty regularly.

While the np was clearly in the wrong here in this specific incident, it definitely bears worth mentioning the newspaper industry has taken a horrible beating over the past 12-13 years. There's no telling how many writers or how many ad reps have been laid off from the Oregon Times Observer over the past decade and there's no telling how many big national advertisers have pulled out of Oregon Times Observer over the past decade, but both have happened at far too many newspapers of a similar size.

What makes it even worse is that jobs at these small town newspapers are largely considered to be good jobs. Be it in ad sales or as a writer or whatever. Reason being is that over the course of many, many years, decades before that blogger was born, these newspapers became entrenched in and ultimately part of the fabric of each of their respective communities. When someone gets laid off from a paper like the NYT or WSJ, they might have to take a pay cut, but they will more than likely land on their feet. When someone gets laid off from a np like the Oregon Times Observer, there's a good chance they'll end up working part-time at Wal-Mart with no health benefits and the proliferation of blogs, copyright infringing or not, as well as a multitude of other factors, have played a large part in those jobs being lost.

Over the the course of 10 or so years, I worked as a local print negotiator and planner for a major national account. In the first year, I handled a region which had 25-30 papers which were similar in size to the Oregon Time Observer. By the time I left, after all the promotions and whatnot, I was running the entire country. Something like 520 papers. Over that time frame, I cannot tell you how many times I would tell someone on my team to 'say hi to so and so' for me during contract negotiations only to find out that so and so had been laid off. Made me sick to my stomach. When it came to negotiating, at least at first, I was able to go easy on some of the smaller papers and get their contracts approved so long as I was able to make up that money at the big ones by just going at them hardcore and doing better than anyone else could but that wasn't always the case and sometimes it just really sucked.

Sorry for the tangent. As mentioned, the np was clearly in the wrong here, but with that being said, the blogger is a major, major world class cunt for having the audacity to drive down to that town and to visit that paper and to confront that old dude and then to go back home and exploit the incident and cry out like he was such a victim while he shamelessly posted it on his blog for the sake of self promotion. What a punk. I really do wish that the old dude had beaten his ass.

I bet buggy whip manufacturers could have told newspaper people to beware of modernization.

How is he still claiming copyright? Are you kidding?

You not understanding copyright law is pathetic. :2 cents:

He actually deserved a much larger fine than $500.00 and he should consider himself lucky that Duane handled it the way he did.

As a blogger & photographer who protects his copyrights, I think you are WAY off base here. Posting something on my own website for the world to see free of charge still holds value for me. That value being traffic and the income generated by advertisements on my blog. When somebody steals my copyrighted material and re-posts it elsewhere, it devalues my work and takes away from my profits. Even if I'm not making a dime, it's still my work that I own the copyright to and nobody has the right to use it other than me.

There is really no argument here. You are dead wrong. That's not my opinion, that's copyright law.