Tag: copyrights

Read More

Fatman Returns

In February 2014, a researcher from The Graham Norton Show contacted me about licensing one of my costumed portraits from San Diego Comic-Con 2010. She explained: “Our terms are all media worldwide for 5 years, and we would normally pay £175 (about $285) for these. We would pay upon usage of the image, and I would be able to let you know on Monday whether it has made the final cut of the show. If it is included, then we will arrange payment. Would you be happy with this?”

My reply: “I love the show, and, of course, you have my permission to use the photo—and the terms are agreeable. Can you let me know if the pic makes the cut and, if so, when the show will air?” The photo did indeed make the “final cut”, and I was paid for the privilege.

Read More

Tangled Web

Belated topic time: Few months ago, I changed copyright on this blogsite and my Flickr from a Creative Commons non-commercial variant to All Rights Reserved. I did this in response to so-called artificial intelligence algorithms scraping content from websites for various purposes—improving learning models being one of them.

Some of that content can and likely will be repurposed for profit and in manner outside my artistic control. Software developers, many of them large tech companies—think Apple, Google, and Microsoft, for starters—can claim plausible deniability. “Hey, we didn’t know that would happen”.

Read More

Come and Get Me, Apple

If you believe Wired story “Apple Is Taking On Apples in a Truly Weird Trademark Battle“—and I do—the company is running about the globe seeking the “rights to the image of apples”.

One court case could cause big problems for 111-year-old the Fruit Union, according to reporter Gabriela Galindo, who writes: “The oldest and largest fruit farmer’s organization in Switzerland worries it might have to change its logo, because Apple, the tech giant, is trying to gain intellectual property rights over depictions of apples, the fruit”.

Read More

Bernie Sanders DMCA burns Wikipedia

I have a whopping “WTF?” headache this fine Saturday over a Wikipedia report that the Bernie Sanders campaign filed a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) request demanding removal of the Presidential hopeful’s logos. Seriously? From an encyclopedia? If this is the future under so-called Democratic Socialism, run for cover. The Police State pounds the door! He talks the good talk—gentile Uncle promising freedom for all—but I look where he walks, and that’s with a club beating baby seals of free speech. Yikes!

I am decidedly non-partisan, meaning: All politicians are fair game for our bow and arrows to shoot and Bowie knife to gut. (Got a taxidermist on contract to stuff them, too!) The Donald is easy prey, but I never expected Bernie to gloriously trump Trump! The take-down notice’s absurdity outdoes the proposed Wall protecting Americans from Mexicans south and Canadians north. 

Read More

Flickr a Day 286: ‘Please Help’

I sometimes chuckle at people identified online by first name only. Do they feel more important? Perhaps privacy protection is a concern? Something else? Today’s shooter, identified only as Christian on Flickr and also Instagram, fits the category. His Sept. 5, 2004 self-titled “Please Help” takes the Day for reasons of identification—or lack of it.

“This photo has made the rounds on the Internet, but I was the one who took it originally” he says. The insinuation is clear: Unaccredited. I wonder if a full name to identify would encourage more people to properly credit him. Using the C word differently, Christian deserves credit for this:  “I only post photos that I take”. Good going dude. 

Read More

Will Taylor Swift’s Apple Admonishment Strike a Chord?

“This is not about me”, singer Taylor Swift writes in a Tumblr post that is viral news everywhere today. She explains why her newest album, “1989”, will not be available on Apple Music when the service starts on June 30.

“This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field—but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs”. 

Read More

Who Owns that Photo?

On January 1, I started year-long project “Flickr a Day“. I choose from among the content-sharing service’s Creative Commons-licensed photos and post them here, with some backstory about the photographer. A comment on Ello got me to thinking about the process I use, which is very deliberate, and the value of explaining it.

First, digression: Last night I posted to new social network Ello for the first time. Less than 24 hours later, I see what the raving is all about. I like Ello. Fresh, and refreshing, describes the posting and community experience. 

Read More

The Flickr That Lights a Firestorm

My good high school buddy Winchell Chung shares Dazed story “Flickr is about to sell off your Creative Commons photos (And no, you won’t see a single penny from it)” today on Google+. Now there’s a clickable headline, eh? Zing Tsjeng’s article is an aggregated synopsis of good reporting done by the Wall Street Journal (naughty, naughty, do you’re own work, Zing). Herein, I reference the November 24th piece, “Fight Over Yahoo’s Use of Flickr Photos” with dek “Yahoo Starts Selling Canvas Prints From Free Pictures Uploaded to the Internet Sharing Site”.

Gist of the news is this: Flickr plans to sell photos with Creative Commons Commercial license—50,000,000 from a staggering 300,000,000 CC pics on the site . Yikes. My photos are licensed CC non-commercial, so I shouldn’t give a frak about the plans of Yahoo (Flickr’s owner). But I don’t trust the license will be observed, and there is no easy way for me to confirm this. 

Read More

TechCrunch and Woot play to AP’s Weakness

Some people—heck, some organizations—have no sense of humor. Humorless perhaps best describes Associated Press, which apparently didn’t get Woot’s joke about owing money for a blog excerpt. TechCrunch’s MG Siegler put AP in its place today, that’s assuming there isn’t yet a nasty takedown-notice response coming.

Some quick background: About two years ago, AP decided that no one should excerpt its content without paying for it. The policy defies decades of journalist practices and fair-use laws. I could understand AP going after blocks of text, but no, it’s the little excerpts, too. Excerpt up to 50 words and AP expects you to pay $17.50; 100 bucks for 251 words or more. The approach is controversial, as it should be.