What is Digg?129 Comments
- Anrkist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+173Turn off print screen? Freak. Maybe we can just have websites take total control of our mouse and keyboard so we are powerless. We would then be forced to sit and watch whatever shlock they fed us.
It's not like they are going to be running a huge ad campaign with a 72 DPI screen cap. I highly doubt the Corp Execs. at Kodak told this little shop to use copyrighted material. The real scenario is, the young intern who frequents sites like Digg and Flicker decided to use a photo he thought looked cool. - mlerner, on 10/12/2007, -6/+128unfortunately, alt + printscreen would bypass any protection..
- beelz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+112looks like it was an employee printing it out becuase they like the image. not Kodak but it is still stealing
- dt40, on 10/12/2007, -9/+90Content creators love DRM. Content consumers hate DRM.
- Phantastica, on 10/12/2007, -4/+60Yeah, whatever. It's not like this is a national ad campaign. What a retarded headline.
- noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -12/+62So it's not stealing unless you stand to gain financially from it? Poor, poor logic. Just face it, everyone likes to get stuff for free until it's their stuff being taken.
/Checks on torrents - Twasi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38It always makes me chuckle inside because those who cry foul here are always the first to scream "***** the RIAA". Now I hate them too and for apparent reasons and whenever this is brought up people always point out that when people download music they aren't selling it or profiting from it and I agree fully with that point. So those exact people should be screaming "***** Youtube" and supporting Viacom because guess what? They use Viacom's copyrighted content to make money and profit from it. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
- fowleryo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31he's not going to get much considering it's probably just a shop that carries kodak products, or a franchise of some sort.
- dmonkey1001, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34alt + printscreen only captures the currently active window. Useful if you don't want your entire desktop, or especially for people that run multiple monitors.
- str3ama, on 10/12/2007, -11/+37he can sue, he has enough proof to get the image removed as well as get royalty payment from its usage.
- CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Its not kodak by the looks of it. Its just the shop.
Sensational headlines are bad, especially since half the people here don't read the actual articles and are now going to avoid kodak film or something. - Caiman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22photographer and title is full of *****. It's his picture in a shop window, some jackass shop assistant probably did it, not Kodak... and it's probably not even a kodak store, just happen to sell their *****. I hate it when people steal pictures and don't credit them too, but ffs talk about sensationalism.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27The image is released under the CC by-nc 2.0 license, which states "You may not use this work for commercial purposes."
Obviously a Kodak advert is a commercial use. He should sue their asses off.
Here is orig: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/217440037/
Here is license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ - panique, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23I agree. I wonder how much music "diggs favorite photographer" has stolen from P2P networks.
- anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Why is suing always the answer? As someone further up said: "looks like it was an employee printing it out becuase they like the image". Yes, a mistake, but going after Kodak in the form of a lawsuit? A bit heavy handed, I think.
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Sorry y'all, gotta leave. My hypocricounter is beeping wildly.
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Yep, y'all are totally right. We should all give up our collective digital freedom to do what we want with our computers so that individuals like this guy don't have to worry about all us potential dirty thieves stealing his work. Spot-on, guys.
- sirlagalot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16wow... could it maybe be the store owner, and not kodak?
- MrOrange49, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8People need to chill out. Get all the facts before making headlines like this. There are so many possibilities to how the pic ending up in a shop window.
For Example:
The photographers offers high-res downloads through Flickr, a person that liked the pic may have wanted a printed copy, so they take it into said store. A store employee sees the shot, likes it and ask the customer if they can put a copy in the window. The customer not all up to speed on copyright law says, "sure i dont see any problem go ahead", next thing you know the shot is in the window.
That kinda stuff happens all the time, i worked for a major US photo retailer for years and we asked customers all the time if they minded if we displayed their work in the store, the employee has no idea who the real copyright owner is.
My point is if the photographer has a problem he should contact the store ask if they would take it down or give him credit for the photo, not make some crazy stink about it all over the net, like he/she has been terribly wronged or some crap. Try resolving the problem before blowing out of proportion. - JRHarvard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I think it sucks that your work is getting used with out your permission, but it wasn't Kodak that did it. It was a shop that sells Kodak, lay the blame where it belongs. All the people throwing lawsuits around should think about the fact that, the poster of this headline is much more liable for a slander suit by Kodak, then Kodak is for use of the picture by a store that has Kodak equipment in it.
- ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If the photographer got a print made at that store, they might have a form of implied consent for the image to be used as advertising for that store. I doubt it, because I don't recall ever having to agree to "terms of use" when printing pictures out at a Kodak booth or camera store, but it's possible.
If it's being sent out by Kodak, they should most likely need his approval to use the photo as advertising. - Wyattx17, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Not my favorite photographer.
Sucks the picture got stolen though! - DerGeist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7An even better example of this is Newgrounds.com -- authors frequently use ***** commercial music as background for their flash animations, with giant "DONATE TO MY PAYPAL GIMME UR MONIESSS!" links at the beginning end, and during the film.
If ANYONE donates, they've made a profit off of unlicensed material, arguably in the same way this Kodak shop has.
You can't pick-and-choose which copyrights are right to uphold and which we should toss. Just because someone acts alone instead of as a corporate entity doesn't make their actions "less evil." - CoolWind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Kodak steals from one of Diggs favorite photographers". Maybe Kodak will sue the author of this libelous title.
- Sp4nk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Like Kodak needs to steal that one photo. Give me a ***** break.
Inaccurate. Buried. - IMustBeEmo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19Why alt+printscreen? Why not just plain old printscreen? I've never understood why people said to hold alt while taking a screenshot.
- pixelpuncher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Misleading title, image (lets see the whole store front). Kodak does not run this store it is just a print shop that uses Kodak services. This is no worse than seeing this happen in a drugstore with a picture machine. All the photographer has to do is go into the store and ask for the picture to be taken down, its that simple.
- scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Is it Kodak Inc. or is it a single store?
Calm down diggers... the world is still turning... - mcd9236, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Wow! There seems to be a lot of support against this article in the comments, yet the article is being dugg up massively... I think the digg spam Nazis are at work...
- Pulp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Sounds to me like the photographer is getting a decent amount of free exposure.
- djg38, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Pictures that are online are regulated by the DMCA.
- alceria, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That display looks like something that the minilab put together themselves. Unless all Kodak-affiliated labs have the same photo, it's highly likely that the manager told some poor kid making $7/hour to put together a display for the window and one of them had the not-so-bright idea to grab a photo off flickr. I highly doubt Kodak is aware of the situation. All this "oh noes, sue that evil kodak!!11!" ***** is a little ridiculous, assuming this is an isolated incident.
I worked at a photo lab in college, they would *totally* do something like that. They cared much less about copyright protection then you'd think - it was all about turning a buck. I'll bet anything the person that put the display together was a fan of 'stuck in customs' and thought it would be neat to feature his work. - djg38, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"If only there were some sort of software to protect his rights to his digital creations. At the very least he should be able to somehow manage these digital rights so that he can control who uses his photos and who doesn't."
You guys responding to him so harshly are completely missing the joke (which he hinted at a second time further down since it went right over your heads). He's referring to the Protected Media Path, a feature of Windows Vista that makes it impossible to get at protected media content (including, potentially, a picture) from outside the program -- including other applications (can never access the memory), drivers (periodic signature check prevents even loading a driver after you start displaying the content), and plugins for the application itself (require cryptographic signature verification to access protected content). - thedobber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5
Good thing it's not music, he wouldn't stand a chance - sonaro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4For all we know he or his friend could have put this on the window just to get publicity.
- zeero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4what's wrong with you people, kodak didn't steal *****. That store is probably a franchise, and one of the store's low-paid staff probably under orders from the manager put up an example picture to show customers what size print they'd get if they paid 20 pounds. The guy probably just likes flickr and took a pretty picture off it.
- zippy757, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5From the picture, it looks like "kodak" is the digital process used. For all you know, this is a local, store owner initiated effort, and has nothing to do w/Kodak....has anyone seen this in other stores ?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So is this really Kodak, or just a photo lab that uses Kodak?
- clesch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Dugg for the phrase "amazing HDR" in the description.
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't be a DRM troll like you are a Microsoft troll, 7of7. That's a little overboard anyway, when a simple Goatse would do the trick...
- BentCorner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Kodak doesn't own that shop. They only use Kodak processing. That means they use Kodak paper, chemicals, quality systems. Places like the shop in question take images from either the public domain or from customers and use them to produce examples of their processing.
Probably someone came in with the image file that they took from Flickr and had it blown up into poster size. The person that processed the order probably thought it was cool and asked if they could make a copy for their window. - Nadare, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Buried as innaccurate,
There are no details to this story , just a picture take.
Also why claim it's Kodak Inc. and not just some minimum wage employee who's behind this.
How do we know that a customer just didn't go to the shop, print out that particular photo and the store asked if they could use it thinking they asked the copyright owner ? - marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I know that corporate photo stock houses won't delay to sue you for inappropriate use of their images.
The same should apply to Kodak, or even this individual shop. They should know better, and the same legal protection should apply. - surfing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3For now, marked as "inaccurate".
Has this photo been spotted in more than one location? - AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -1/+3Buried as inaccurate, it's a print out of the photo for ***** sake.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2dont blame the company
blame the idiot who decided s/he could get away with it - bergur1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree, if it were my picture a simple name or an email address would have done it for me if it were a small shop. I hate the hippocratic vibe digg gets when someone other than the RIAA gets stolen from.
What makes this different from the RIAA though is that if the photographer sued or got an arbitrator/mediator he himself would have gotten money. With the RIAA it would all go to rich fat guys and at the same time you are going to know who made the music by the band name. Same goes for the movies.
Sometimes I feel like digg is full of religiously anti-RIAA psychos that don't even know why they hate them. - chall2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Am I reading this correctly? Are diggers outraged over someone downloading IP without paying?
Its a good thing massive irony doesn't blow up computers. - Chealion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Buried as inaccurate for the following reasons:
1) A lot of people on Digg love the amazing HDR work of Trey Ratcliff of Stuck in Customs.
A lot of people also believe the world is flat.
2) It's not Kodak that stole from Trey Ratcliff
3) Sensationalism! It sells papers, it sells Diggs! - NYG1988, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The holder of the copyright for those pictures should realize that it's not like Kodak's board of directors is authorizing their company to steal his photographs. The most likely explanation is that some staffer was sent to get nice looking pictures for Kodak and decided instead to cut a corner.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is