What is Digg?73 Comments
- TotalHalibut, on 12/14/2007, -7/+63There is absolutely nothing to prove that this has anything to do with the 'Digg' effect so please stop lauding the greatness of slacktivism. Shouting on the internet does not solve the world's problems. As clearly demonstrated by the story, Kotaku paid up after being sent an email by the original author. 1000s of slobbering Digg users did not cause Kotaku to cower in mortal dread. What are you going to do, send traffic their way? Post rude comments? I bet they're quaking in their boots.
Get some perspective please. - jtbndy, on 12/14/2007, -10/+43I dont understand the "Go Kotaku" comments....
They blantantly ripped off a guys photos, got caught, now is paying him so he wont sue...
Go Kotaku indeed. - boing11, on 12/14/2007, -0/+29I hope Neowin paid Kotaku for using their logo in that article.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -1/+27Good lord, they should have paid the poor guy earlier for stealing his property. Bunch of shameless ***** thieves.
Now excuse me while I finish downloading these torrents. - cbrunet, on 12/14/2007, -3/+25Good on them for paying up, but this has gone to great lengths just to get compensation. How many other things have they ripped off and just haven't been called on?
- blorc, on 12/14/2007, -3/+20Hasn't it already been established that these pictures were not watermarked and were in Google image? I understand this Prince17 person took the pictures, and I think it's great that Kotaku compensated him anyway, but what's with all the Kotaku hate up above?
Again... non-watermarked pictures from Google images that were used by two separate authors. Sounds to me like you guys have more of an agenda than Kotaku supposedly does. - nihility, on 12/14/2007, -2/+14Dugg for 'slacktivism.'
- goldenhearted, on 12/14/2007, -0/+8I made a KH2 wallpaper years ago and I found it in someone's blog years later.
I wasn't furious, I was amazed for I found the pic through Google Images :D - Rudy69, on 12/14/2007, -2/+9I said that because they went ahead and compensated the guy when all he wanted was credit.... so they went above and beyond what they had to do. Remember that Kotaku is more than one person, sometimes things happen that are not inline with what they would usually do. I think the guy is happy with what he got so that's all that matters!!
- ubitendo, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7Prince16 and Prince18 both work for me so BOO-YAH!
- TotalHalibut, on 12/14/2007, -2/+9A grand for what exactly, a couple of screenshots? Sorry, blogs are not worth that much.
- sgtpppr, on 12/14/2007, -1/+8People need something to rant and rave about. I'm positive you could post a story about any site, company, or person and at least 30% of digg would rip into them.
- hammerpants, on 12/14/2007, -1/+7This problem is widespread. How many times do you see something on the front page that is just photos ripped off of another site with some google ads around it? Too many people are profiting from reposting other people's stuff. Even if it wasn't illegal, it's just plain unethical.
- theweapon, on 12/14/2007, -6/+12What an internet drama fest. It's a picture, get over it Neowin, you look like a little kid whining because your brother took your toy to his room.
- GunsGermsSteel, on 12/14/2007, -2/+7Did anyone actually e-mail Crecente and try to find out about this? Or did they just take Neowin's complaint at face value and run with it? I believed the story so I e-mailed Crecente and voiced my displeasure. It turns out that not only did they credit him, but this schmuck was trying to extort them out of...wait for it...a PlayStation 3.
Way to go, Diggers. You've truly done yourselves proud. You can now dig me down because I'm not part of the mindless mob. - sgtpppr, on 12/14/2007, -1/+6'Slacktivism"...finally i have a word for it. Thanks!!
- hipnerd, on 12/14/2007, -1/+5Not screenshots, news photos from an event halfway around the world. I'm a magazine editor and that's not an unheard of price range, depending on the event and the photographer.
$200 is fair money for an amateur if they offered it to him up front. As they are lucky they didn't get sued, $1000 isn't really a ridiculous amount to offer. By all journalistic and legal standards, they are clearly in the wrong. But it's between Kotaku and the photographer. As long as he's happy, it's none of our business. - cbrunet, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4By great lengths I mean he investigated it, it got posted on one site, submitted to digg, made the front page. Making the front page of digg IMO is great lengths, or, at least is what I am referring to as being great lengths. Not everything important to a specific person makes it that far. So, I'm just really wondering is there is probably lots of other people who possibly got ripped off by Kotaku and either don't know how to get it publicly known or it doesn't get publicly know. They got called out, and sure they responded (and yes, they responded quite quickly), but do people have to go to these lengths just to get compensation for their work? Should we praise Kotaku for responding quick? Or admonish them for doing it in the first place?
- rstarr, on 12/14/2007, -1/+5This just in:
MPAA complains aXXo uses their property without permission or authorization.
Get ready for the internet frenzy aXXo... Neowin/Digg will NOT tolerate this. - djSyndrome, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4We heard you the first time.
- Baelorn, on 12/14/2007, -1/+5You may be right, but you also need to keep in mind the power of bad publicity. A LOT of Kotaku stories get Dugg and a lot of Digg users are their target audience. All thta matters in the end though is that they paid the guy for his work.
- strictnein, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4A freelancer has to be paid tax, insurance, and social security? This vexes me greatly.
- picalicious, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3"content"
- barktwiggs, on 12/14/2007, -3/+61. Take pictures of obscure XBox event
2. Hope to get ripped off by Kotaku
3. ????????
4. $200 profit - Dracusis, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4I say good on him!
Copyright infringement is a huge problem on the Internet and major sites like that shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. I work as the media manager and designer for several highly dynamic and popular sites, and I get pressured all the time to source fantastic imagery quickly, so I know what the pressure can be like. But at least I have the balls to tell management that it's just not possible to negotiate a licence within the deadline, and we don't run news related sites so our licences tend to be a lot more complicated.
At least with Kotaku they can easily grab images from the billions available from Reuters or Getty Images under the standard news and editorial publishing licence and not have to contact anyone to negotiate special usage fees. Every other news website on the Internet does this, I don't see why Kotaku should get a free pass. - TotalHalibut, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3You sorely over-estimate the amount of money ads make.
- TripleAStacked, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Stop raining on their parade!!!
- cfulp, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Has nothing to do with that. The same time he posted the story he emailed kotaku. kotaku emailed gawker. Things take time, digg had nothing to do with it.
- cfulp, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3It had nothing to do with digg or Neowin. The guy contacted kotaku, and immediately made the story. Kotaku is owned by gawker, and everything has to be approved by them. The guy didn't even give them a few hours to respond. It was going to happen.
- grimw, on 12/14/2007, -2/+5Actually, the reason they paid him was so they couldn't be sued. It had nothing to do with going "above and beyond", which they did not. As a matter of legality, money has to exchange hands for a real trade deal to look like it has occurred. Now Kotaku's ass is covered.
- sevenalive, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2All your photos are belong to us.
- rstarr, on 12/14/2007, -2/+4Great lengths?
First article on it: December 12 2007 - 22:11
Kotaku responds and pays up : December 13 2007 - 20:26
There was only 1 article before Kotaku responded and it was on the plaintiffs website, hardly an internet frenzy. I think Kotaku responded very quickly once it realized they were in the wrong. - sgtpppr, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Except this was an article with a picture attached...not a picture for the picture's sake (with ads).
- quaunaut, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1You obviously don't understand law.
- madk, on 12/14/2007, -2/+3I'll definitely won't defend kotaku for this, but it doesn't surprise me at all. They are an enthusiast site and as so I don't hold them expect them to adhere to the same standards as I would a serious site.
I'm glad to see them doing the right thing though and at least appearing to take the high road and making things right. - sgtpppr, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1The 'graphic designer formerly known as prince 17' works for me.
- Synn, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1http://kotaku.com/gaming/house-keeping/on-photos-3 ...
- gcnaddict, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Prince17 was the one who took the pictures. I should know this; he works for me.
- krystalo, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Of course not, that image didn't require a digital camera and a press pass
- pkej, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2In Norway a freelance photographer should expect USD 250,- per photo + 30% for tax, insurance and social security. Double everything if used without permission.
- fuzzynyanko, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Only $200? Well, at least it's a lot more than what a lot of others pay ($0)
- LLamaStar, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1wasn't it parody?
- screwfanboys1, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1buried for stating the obvious
- hockey, on 12/14/2007, -2/+2dugg for irony.
- zydar, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1Once something is posted on the interwebz, it belongs to the interwebz.
- Dracusis, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1It doesn't matter if they credit him or not, they stole the image. They used his copyrighted work without asking, and that's against the law, about as black and white kinda against e law as you get really. Just because someone posts a picture on their Blog doesn't mean they're giving up the copyrights to it. Everything is copyright unless it's specifically waived by the copyright holder.
- toshipaine, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1$200 bucks? Yeah that's reasonable. $100 bucks per shot. That's what gettyimage charges on average for editorial photos.
- Import98, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1They didn't blatantly rip off *****. The pictures showed in Google Image with no watermarks or any type of copyright. They didn't have to give the guy *****.
- GunsGermsSteel, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1Butt hey didn't infringe on a copyright. They credited him. The guy wasn't trying to protect his copyright. It was trying to promote his blog and extort a PlayStation 3. And if you honestly believe that Kotaku would cash out $200 bucks to a guy as hush money rather than simply remove or replace the images, you're insane.
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is