Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Kotaku Pays Blogger for Pictures, Thanks to Neowin & Digg
neowin.net — After Neowin posted a story about Kotaku taking pictures from Prince17's blog, cropping them, and posting them as part of their gaming stories, and the story made it to Digg's front page, the gaming news site responded. Prince17 sent an e-mail to Managing Editor Brian Crecente and the man did not ignore him. Kotaku is paying Prince17 $200 for his..
krystalo- 539 diggs
- digg it
- xxb10h4z4i2dxx, on 12/14/2007, -43/+6Wow, Digg really works. And Neowin does too, makes me glad I paid for my subscription. Props to Kotaku.
- dkoon, on 12/14/2007, -7/+3WTF!? Anyway... let's get back to the topic of stealing Music from Artists & Record Companies.
- 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.
- xxb10h4z4i2dxx, on 12/14/2007, -44/+3Digg works, and so does Neowin. Makes me glad to be a Neowin Subscriber. Props to Kotaku.
- djSyndrome, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4We heard you the first time.
- krystalo, on 12/14/2007, -22/+9good work Digg!
- ukfoole, on 12/14/2007, -6/+2How did digg help out? 90% of the comments I saw was the stupid "If it is on the interwebz, it is public domain." turd.
- Lexcyn, on 12/14/2007, -24/+5It was for great justice after all. Good job Kotaku.
- Rudy69, on 12/14/2007, -25/+1go Kotaku!!!
- 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.- DarkSamus, on 12/14/2007, -12/+4it's called fellacious kotaku spam.
and $200 is nothing, anything less than a grand is ***** up- TotalHalibut, on 12/14/2007, -2/+9A grand for what exactly, a couple of screenshots? Sorry, blogs are not worth that much.
- str3ama, on 12/14/2007, -4/+2Actually I agree with DarkSamus - $200 is more then enough if used on most blogs or sites, but Kotaku is one of the biggest blogs let alone gaming sites, they get more traffic and exposure then these other smaller blogs and thus they should have paid him more especially when they probably pulled in quadruple that amount from the pageviews on his article.
But again it's a good start. I personally like to encourage public domain works - which allow artists to get credit and exposure for their work, while bloggers/publishers get free images to use. It's a real shame that there isn't a massive site for artists and publishers to get together and start sharing and swapping public domain images, videos, content. I really wish someone like Google would create a site for encouraging public-domain works. - seattle98104, on 12/14/2007, -4/+1Screenshots? Did you read the original article?
- 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.
- str3ama, on 12/14/2007, -4/+2Actually I agree with DarkSamus - $200 is more then enough if used on most blogs or sites, but Kotaku is one of the biggest blogs let alone gaming sites, they get more traffic and exposure then these other smaller blogs and thus they should have paid him more especially when they probably pulled in quadruple that amount from the pageviews on his article.
- TotalHalibut, on 12/14/2007, -2/+9A grand for what exactly, a couple of screenshots? Sorry, blogs are not worth that much.
- 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!!
- 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.
- quaunaut, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1You obviously don't understand law.
- 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.
- 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 *****.
- DarkSamus, on 12/14/2007, -12/+4it's called fellacious kotaku spam.
- 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?
- 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.- 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?
- xTRUMANx, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1Frontpage of Digg isn't great lengths fo a story like that. Digg loves controversy.
- 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, -2/+4Great lengths?
- iRoy, on 12/14/2007, -17/+3Nah you guys, Kotaku ***** sucks, seriously.
They blatantly ripped his ***** off, $200 is a slap in the face from Microsoft's bed-buddies. - 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.- nihility, on 12/14/2007, -2/+14Dugg for 'slacktivism.'
- 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.
- 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.
- sgtpppr, on 12/14/2007, -1/+6'Slacktivism"...finally i have a word for it. Thanks!!
- tyywebb, on 12/14/2007, -4/+2We are Digg. You depend on us. We are the people who cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... ***** with us.
- cbrunet, on 12/14/2007, -2/+1We run your IT departments (go me!)
- Synn, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1http://kotaku.com/gaming/house-keeping/on-photos-3 ...
- TripleAStacked, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Stop raining on their parade!!!
- 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.- gcnaddict, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Prince17 was the one who took the pictures. I should know this; he works for me.
- ubitendo, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7Prince16 and Prince18 both work for me so BOO-YAH!
- sgtpppr, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1The 'graphic designer formerly known as prince 17' works for me.
- ubitendo, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7Prince16 and Prince18 both work for me so BOO-YAH!
- 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.
- gcnaddict, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Prince17 was the one who took the pictures. I should know this; he works for me.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- soot, on 12/14/2007, -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.- 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. - hockey, on 12/14/2007, -2/+2dugg for irony.
- screwfanboys1, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1buried for stating the obvious
- rstarr, on 12/14/2007, -1/+5This just in:
- 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 - n10sityr, on 12/14/2007, -5/+3kotaku got blackmailed!
- mandarin, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1Its not blackmail if its legal dummy
- boing11, on 12/14/2007, -0/+29I hope Neowin paid Kotaku for using their logo in that article.
- krystalo, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Of course not, that image didn't require a digital camera and a press pass
- 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.- majortom1981, on 12/14/2007, -2/+1They should though. One of their editors works for a newspaper so they should have betetr standards.
- madk, on 12/14/2007, -2/+1I agree they should but the ethics match the content.
- picalicious, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3"content"
- madk, on 12/14/2007, -2/+1I agree they should but the ethics match the content.
- majortom1981, on 12/14/2007, -2/+1They should though. One of their editors works for a newspaper so they should have betetr standards.
- MikeonTV, on 12/14/2007, -4/+1Think $200 would be the amount you would make from two front pages on Digg in two days?
- TotalHalibut, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3You sorely over-estimate the amount of money ads make.
- fuzzynyanko, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2Only $200? Well, at least it's a lot more than what a lot of others pay ($0)
- profingersk8er, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1props to Kotaku for doing the right thing, it is definitely the more "professional" gaming blog compare to the other 2 competitors, especially the quality of user comments there, much more balanced, reasonable, and intelligent. Ban Monday definitely removed great number of trolls and brainless fanboys (I hate using this word).
- 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 - tychoides, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1FAIL
- 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.- 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.- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Dracusis, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4I say good on him!
- 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.
- strictnein, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4A freelancer has to be paid tax, insurance, and social security? This vexes me greatly.
- pkej, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0The freelancer has to pay taxes, insurance and social security, so of course that has to be passed off to the client.
- strictnein, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4A freelancer has to be paid tax, insurance, and social security? This vexes me greatly.
- vgspectrum, on 12/15/2007, -5/+0Who the ***** cares?
- zydar, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1Once something is posted on the interwebz, it belongs to the interwebz.
- sevenalive, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2All your photos are belong to us.
- LLamaStar, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1wasn't it parody?
- 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.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by