What is Digg?177 Comments
- tizz66, on 11/08/2007, -41/+253Wait, so when people download albums, you get chastised for calling it stealing 'because it's just a copy', but when CNET uses a photo, yep, that's definitely stealing.
Make up your mind people. Copyright infringement is either stealing or it isn't. Stop picking and choosing when you want to use particular terms based on whether it supports your own position. - ngmcs8203, on 11/12/2007, -0/+151For those of you not willing to read the photo comments. CNET has replied and taken down the image. Here's their response:
CNET News.com did in fact have permission from Mitch to use the photo. Below, I'll copy in the correspondence I had with him in June when we used the Jerry Yang photo in this photo gallery:
www.news.com/2300-1014_3-6155459-1.html?tag=ss
Before I get there, though, I need to make it very clear that CNET Networks in general and CNET News.com in particular take copyrights very seriously. Contrary to a claim in this thread, we do regularly provide photo credits - the rare exceptions being certain publicity shots (such as company-provided publicity shots of CEOs), thumbnail images that point to a gallery page where credit is provided, and so on. And we expend a huge amount of energy in making sure that we have permission to use photos that appear on our site.
When we found and used Mitch's photo of Jerry Yang, it had a Creative Commons license granting permission to use the image. I don't recall the specific CC license, but I'm sure it must have been Attribution-Share Alike or something equally open to reuse; otherwise, we simply would not have used it. I myself wrote immediately to Mitch to get an even more explicit OK to use the photo, which he graciously granted us.
A few minutes ago, I wrote to Mitch again to remind him of that. Obviously, judging by his comment above, he's forgotten our exchange in June (see below). I'm hoping that he weighs in here again to acknowledge that exchange.
Jon Skillings
Managing editor
CNET News.com
---- MY CORRESPONDENCE WITH MITCH ON JUNE 21 ----
-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchell Aidelbaum [mailto:maidelba@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 5:58 PM
To: Jon Skillings
Subject: [Flickr] Re: Jerry Yang photo
You've been sent a Flickr Mail from Maximum Mitch:
------------------------------------------------------------
:: Re: Jerry Yang photo
Jon,
Thank you so much for using it and also notifying me.
Please let me know if you need any more shots or need a photographer for events in SF or the Bay area. I'm available for hire.
Thanks!
Mitch
------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to this message, click here:
www.flickr.com/messages_read.gne?id=72157600421786247
To update your email settings, click here:
www.flickr.com/account/prefs/notifications/
The Flickr Team
www.flickr.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Skillings
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:48 PM
To: Jon Skillings
Subject: Jerry Yang photo - note to Flickr user
Jerry Yang photo
Hi, Mitch.
I wanted to let you know that we made use of a photo you took of Jerry Yang and David Filo, to accompany our coverage of Yang's appointment to CEO of Yahoo.
It's a first-rate photo, and we were happy to come across it - and see your generous Creative Commons license. We credited you as you requested.
You can see it on CNET News.com here:
news.com.com/2300-1014_3-6155459-1.html?tag=ss
Thanks, and best regards,
Jon Skillings
Managing editor
CNET News.com
jon.skillings@cnet.com
(617) 225-3393 - MikeFallopian, on 11/08/2007, -6/+128If your photo gets used without permission, contact the offending individual/website. Nine times out of ten they will apologize and comply - no need to get your panties in a bunch.
- notmark, on 11/08/2007, -22/+122The distinction seems to be that the photo is used for-profit, whereas downloading is for personal use.
- Lane, on 11/08/2007, -15/+108Copyright infringement is the key reason that I as a photographer hesitate to join Flickr. Obviously when you upload your content to any internet site your just asking for the loss of control of your intellectual property. It's impossible to know what will be taken but it's always worth while to add a watermark.
- jevidon, on 11/07/2007, -4/+88the OP apparently couldn't be bothered to read the flickr discussion below the image where it becomes clear that CNET did contact the photographer regarding this photo and the photog gave permission to use the photo..... buried for inaccuracy.
- anildash, on 11/11/2007, -0/+69Fail. The photographer *had* given permission to CNET in the past, *and* the photo had been licensed via Creative Commons (which means CNET didn't even have to ask permission anyway). He's since changed the license, and acquired a whiny friend. Lame.
- davidrools, on 11/09/2007, -7/+59Write them a DMCA takedown, I guess
- Scully1981, on 11/07/2007, -2/+53Hey, I don't see the Ebaumsworld watermark on that photo. Wait. What? Oh. Sorry. When I saw a story about content being stolen I just assumed...
- geek6oy, on 11/07/2007, -1/+32So, how does someone steal *with* permission?
- thedarkrabbit, on 11/08/2007, -10/+38Lane said what I just typed... so I will gracefully accept being buried here...
- strictnein, on 11/08/2007, -1/+27"emilycnet says:
Back in June, CNET News.com used the photo (different crop)
www.news.com/2300-1014_3-6155459-1.html WITH permission, and WITH attribution.
We're looking into today's attribution question now."
"CNET News.com did in fact have permission from Mitch to use the photo. Below, I'll copy in the correspondence I had with him in June when we used the Jerry Yang photo in this photo gallery:
www.news.com/2300-1014_3-6155459-1.html?tag=ss"
But it's so much more fun to get all crazy and excited! - teesix, on 11/07/2007, -1/+26buried for inaccuracy
- cbartlett, on 11/07/2007, -2/+27Burying for inaccuracy. Read the f'in comments from CNET on the page.
- Falldog, on 11/09/2007, -3/+28Thanks to Gallery 2 I can auto-watermark all my images, although I know how easy it would be to crop out or spend some time recreating pixels.
At the very least one shouldn't upload originals (either in their original size or quality). Most of mine have been compressed - both better for hosting and to make it harder for people to profit off of. Plus you I have the full original to present if I should ever find myself in a lawsuit.
Stuff like this is something you’ll learn to expect and eventually become complacent with. It’d be hypocritical for me to throw a fit after all the music and programs I may or may not have downloaded illegally. - koweja, on 11/09/2007, -7/+27Create something, have it stolen, then be told that its okay because your work doesn't matter.
See how you feel. - gwayne, on 11/07/2007, -3/+22What a whiner.. burying this as lame.
- inactive, on 11/07/2007, -3/+19Thats way worse than stealing a photo WITH permission!!
- astrosmash, on 11/11/2007, -0/+14Jon Skillings replies further:
To speak to a few issues raised above, fairly succinctly:
* Mitch and I have talked, and had a good discussion on the various points that needed to be addressed, mostly the reuse of the photo after its initial, allowed use. We're not quite at a final resolution, but we're getting there.
* Photo credits: If we use a photo more than once, we do give credit on each subsequent instance. (I'll talk about thumbnails in a second.) That is, any photo in a photo gallery or in the body of a story or blog post should ALWAYS have a photo credit with it. Again, sometimes credit is not given for, say, a publicity photo (head shot) provided by a company, but typically those aren't provided by the company nor are they expected in those specific instances.
* Thumbnails: We will be looking into a better way to provide credits, as needed, to go with smaller images (184x138, 88x66, 65x49) such as those that appear on the News.com home page. Typically, too, a thumbnail on the News.com home page is going to link directly to a story or gallery page that has a credit right beside the embedded photo; obviously, that wasn't the case this time. And we are also looking into a better archiving system to record and surface restrictions that might not be apparent from a naked credit line.
(Fetching: Those thumbnails aside, please do point me to photos that in your judgment lack appropriate credit. Or anybody, really - let me know: jon.skillings@cnet.com. Policing these things is an important part of my job.)
* Taking down the Yang picture from the home page: Well, yes, of course. As soon as we realized there was a problem, we didn't want to exacerbate the matter by leaving it up. The original use of the Yang photo in the photo gallery from June 21 still gives Mitch the appropriate credit, as it has since it was first posted.
(As to Declan's story being "yanked" in favor of Anne's story, that was an editorial matter separate from any photo issues, and no black mark on Declan's story: His was the play-by-play live blog from the hearing, Anne's was the postgame wrapup. Period. And we continued to point readers to Declan's original post, via a sublink immediately under the tease to Anne's story and from within her story.)
Jon - mrjit, on 11/07/2007, -3/+16Wow, at least try to sound semi-intelligent if you're going to troll.
- Ireland, on 11/07/2007, -2/+12How dare you put demands on us, dugg!! :P
- jkoke, on 11/07/2007, -4/+14Ruddy, in the real world everything is not free. You see c|net makes money from people visiting their home page and viewing ads, etc. Photographers sell their photos to publications and web sites for money, so the fair and legal thing for c|net to do is to pay for the photographs that they use. They didn't -- they stole the photo from flickr and used it without permission. It has nothing to do with whether they gave credit to the photographer. They didn't pay for creative work which they used to sell their ads.
- lemmiw, on 11/07/2007, -0/+10You guys make me laugh. Every other article on the digg front page seems to be a top 10 of something or other, cut and pasted entirely from another site into a random blog. Presumably surrounded by ads, but I block those. Rarely does anyone on digg even notice these huge copyright infringements, let alone complain.
- fLUx1337, on 11/07/2007, -0/+9They used the photo back in June, and credited Mitchell Aidelbaum in full.
http://www.news.com/2300-1014_3-6155459-1.html - xtc46, on 11/07/2007, -4/+13But thats not the distinction people make in their argument most of the time. Everyone argument is always, as stated abaove, "it can't be theft because I didn't take anything from them, just copied"
- badjoke, on 11/07/2007, -2/+11He can start by actually learning to spell. Y-O-U, not that hard or time consuming. Now you try!
- Speed, on 11/07/2007, -0/+9Ok, honest question here: is it at all possible that it was an honest mistake because they had permission to use it before?
- evilempire, on 11/07/2007, -0/+9Wow. So he had sent them the photo before - and now all this drama and whining? What a complete tool
- wannapiece, on 11/07/2007, -0/+8http://www.news.com/2300-1014_3-6155459-1.html Shows Mitchell Aidelbaum's credit for the photo... move along
- pak314, on 11/07/2007, -1/+9It is not really stealing since the original copy still exists on flicker. You were not deprived of your property when they used it. Plus there is no loss to you since they would not have used it if you asked them to pay for it. Remember these are the same justifications people use when they copy software or music.
- inactive, on 11/08/2007, -0/+8Stealing without permission, isn't that a bit redundant?
- ThankTheCheese, on 11/07/2007, -0/+8Good to see they've responded, and shame on the submitter for not checking his facts before making such a serious accusation (not sure if posting someone's private email response in a comment thread is such a good idea on CNet's part, but still).
I don't use Flickr so I'm not sure about this -- can the user who posted this edit the text (not the digg submission, but the flickr submission)? If so, then why the hell hasn't he added some "UPDATE..." text explaining his mistake, or removed the submission altogether? Before he was being irresponsible, but now that he knows CNet did not steal the photo and he is letting the post stay put, he was being slanderous.
and if we want to get technical, wouldn't posting a screen shot of CNet's website also be a breach of copyright? - chukd, on 11/07/2007, -0/+8If it is under creative commons, a creative commons copyright still requires the originator be cited.
- FalseAlarm, on 11/07/2007, -1/+9Welcome to 1994
- Drax0n, on 11/07/2007, -7/+15If I doownloaded a song, changed the name, and sold it over the internet it would be a more apt analagy
- JeffD, on 11/07/2007, -1/+9True, they were in the wrong but they weren't as bad as the digg title makes them out to be. Mistakenly reusing a CC image without attribution isn't quite as bad as maliciously taking images off of flickr and passing them off as your own. I'll give CNET the benefit of the doubt on this one, I'm guessing someone just copied the image from the previous story not realizing it wasn't taken by an in house photographer. (And from reading the flickr comments it seems they are earnestly trying to mkae up for their mistake).
- Akaricloud, on 11/08/2007, -3/+10Say wut? To me it seems this site has employed the use of this image solely for the purpose of the extent of the article, which was to inform people that the Singapore PM was visiting Yahoo. I don't think the editor on C-net even contemplated that using the image would pull in revenue for the site. I don't condone the stealing of images without a creditation of the author, but as Tizz66 has stated. Most likely the entire digg community is guilty to some extent of piracy or copyright infringement, yet they all seem to get up in arms when "one of their own" or an independent person has their copyright infringed upon by a large site or corporation, and the attempted justification that "they can afford to pay, where as I can't" is just one of the most sad attempts to justify ones actions. I'm only 18 my self, thusly I am always strapped for cash and yes I will download an album or two every month. But I do not attempt to justify my actions through an attempt of comparison of situations. I don't claim that just because I am 18 and have little money (although I do have a job) that my actions are 100% peachy since the artist clearly can afford to miss out on me paying for it. Or large site which steals a blog or image clearly had the money to pay for it, but THEY did not. Clearly they are sinners!
Don't throw stones in glass houses. Its just hypocritical. Cnet shouldn't have stolen this without crediting the author, but seriously, don't judge when your guilty of the same thing.
Also, it would seem that the author and the flickr site have an agreement running:
* Mitch and I have talked, and had a good discussion on the various points that needed to be addressed, mostly the reuse of the photo after its initial, allowed use. We're not quite at a final resolution, but we're getting there.
* Photo credits: If we use a photo more than once, we do give credit on each subsequent instance. (I'll talk about thumbnails in a second.) That is, any photo in a photo gallery or in the body of a story or blog post should ALWAYS have a photo credit with it. Again, sometimes credit is not given for, say, a publicity photo (head shot) provided by a company, but typically those aren't provided by the company nor are they expected in those specific instances.
So IDK. Seems they were in the clear more or less here.l - strictnein, on 11/07/2007, -0/+7Ironicly (maybe?) enough, cnet has gone one step further: they own com.com
How does that make you feel? - shark72, on 11/07/2007, -0/+7The point is this: Diggers like to claim that it's not "stealing" because the person whose rights are violated still has the source material. Whether you trade MP3s or run a web site, use of the word "steal" here is inconsistent.
To paraphrase Orwell... all artists are equal... just some are more equal than others. Photographer on flickr who thinks CNet violated their rights? Raise the pitchforks, villagers! Artist who DARES to try to make a living by selling music? ***** them! That is the Digg mentality, and it makes baby Jesus sad. - briansearles, on 11/07/2007, -1/+8No, I only care when Sony does it from Microsoft.
- MikeFallopian, on 11/08/2007, -4/+11No, if a corporation owns the copyright stealing is a heroic act of defiance. If Joe Internet owns the copyright stealing's a capital offense. This is Digg, remember?
- RJNavarrete, on 11/07/2007, -3/+10Ur doing it wrong.
- trogdoor, on 11/07/2007, -3/+9It has nothing to do with policy, Flickr didn't tell CNET that they could use the photo, CNET just searched for "Jerry Yang" and used what they found disregarding the copyright. The exact same thing could have happened with deviantart.
- deemzzzz, on 11/07/2007, -1/+7I can see why they'd grab it. Much of Flickr is creative commons - still, it being public doesn't mean it's cc
- Akaricloud, on 11/07/2007, -4/+10Yeah, damn that pesky media and trying to put articles together for us to read...
- theblacknight, on 11/07/2007, -0/+5Actually, they had his permission from back in June when they used the photo.....read the comments on the flickr page. Yeah, they should have attributed it to him again, but the fastest way to accomplish that is probably with a letter to them instead of a flickr page.
- eschompthis, on 11/07/2007, -2/+7shame on them....., well guys igtg bitorrent some music, later
- stormgren, on 11/07/2007, -0/+5No. It's called a license.
- dkoon, on 11/07/2007, -3/+8Did the photographer give credit to Jerry Yang's mom?
- actionscripted, on 11/08/2007, -1/+6Welcome to the Internet.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 173 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is