What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
20 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9He wasn't wearing pants.
- HairyJew, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Ryan-
If this were the first time I had seen you defending yourself for less than professional behavior, I might just chalk it up to inexperience. But issues of fair use seem to come up time and time again, and both you and your CEO have, on multiple occasions, handled issues with other bloggers poorly and in an unprofessional manner. You're the big boys on the block, Ryan, try to set a good example.
There's a certain arrogance to your request. This was a press event (no matter how "exclusive") and you should have, and by all accounts did, have every reason to believe that you would be filmed. From a legal standpoint, you had no reasonable expectation of privacy, but I understand and can respect that you are not going down the road of threatened litigation. However, the video posted in no way falsely associates its producers with Engadget, Joystiq, or Weblogs, Inc., in no way make any attempt to trade on or profit from your appearance, or in anyway otherwise actively uses your image. Nor does it defame or portray you in a negative light. You're in the frame, as it were. It seems that your only problem is that the blogger in question didn’t personally ask you, and thereby pay his respectes to the self-proclaimed Godfathers of tech blogging. How many other people in that room are making a fuss about this? How many people at E3? There are thousands of cameras at E3; should everybody at the event have to check with Ryan Block?
The thing that gets my goat is the arrogance, Ryan. Lots of people wind up in lots of videos in public and semi-private settings. Many others in that very room were captured on video. Why should you be special? Yes, you have a right to object, but in doing so you seem to suggest that you have some sort of elite cache that cannot, nay, must not be diluted. Why is your image so damned holy and glorious that you feel that somebody else should take the time to strike your image from their work? I have no idea of your age, but the maturity and professionalism you show is like that of a dot.com kid in the days before the bubble broke. Were you around back then? Horrible little people, and I was one of them. Young individuals with quickly-gained success who never learned humility. Well, the world taught me a bog lesson in humility sometime around 2001, and I got the message. Maybe you were out that day?
If I were to appear in the frame of one of Engadget's videos wearing a shirt with my company logo and requested that you remove me from all frames without any regard for the effort involved in doing so, let alone the adverse effects it may have on my product, would you do it? Out of “professional courtesy”? What if you were a small operation with limited access to such events, and that video was one of your capstone products for the year? How about then?
Despite what your mommy may have told you, Ryan and crew, you are not special. You're just like everybody else.
-The Jew - ownedbytheman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7But if the event organizer says it is ok to video the event and publish the video, isn't it incumbent on attendees to make sure the understand the "rules" of the event and decide to attend or not attend based on that? If you didn't want to be video'd in an event that the organiuzer clearly says is ok to video and broadcast, why not skip the event? Why is it up to other participants to satisfy your request after the fact?
How is this different from someone holding a press conference and inviting only specific news outlets? Do the people videoing each other asking questions need to get permission from each other to show the footage (honest question)? - ryanblock, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15I did not request Andru pull his video completely, I requested he pull references to Engadget, Joystiq, and our appearances from his video. I don't see anything wrong with this. He's free to use Moore's answers to my questions, that's totally cool, but I didn't consent to being on his video, which was taken during an exclusive session with Moore. Can someone please tell ME why I'm not allowed to ask to not appear in someone's video without having previously consented?
Best, Ryan - ownedbytheman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Can you define what you mean by "exclusive"? Doesn't that infer that only one interviewer is present? I really don't understand what you mean by exclusive in the context you present it.
- NickDouglas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You can ask, but it's not Andru's legal obligation.
- Eaglefire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I suppose my question would be why don't you want to be in the video? It's just a video, come on.
- ownedbytheman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Why did I get dugg down for this question? It seems relevant to the issue at hand. If the session was, indeed, exclusive, it would seem Mr. Block has a point but I don't know what he means by exclusive because every definition I have seen doesn't seem to fit what I saw on the video or what the MS guy said afterwards when contacted about the event.
- disillusioned, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7This is made a whole lot sweeter if you watch the video. 5 minutes in, you see Engadget/Joystiq come in and can hear Ryan saying "this isn't an exclusive" in his most "coal for Christmas" voice.
http://www.valleywag.com/tech/ryan-block/engadgets-ryan-block-this-isnt-an-exclusive-174258.php - lunacy8m, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Michael Stipe called, he wants his cap back.
- ryanblock, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10I didn't make it Andru's legal obligation, Nick. He never heard from AOL Legal. I dropped it last night, I thought he had too. He said he was going to change the video as a courtesy, but I guess he decided to not only be uncourteous, but also to try and "out" us for a perfectly legitimate, upright, and reasonable request of a peer. You obviously want this to be some weird fiasco, it's really a simple request made of a peer, simple as that.
- Eaglefire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The video in question:
http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/news/article/bleeding-edge-013-peter-moore-interview-516247/ - disillusioned, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That just made my day.
- Floodle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It was not a reasonable request
- EvilBadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2He was 5 minutes late, guess he missed the rules.
- disillusioned, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It should also be noted that the camera was clearly visible and it was very obvious that recording was occurring.
If you ask me, I think you should get over yourselves and deal with the fact that there was a camera very obviously present and you allowed yourself to be filmed in an event where consent had been asked for and given at the onset of said event. You were late, but you still saw the camera and could have discussed it then. It's not like the recording was for posterity.
The event organizer informed Gear Live it was perfectly accepted and expected that a video recording would take place at this event and thus consent was implied. I can't possibly imagine why you've made such a big deal out of this issue, especially if you're willing to allow the answers to the questions to be used? If anything, I would think you'd like credit for having asked the question to be given to you, but I guess if your publication isn't getting the CPMs, then you'd prefer to render yourself invisible, never to appear in any other publication's media. - ownedbytheman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5That's actually quite funny to watch and read the aftermath. What dicks.
- EvilBadger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Bottom line, if you knew you were being filmed, no consent needed. Good day.
- EvilBadger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Amen Jew. This whole thing is dripping with arrogance. It would not have become an issue had Ryan and his boss not complained. They are even fixing the video, as a courtesy, but apparently not fast enough and at a high enough priority for the almighty gods. This all came out because they kept complaining after the courtesy was passed to them. And I keep calling it a courtesy because they have no legal obligation to change the video at all.
Personally, I wouldn't change it. - ryanblock, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9Sorry, it was an invite only event (i.e. private, as in I wished to be asked for consent in appearance); it was not exclusive in the sense that our publications (Engadget and Joystiq) were the only people to sit down with Moore, I misspoke. Because I was under the impression it would have been a truly exclusive interview (and not merely an invitation-only roundtable interview), I requested we have a chance to speak again with Moore later, which we did. No matter what, this was not a "public" press event, this was by all means private and invitiation only, and I made a simple request of Andru. I did not involve legal in it, and I did not even really persist. Again, no one's trying to suppress anything, we just don't want to appear in Andru's video. It's really quite simple.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is