digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at sweetney.com —

Fox News, Please Don't Steal My Personal Photos

sweetney.com — Have a look: This was aired multiple times on air without permission.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • dannyapplesauce, on 12/26/2007, -72/+430This woman really needs to learn how to write, first of all. And secondly, I'm sure the execs at Fox were not sitting around their conference table wondering out loud "How do we screw the average person today?" I'm positive this is just some graphic designer who was under pressure and needed some art in a pinch, got lazy, and found and doctored this photo. It's not right, but this woman is doing alot of complaining and not enough doing. Maybe she should have someone prepare a well written letter to Fox sports, because she sure as hell can't write for *****.
    • ncc74656m, on 12/26/2007, -69/+20Hey buddy, you comprehend that this was all of three days ago? A little hard to start doin' when everybody's closed through at least today.

      Except for FAUX's legal dept. Hell never sleeps.
      • iDiggIt42, on 12/26/2007, -14/+32FAUX, eh? What an original "insult".
        • btgoss, on 12/26/2007, -18/+6an old chestnut it is true... but if it isn't broken....
          • DarkSamus, on 12/26/2007, -9/+6clearly the tv dog has a sweet hat and isn't the same one, so tell that bitch to shut the ***** up and i'm not talking about the dog
          • 5urr3al5am, on 12/26/2007, -2/+4yeah.. I agree.. there simply isn't enough there to prove anything...
          • skunkman62, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4did she get permission from Fox to post their image?
        • nicholai, on 12/26/2007, -10/+12I normally don't defend copyright laws but News Corp has a long history of using copy right laws to ***** people over and there is nothing I hate more than hypocrites.
          • DucoNihilum, on 12/26/2007, -13/+12Translation: "Stealing is alright when I do it, but when a non leftist corporation does it well golly gee we need to get out the shackles!"
          • PeppermintPig, on 12/26/2007, -5/+6@DucoNihilum

            First you misrepresent what he's saying, then you assume he's a leftist. That's some flat world thinking right there!

            What he's saying is that any company that shields itself with intellectual property on the one hand while ignoring and violating the intellectual property of others is a hypocrite, but that he doesn't defend copyright law himself.

            I don't like to defend copyright either, as it's a machination of government intervention and favors those with the money to litigate.
        • JEWestbrookJR, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2oh yeah? Where did your profile pic come from?
      • compdude32, on 12/26/2007, -12/+27much ado about nothing, first Pugs look alike, the santa suit being worn is a mass produced suit, no way to tell that is her pug or her photo.

        Second, where did Fox get the photo? Most likely the image came from a stock photo site, like most if not all of the images any news agency use in their broadcasts, if that really is her picture and was copyrighted then someone must have illegally submitted it to that site.

        Of course I will be dugg down, because on Digg logical thinking about Fox news always gets dugg down.
        • Orion682, on 12/26/2007, -2/+13If you looked at her blog, about 3 posts earlier she showed a bunch of pictures of the dog in other costumes, including the one in question. Where did they get the photo? Probably googled for it. And why would you honestly think someone legally submitted it just because they put it up? Not everyone does things properly, especially in a rush. The issue is that though Fox clearly doesn't want their content stolen, they're being hypocritical about copyright protection with regard to photos like that.

          Occam's Razor: A graphics guy was in a rush, googled "Cute puppy in Santa outfit", got the pic, shopped and pasted it in and put it on the air.
          • compdude32, on 12/26/2007, -7/+6Do you even understand how Graphic arts departments work in places like Fox? You typically aren't allowed to take pictures from anywhere other than sites like Getty Images.
          • DucoNihilum, on 12/26/2007, -8/+9I'm sure the executives at fox were just sitting around thinking "Muahahhahha let's steal this womans photos, muahahhahha"

            I hate this whole "One person does something wrong, thus they are the WHOLE corporation" thing. The graphic designer (if he took anything) will probably be fired. He wasn't ordered to do that by the heads of Fox. Same with the whole wikipedia editing.

            "Oh man, someone at microsoft fixed the MS article at wikipedia, obviously microsoft is on a propaganda cmapaign!" No, someone at microsoft likes working for them and defended them.
          • Orion682, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2Compdude32: Not allowed to and "NEVER EVER HAPPENS EVER" aren't the same thing ;) The guy'll likely be fired, and it was a bonehead move on his part, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
          • steveodawg, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Did you try and google "Cute puppy in Santa outfit"? I did not see that picture. The real Occam's Razor is that its not the same picture.
        • Nougat, on 12/26/2007, -6/+14Right on "all pugs look alike" and "the suit is mass produced."

          Do all pugs stand in precisely the same position when being photographed? Is the camera angle also mass produced?
          • shark615, on 12/26/2007, -4/+8that tilt head upward look is pretty common for most pugs. My ex-gfs did it all the time so yes
          • apeweek, on 12/26/2007, -6/+2Here's a trick for comparing similar pictures - cross your eyes so you can see the pictures merge into one. Do this and you will see every pixel of the dog, costume, and rug underneath matches (aside from the photoshopped changes)
    • crimsonnblue, on 12/26/2007, -8/+36LOLLL. It was probably one of the interns or something. He probably used google's image search..
      • badjoke, on 12/26/2007, -1/+32That's pretty Loud, Loud, Loud you're laughing.
        • phenom2k7, on 12/26/2007, -5/+2Lots Of Laughter Laughter LAUGHTER
      • jonshipman, on 12/26/2007, -3/+12Well my boss at my job TELLS me to use google image search. I try to use stock photo sites but she'll say that's no good and pull up google and email me images to use from that.

        Probably the same at Fox too.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 12/26/2007, -2/+12well if YOUR boss tells you to, then it must be okay for the rest of us too.
          • jonshipman, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1I was just pointing out that it might not be an intern who's behind it.
        • DucoNihilum, on 12/26/2007, -1/+7Your boss is going to change her mind when she uses one of my (or other peoples photos) and gets sued. Fox is way too smart to steal images, their legal department would never allow that. Fox isn't some tiny busniess, It's owned by News Corp- a rather huge busniess.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 12/26/2007, -22/+63Way to totally miss the point. Regardless of the author's writing ability, Fox had no right to use the image - period. If she'd used an image of theirs, you can bet your ass they'd be suing her with a dozen lawyers right now.
      • NoCt1, on 12/26/2007, -2/+15Ding.. Just like the RIaas President's daughter downloading music using bit torrent. did he get sued. no he said that he apologized and talked to her about it
        • trickyt, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3She should make a point and do it over and over again to embarrass the hell out of her dad. Clearly she doesn't agree with what he's doing.
      • virtualball, on 12/26/2007, -15/+12All I have to say is "pick your battles." If FOX used a picture of the woman drunk off her ass and throwing up all over the place, she should be pissed. Instead, they used a "cute" picture of her dog in a costume, is she really hurt/offended/embarrassed or is she just whiny/a bitch? What's the point in threatening to sue?
        • rspeed, on 12/26/2007, -3/+9The point is compensation.
          • Smuikas, on 12/26/2007, -2/+2Or recognition. If they had simply said, "This picture found on such and such's flickr album" it would be a boon to her monetarily.
        • nicholai, on 12/26/2007, -1/+7Fox would have sued her if she had used any of their material.
          BTW: FOX "news" does use pictures of "woman drunk off her ass and throwing up all over the place" all the time.
          • skunkman62, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1ah... she did use Fox and the NFL's material in the side-by-side comparison.
        • DucoNihilum, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2As a photographer I would actually sue Fox, or at least go though the processes. They should be paying quite a lot of money for something seen by so many people.
        • JoeVet, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2Photographs are copywrited works of art. As such it is normal business practice to gain legal permission and to compensate the artist for the use of the art. Fauxnews is clearly stealing. Are you suggesting that in this case it is right to steal because it didn't embarrass her?
          • Nitesmoke, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4People who dress their dogs have no right to criticize anyone else. This should be outlawed.
      • SumguyTwentyOne, on 12/26/2007, -3/+4She did use an image of theirs. (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2097/2131449195_629 ...

        Minus the dog, of course.
        • ProfessorFoo, on 12/26/2007, -3/+2And she is getting sued as I write this comment for millions of American dollars.
          I have no sources to back this up.
    • merkk, on 12/26/2007, -13/+23well said. I wish this thing would get burried since it's such a complete over-reaction to something so stupid.
      • sillywampa, on 12/26/2007, -5/+2not necessarily. The big corporations so often will send the nastygrams and the lawyers after people over the littlest things. There's a principle here. They did something that they wouldn't allow anyone else to do with their materials. They need to be reminded that they can't have it their way. It won't amount to much in the way of damages, but she should at least make something out of this.
    • BrK1, on 12/26/2007, -13/+4I was thinking the same things. I don't agree with Fox (or any other publisher, broadcaster, etc.) randomly using the copyrighted content of individuals (especially when all these companies are so anal about protecting their own copyrights).

      However, this image is more of a "snapshot" than a "photograph", and at the time of her poorly worded blog rant, it wasn't clear exactly how Fox came into possession of the photo.

      Part of me really wants to sympathize with her, but her ranting is just so obnoxious that I sort of hope Fox makes that ugly pug its new mascot without paying her a dime.
    • Connormac44, on 12/26/2007, -14/+69Danny, you're a complete moron. First of all, her style of writing isn't academic like I'm sure you crave, but colloquial. It's a blog, for Christ's sake. She writes it like that because she can, and I thought it was interesting and entertaining. Secondly, she has every right to be pissed; FOX used her copyrighted image without compensating her or even asking her. You're right, it was probably a graphic designer's fault, but that graphic designer works for FOX, and should be well up to speed on FOX's policy regarding using copyrighted work. Lazy or not, using someone else's work without asking is wrong. I don't understand what your problem with this person is.
      • dannyapplesauce, on 12/26/2007, -20/+6Did you see i ***** said it's not right, or were you being too critical of my comment to completely finish reading it? Her writing style wasn't funny or entertaining. She's whining on the Internet and ranting like a 13 y/o girl and I don't think she has the right approach to garner SERIOUS attention from FOX. All I'm saying is there are better ways to complain, than a childish rant. She's trying to tell a good story and get the reader interested AS WELL AS make a legal case. There's a way to make a formal, educated, legal case and there's a way to make a compelling and interesting story.
      • jebudas, on 12/26/2007, -7/+13Agreed. I'm starting to lose faith in digg when I see a comment like the one above (dannyapplesauce) getting dugg up. Fox steals an image from someone's website, but this guy's focus is to rip on her writing style?!? I didnt know Fox had fanboys.
      • Pestilence76, on 12/26/2007, -6/+2Connormac44 your the moron. When you post on flickr your copy right is null and void as your photo is now covered by Creative Commons. Read the EULA for flickr.
        • Vash265, on 12/26/2007, -1/+11Creative Commons doesn't support use of said photo for commercial purposes. You may have read the EULA, but you sure as hell didn't understand it.
        • phyx726, on 12/26/2007, -2/+2lols
        • YossarianDent, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Not only what Vash said, but you're just wrong. You're free to retain all the copyright you wish with flickr - full copyright, creative commons, share/share alike, etc. - on a photo-by-photo basis. Do some reading of your own.
        • tttam, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2you're.

    • dannyapplesauce, on 12/26/2007, -8/+9To follow up, generally in cases such as this: If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. the fact that she has a case is clear, but how will she quantify the appropiate damages to be awarded? I'm curious if someone with a good background in law could sound off and answer that. In the meantime i'll keep searching the internet.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 12/26/2007, -5/+7So by your reasoning it's okay for Fox to use her picture without her permission because she doesn't rate when it comes to turning a buck, but because Fox is a multi-billion dollar entity using a single pixel of one of their images constitutes a strong case for legal action.
    • djphatjive, on 12/26/2007, -2/+4Somewhere in FOX headquarters "I bet he was just under deadline from his son to copy that Star Wars DVD. He didn't mean any harm. He just shrunk it down a little to fit onto a dvd that his kid could watch."
    • 8ight, on 12/26/2007, -7/+5Please read her about me page. She was an English Lit. grad student. You need to get a grip danny.
      • dezman2003, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3Just because she is a grad student doesn't mean she is automatically a skilled writer.
        • Qumahlin, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2nor does an about me page on the Internet mean its true,
    • Dustmuffins, on 12/26/2007, -1/+32Fox News? This wasn't even on the Fox News Channel, it just used "Fox News" to pull in diggs.

      Buried for inaccurate.
    • Pritchard, on 12/26/2007, -3/+4"I can has all rights reserved copyrights nao?"

      ^ - nao 'reserved' for pictures of cats.
    • pharmokan, on 12/26/2007, -5/+0i had to sign in to post this reply. thats how awesome i thought this reply was.
    • OttawaMarcin, on 12/26/2007, -7/+1Second-ly is not a word. It is simply Second.
    • mr1337, on 12/26/2007, -8/+7"the execs at Fox were not sitting around their conference table wondering out loud 'How do we screw the average person today?'"
      -- Comment buried as inaccurate.
      • nogChoco, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2That's eerily similar to what Will Smith said about his Hitler remarks thing :o
    • VonBargenJL, on 12/26/2007, -2/+2because no one else in the world has thought to dress up their ugly little dog either.....

      imagine that....
    • dragon76, on 12/26/2007, -2/+4Well, I was sitting around bored, and time was running out for me to have anything to do, work was going to start in an hour. So I hopped online and searched for a TV show to download so I would have something to do. It just so happens I liked the show that I watched, edited out the commercials and uploaded it to YouTube.

      I did the EXACT same thing FOX did but used THEIR IP instead of the other way around. Is FOX going to just say, "I totally understand your position," and let it go?
    • TrevorBelmont, on 12/26/2007, -2/+1"In case it wasn't clear, FOX Broadcasting picked the wrong stupid Mommyblogger to mess with.
      Oh and FOX legal -- if you're reading this -- you might want to get in touch."

      If she's waiting for FOX's legal department to contact HER, then it seems to me that FOX picked the right stupid Mommyblogger to mess with.
    • Haecceity, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4As a published author I have to disagree with you about the writing style, which I found to be engaging, amusing, and original.
      • Andrewmatt, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1As "published" you mean you published it yourself and by "writing style" you mean one or two syllable words. Okay I understand now.
        • CountryBoyRI, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Actually, you're naive if you think that all engaging forms of writing must sound alike.

          Her style is distinct, and engaged enough readers to invoke an EMOTIONAL response in them. It achieved its objective. Writing is supposed to make your readers feel something. Obviously, as the OP indicates, it did.

          I'm with Haecceity; I enjoyed her style. It evoked a clear image of who she was, the events that transpired, her feelings at the time, her shock and outrage, and her final message to Fox. You can't really fault her style for a failure to communicate the message of the blog. Rather, it did it very effectively.

          But every reader has a style of writing that they prefer. You and the OP may not have enjoyed her style; to each their own. You just have to be able to appreciate the voice of the piece and accept it for what it is. Stephen King and Alan Dean Foster sound nothing alike; similarly, Tolkien and Eddings convey their messages quite differently. It's all about voice and style. Hers was fine, exceptional even, and I found nothing wrong with it.

          But that's an opinion. I wouldn't so handily dismiss her *message* because you found the *voice* distasteful. I'm fairly certain that her blog entry is hardly the end of the road for this issue.
    • mirunit, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2I found the writing rather stereotypical. If anything she could order a cease and desist, but seeing as the image would likely only be used once that is rather useless. Anyone who did not read the article, basically some zealous blogger writes alot about nothing in a haphazard attack on the 'corporations' and stealing a picture of a rather ubiquitous dog. Really, how ignorant is this entire article?
    • theuniversal, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2dannyapplesauce: I didn't like her writing much either. But since you are no Hemingway yourself, why not save the writing critiques for your English 101 class?
  • moin1097, on 12/26/2007, -18/+110Those are some ugly kids.
    • niroj, on 12/26/2007, -38/+9kids aren't ugly only your mind is
      • ilves7, on 12/26/2007, -2/+13yea, fat people aren't really fat, your brain is about to have a stroke from too much cholesterol and is making you hallucinate.
        • BOFH2, on 12/26/2007, -2/+1wow, need a hug from a known fat person?
  • niroj, on 12/26/2007, -8/+270I wish my dog was on t.v.
  • LordSkywalker, on 12/26/2007, -4/+18They're probably pissed that out of all the people to even see the show, let alone notice a dog in the corner of the screen, it happened to be that the owner of said dog happens to be the one to see it.
  • luke16, on 12/26/2007, -56/+366Thats not the same dog, the one on Fox is wearing a santa hat...
    • mugsoh, on 12/26/2007, -113/+19Ever hear of photoshop? It's the exact same hat the man is waring, the folds are exactly the same.
      • deivys, on 12/26/2007, -5/+87dude, he was joking.
        • niroj, on 12/26/2007, -24/+4yeah dumbass
        • diskit, on 12/26/2007, -6/+9Hey, easy on the name calling, sarcasm can sometimes be hard to detect via the internet
          • Ataxia87, on 12/26/2007, -5/+2Get yourself a sarcasm meter then - Very useful device.
          • i208khonsu, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5I'm not sure if the last two comments were sarcastic or not.....
        • Cowboy1015, on 12/26/2007, -4/+2was he???
      • antoniuk, on 12/26/2007, -10/+5Mugosh, I think your post is the best comment so far... gullible much?
      • MrLlama, on 12/26/2007, -9/+4Ever hear of sarcasm?
      • dgelinas, on 12/26/2007, -6/+1Mugosh erased it, I don't see anything =(
    • fluidfoundation, on 12/26/2007, -13/+2oh my god the PTA has disbanded! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!

      you're right.
    • br0ken1128, on 12/26/2007, -32/+3The santa hat on the dog happens to be the same one on the guys head if you notice.. the photoshopped his santa hat onto the dog.. and they didn't do a good job of erasing the dogs paw behind the picture frame either.
      • iDiggIt42, on 12/26/2007, -3/+11And I'm sure you can also tell by the pixels, and from having seen many shops in your day, right?
    • marks50, on 12/26/2007, -21/+3and you think it's hard to add a hat in photosop?
    • futebollounge, on 12/26/2007, -4/+22i cant believe these people took that serious.
    • Locke23, on 12/27/2007, -5/+2Oh no! This woman didn't notice that! we must inform her immediatley, before she sues Fox!
  • bossm4n, on 12/26/2007, -18/+116This is not the way to pursue a copyright infringement matter. Instead of some ridiculous, profanity-infused tirade on a blog, if you think you have such a strong case, hire an attorney who specializes in intellectual property law and file suit. However, since it seems more like you have something personal against Fox and probably would not be giving the same consideration to a competing major news outlet, and you blasted your feelings out in public for all to see, good luck winning. The cost of the suit will likely be larger than the reward.
    • dannyapplesauce, on 12/26/2007, -18/+25EXACTLY, this woman is an idiot. Additionaly, I would be happy to see my dog on tv, not pissed.
    • 01l0, on 12/26/2007, -7/+2redacted
    • br0ken1128, on 12/26/2007, -1/+17True and all but her core point is correct.. Fox blasts their copyright warnings all over the broadcast and is using a photo from Flickr that has clearly stated copyright warnings.. I'd be enraged as well especially considering all the lawsuits big companies like them take on daily defending their copyright. This lady probably uses flickr the same way many people do, share pictures with friends and family .. you don't usually think you have to worry about some company taking your private photos and putting them on tv .. Now a lot of people think of pets as a member of their family, imagine if it wasn't the family pup that got put up there .. imagine if you found a picture of your own child with a santa hat photoshopped on during the big game? She ranted in a blog which is about as effective as yelling at a deaf person.. but ahwell, it's ranting.. she should take proper legal steps as well .. or instead of.
      • dannyapplesauce, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2alot of times it's not so much WHAT you do, but HOW you do it. don't get me wrong, this was wrong and I'm almost positive some ***** graphic designer/intern will get a lot of heat for this if this woman properly pursues this
    • sifuchar, on 12/26/2007, -0/+9Don't forget, she blogged it and got it on Digg. So every digger that goes to her site brings up her ad revenues. Ka-ching! Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does explain her methods.
      • UrinalPooper, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2I don't why people are digging up the OP. You're absolutely right, sifuchar, this is the best method. Anyone remember Robert Kearns? Average citizen vs. Major Corporation is always a loss for the citizen, no matter how legitimate the claim is.

        Most major corporations have entire legal departments being paid just to be around until there's litigating to be done. Since their lawyers are already paid for, it makes financial sense to have them drain any given citizen's bank accounts dry in the courts, it will always be cheaper than settling.

        If I was faced with the same situation, my language might also be as colourful. Unless the EFF wants to volunteer their services, an ad-driven blog post is more effective than a lawsuit.
      • CBanga, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Have you ever actually had your site Dugg? I have seen my blog dugg 4-5 times and I definitely don't have the kind ofmoney you write home about.
        • Andrewmatt, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1She doesn't know that.....or I guess now she does.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 12/26/2007, -4/+3"However, since it seems more like you have something personal against Fox and probably would not be giving the same consideration to a competing major news outlet,..."
      How the ***** do you know THAT?
    • 8270369, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2This is actually a vital point. It was not prudent to get in the blog tirade without first quietly seeking legal advice. The mere appearance of possible personal grudges can indeed have a bearing on cases like this (although I confess my knowledge is that of a layman).

      In this case it's certainly fair that she receives compensation, whatever the standard compensation would be for using someone's art, so I hope she gets it. Fox is a billion dollar enterprise -- surely they can emply a small team who ensures any art they use is either public domain or the result of an agreed upon compensation to the artist.

      I wonder if the addition of the hat is some kind of legal loophole -- yeah, it sounds silly but it wouldn't surprise me.

      To claim she should simply be happy enough that her work (in this case a photo of her dog) was shown on TV is exactly what Fox is going to be telling her -- I'm sure it's their standard line of defense.
  • SPKTDI, on 12/26/2007, -24/+4Dugg for the cutenessss!
  • futureisours, on 12/26/2007, -35/+12what a bitch. i'd be honored if they showed any of my pets on national tv whether i get any royalties or not. just be happy your baby or whatever is famous and thankfully not famous enough to have Perez blog about him/her.
    • br0ken1128, on 12/26/2007, -2/+5Forget the content of the photo .. the photo was a private photo, her own property with copyright warnings.. it'd be similar to Fox taking a photo of your kid and putting it up during the game .. or your car ..
      • Andrewmatt, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Well, if I put it on the internet where I KNOW ANYONE can grab it I wouldn't be suprised.
  • wild, on 12/26/2007, -60/+97Guys, she has every right to be pissed. Its stealing her copyrighted work. (I know, all you guys that torrent will digg me down. But its true.)
    • D3koy, on 12/26/2007, -12/+32Is she a professional photographer, or just some lady with pictures of her dog?
      • darkspire, on 12/26/2007, -4/+25It doesn't matter - she explicitly lists on the pages the photo is displayed that she is reserving all rights to the pictures.
      • sbader, on 12/26/2007, -6/+10Doesn't matter if they are copyrighted.
      • AriaStar, on 12/26/2007, -2/+15She took them, she owns them.
      • kaidovak, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1she's not making a dime off of the revenue from the ads they run during broadcasts, that's where the problem starts.
    • superkendall, on 12/26/2007, -5/+5Why would she be pissed? Several hours of documented unlicenced uncredited use?

      Payday has come. There are any number of lawyers that should be rubbing hands with glee to take this on for a 50% cut.
      • AriaStar, on 12/26/2007, -4/+9Not really. She has to show damages.
        • sifuchar, on 12/26/2007, -1/+4Not really. Ever hear of "punitive damages"?
          • compdude32, on 12/26/2007, -4/+3Apparently you haven't. Invest in a dictionary.

            If she routinely made money off of her photos then she would have a case, but there is no damage in this case, therefore a lawsuit wouldn't go anywhere.
      • ilves7, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5you can't profit off someone else's copyright material, she's entitled to any money earned by the use of that picture... what that would be, however, I have no idea
        • compdude32, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2a happy holidays message from the broadcaster makes no money for that broadcaster, therefore she isn't entitled to anything, she had no damages from it and fox had no gain from it.

          This is of course assuming she can prove it is her picture and that fox didn't get it from a legit source that it had been put up on.
          • crossmr, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Of course it does or else they wouldn't do it. they see a potential loss by not doing a happy holidays message (people might think poorly of them) so you can bet somewhere someone has put a dollar figure on it.
      • se1zure, on 12/26/2007, -6/+1not any lawyer with reasonable knowledge of copy write and fair use laws.
    • se1zure, on 12/26/2007, -13/+1it's just some family photos. The only protection she has is from the DMCA, which, I belive states the image in this case would be public domain, and therfore free to be used by fox in the fashion they used it.
      • wild, on 12/26/2007, -1/+9Not true at all. I am a designer. I buy photos everyday. I know how licensing rights work.
      • pilot3033, on 12/26/2007, -0/+11You own copyright on anything and everything you create, the moment it is created. Being a "professional" or not has no bearing. Family photo or not, you can't just up and use something without the owners permission.

        Its kind of ridiculous to be so upset over your dog's pic, but the principle is there.
      • Digg4all, on 12/26/2007, -0/+7Photographers work is copyrighted upon it being taken. It's not public domain and no, the DCMA doesn't apply to this. Learn the law
    • oldhick, on 12/26/2007, -3/+20She certainly has every RIGHT to be pissed. None of us are trying to take away her RIGHT to be pissed. Most people just don't give a damn about some trivial issue like a blogger's dog picture turning up on TV.
      This is just her ticket to promote her blog and waste our time.
    • GreenAlien, on 12/26/2007, -1/+4"This is just her ticket to promote her blog"

      So she'll probably get some money out of Fox and promote her blog. Smart move.
    • tnoy, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Its not ok for a corporation to steal from an individual, but it is ok for an individual to steal from a corporation.
  • Naidim, on 12/26/2007, -32/+325By putting on the Santa hat, it has become a Parody of the original and is covered under Fair Use.

    What's good for the masses is good for the corporations.
    • DteK, on 12/26/2007, -5/+53Yep, Stewart and Colbert do it every night.
      • gernblansted, on 12/26/2007, -4/+1... to famous people (public figures) which is allowed. I don't think they can just take people's copyrighted work and do what they want with it. To look at it from a different perspective, if they sung happy birthday on the show (happy birthday now being a copyrighted protected work) they would get in immediate trouble unless they paid money for it. Why do you think restaurants don't sing happy birthday anymore? That's illegal to do without securing per-performance rights, even if only a few people hear it. If you do it on TV, you better have $$$ handy.
        • Hollic, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2The best part is that Michael Jackson owns the copyright. Creepy, isn't it?
    • superkendall, on 12/26/2007, -13/+6Not sure you can parody something already funny. By making it slightly more funny, it's still like it was...
      • se1zure, on 12/26/2007, -6/+3you can.
      • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -3/+5Well, YOU are not sure, but I am. You can. Look at all the crap movies like Epic Movie, or The Comebacks that are nothing more than lame parodies of recent movies, including recent comedis. Hell, look at any episode of The Family Guy for that matter.
    • se1zure, on 12/26/2007, -3/+17nice point
    • nittanylion06, on 12/26/2007, -13/+10How does photoshopping a Santa's hat on a dog become a parody of the original work?
      • Ninjab3ar, on 12/26/2007, -9/+8Since sarcasm was invented....
        • TheLoneHoot, on 12/26/2007, -0/+6You need to understand what "sarcasm" means
      • insomniac8400, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Because you touch yourself at night.
    • wild, on 12/26/2007, -5/+39They aren't parodying that specific work. They are using that work to produce something else. Doesn't qualify.
      • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -9/+4You forgot to add "I am obviously not a lawyer since what I wrote is completely inaccurate."
      • zonk3r, on 12/26/2007, -1/+7Exactly. ***The context of a parody is the most important element.***

        Only if they were actually making say a joke or comment on the dog itself would it be a parody. Just putting a hat on a dog doesn't make it a parody.
      • LuxFX, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3I think that's a good point. But I still have a hard time believing that if I take a stock photo from Corbin images, slap clipart on it, and use it in a live broadcast -- that they wouldn't at least try to make me pay for the image.
    • ajblue98, on 12/26/2007, -2/+31Ditto wild. In order to qualify as a parody, it would have to be used in that kind of context, in a segment on ugly dogs with cute hats, for instance.

      Also, since it's being used for commercial purposes, Fair Use doesn't necessarily qualify anyway.

      Third, by adding the hat, it's most likely to be considered a derivative work, but still Fox should be held to account for their actions.
      • NoCt1, on 12/26/2007, -0/+9derivative still needs artists permission to copy the image to begin with.. Thats like me saying That song i downloaded isnt the same Listen to it.. the end I added a hi hat or a snare hit so its different.
      • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -5/+1Again...completely wrong. Unless you think that Stewart, Cokbert, LEno, Letterman, Conan, or any other talk show that occasionally does this is also breaking the law. I don't even know where you THINK you got the "It would have to be used in that kind of context" clause.
    • tetfsu, on 12/26/2007, -2/+7There are many factors to consider.
      1) Was this photo posted under a different license originally on flickr and then once she saw it, changed it to copyrighted?
      2) The derivative work does apply if the work is "primarily a new work" even if it is for commercial purposes. (see us copyright law on derivative works... http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#derivat ...
      3) There's not a "context" clause in connection with a Parody. Parody still falls under the derivative work copyright laws.

      All this to say, she's got a tough road ahead of her. It's not just the hat on the dog that makes this a derivative work, it's also the entire use of the picture that makes this a "new work". In addition, there's no copyright that can protect this person because it would be very difficult to prove that the pug is her's and not some pug that looks a lot like hers, and someone at fox dressed a similar looking pug up in a red "santa dog" outfit and took a picture and used it on air. She's pretty much screwed. Fox might just pay her some hush money, but I doubt she would win in court.
    • Katana314, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2Yknow...I was about to vote you down, but you may have a point there. While I hate FOX as much as everyone, I want the playing field to be even.
    • Taorluath, on 12/26/2007, -2/+3i dont think so.
      clean air=good for the masses=bad for corporations
      expensive labor=good for the masses=bad for corporations
      • doyoulikeworms, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1clean air = good for everyone, since we all breath. if you kill the middle class you don't have workers and you don't have customers.

        expensive labor = bad for the masses and bad for corporations. labor that is of the fair price is good for all.
    • Locke23, on 12/27/2007, -1/+0Ahhh makes sense. Hadn't thought of that, but I'm sure there are miniscule details to worry about
  • roffelmeh, on 12/26/2007, -10/+3all about the money, i would care less about the hat
    • TheLoneHoot, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1No - all about what's good for the goose being what's good for the gander. Fox would've sued the ***** out of her for using an image of theirs.
  • DeadRooster, on 12/26/2007, -9/+57Everyone should just get used to the idea that if you post a photo on the internet, someone is going to steal it. I find my flickr photos on web sites all the time--and, I'm only flattered, not angry. If I had a photo of Jessica Simpson eating a hot dog, I SERIOUSLY wouldn't post it on the internet, I'd call TMZ and ask for a fat check.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 12/26/2007, -12/+4WRONG. you should never have to get used to the idea that people have the right to steal from you. YOu can protect your images if you put them on the internet. watermarks etc.

      plus when you join a group like flickr you agree to their creative commons thing which says you basically give permission for people to use your work in editorial and other commercial ways. they slip it in there.
      • DeadRooster, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5EVEN MORE WRONG: you somehow thought I said you should get used to the idea that people "have the right" to steal from you. I did not say that. I said get used to the idea that "SOMEONE IS GOING TO STEAL IT." It has nothing to do with whether or not they have a legal right to steal it--they're going to steal it--even if you have a fancy invisible watermark.
      • Linh, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3err... you do not automatically agree to a creative commons license when you upload to flickr. you have the choice to maintain it. You do agree to allow yahoo to use your photos though, but not entirely sure about that.

        and like deadrooster said... if you post it online, you run that risk of someone taking your work. not that they have the right to.
      • monger68, on 12/26/2007, -2/+1people like you are the reason we have the RIAA.
        • rikbrown2k, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1There's a world of difference between the RIAA, and Creative Commons licensing...
    • thr33m, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1mmm... jessica simpson...
  • Aero347, on 12/26/2007, -17/+10Hey now, If you don't let Fox News take whatever liberties you have in order to fight terrorism (including this picture of your dog) then YOU might as well go join Alqada.
    • macbwizard, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4This is NOT fox NEWS, it is the regular fox channel.
    • crimsonnblue, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2ugh.... FAIL. Go back to your hole.
  • shadow289, on 12/26/2007, -12/+5i would like to point out that i think stealing somebody's creative work and calling it your own
    and attaining a movie/application aimed to be viewed by public without cost

    are very different things.
    • meruru, on 12/26/2007, -3/+6You're right a photo someone takes of their dog should be protected to the fullest extent of the law.
      That movie or software that dozens or hundreds of people worked on for months/years? That's fair game.
      • sifuchar, on 12/26/2007, -1/+1I think Shadow289 is referring not to how the work is acquired, but rather that fact that it's author is uncredited.
  • OffPiste, on 12/26/2007, -22/+55What, an anti-Fox article on Digg? Shocking.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 12/26/2007, -11/+6If you don't like it, you DO have the right to not visit Digg.
      • Davers, on 12/26/2007, -3/+7If you don't like a comment, you DO have the right to not reply to it.
    • bbqsalad, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3Yeah Fox is GREAT. They report honestly.

  • Wailord, on 12/26/2007, -17/+184It's FOX, not FOX News. Please don't digg just because of the title. Buried as inaccurate.
    • unclenutzy, on 12/26/2007, -6/+13Came in here just to point that out. Fox News does not broadcast NFL games. Get a clue, people. Except you, Wailord, you clearly already have one.
    • DeadRooster, on 12/26/2007, -0/+10Right. Because if it was Fox News, it would be oiled-up and wearing a bikini.
    • troyfoley, on 12/26/2007, -4/+4I think Fox News should sue her for libel.
      • festizian, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5The lady never said Fox News in her article, it was just the original poster, Msaleem. Obviously hoping to get more diggs.
        • troyfoley, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Wrong. She edited the title after she started getting flamed for it.
    • CaponeX, on 12/26/2007, -7/+4Fox News, Fox Television, Fox Sports, FX, and Fox Movie Channel are all under the umbrella of the Fox Entertainment Group of News Corporation. Therefore, they are not exactly separate operating units.
      • jhandfield, on 12/26/2007, -0/+0Irrelevant.

        The author certainly must not feel too confident in their 'case' against FOX to be resorting to such a transparent and pathetic attempt to garner support from fellow Diggers.

        Have they considered running for office, I wonder...?
      • EmitStop, on 12/26/2007, -0/+7Yes, but that's like blaming Nickelodeon for something MTV aired because they are both owned by Viacom.
    • realmofreals, on 12/27/2007, -2/+0Haha, but really whats the difference anyway...Fox News doesn't really contain news so its not a huge stretch to call their entertainment geared channel the same thing as their new...er...entertainment news channel.
  • fakesinatra, on 12/26/2007, -15/+7I don't think it can be proven that they stole the picture.

    Actually they look like different dogs to me. The one on the TV has a lighter (fur, not santa) coat.
    • superkendall, on 12/26/2007, -1/+9You've got to be joking. The pose and facial structure is identical. Just because someone altered the brightness...

      All very good questions for a court. If it's really Fox's they should be able to point to the source...
      • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -3/+1what "court" are ou talking about? If this wooman tried to sue, she wouldn't even be able to file papers. Because there was nothign wrong with what was done.
    • peaceninja, on 12/26/2007, -1/+0it's the same dog...there's a technique to combine the images using your own eyes (a technique not unlike the 'magic eyes' or stereograms that produce 3D images) and using this technique its very obvious that its the same image.
  • antoniuk, on 12/26/2007, -14/+8I think she is arrogant to think hers is the only pug dressed in a Santa vest. That could be any dog out there and how do we not know she copied someone else? Fox > Soccer Mom. I think she is nothing more than a sexually repressed nut job who needs to stop blogging about her dog's penis
    • superkendall, on 12/26/2007, -2/+4Read the post. Fox had an image up large enough you could tell it was identical.
      • fuzed, on 12/26/2007, -7/+3Even with the larger picture, it still doesn't look identicle. There are a bazillion pugs in the US alone, and Im sure thousands of them were in christmas outfits over the holidays. This lady is reaching...big time. And why throw such a stink? If someone used a picture of my dog on a telecast, I would be happy as hell! Dugg down for being a rant-happy 'tard.
        • sirbeta, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5The perspective and the folders are identical, the only difference being the hat that was photoshopped on. You're an idiot.
        • wellyuk, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4It's the same dog. Even a blind man could see it's the same dog.
  • roninhobbit, on 12/26/2007, -10/+98Why has nobody mentioned that it WASN'T FOX NEWS. It was the Fox NFL broadcast, which occurs on their normal Fox station. It's depressing that diggers have become so rabidly anti-Fox News that now they just insert 'NEWS' after 'FOX' as if they were one and the same. Is Sean Hannity on after the Simpsons, or Seinfeld...I forget.
    • HanSolo69, on 12/26/2007, -5/+5probably because..oh..wait..plenty of people already pointed that out above you.
      • roninhobbit, on 12/26/2007, -2/+3Actually, when I submitted it, nobody had. Do you even know how this site works?
    • evan119, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Seinfeld's on Fox?
    • idiggeverything, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Who gives a whores ***** anyway?
  • iPirate, on 12/26/2007, -4/+77As much as I hate Fox News... this wasn't on Fox News.
  • se1zure, on 12/26/2007, -12/+6I always thought anything posted freely on the internet by the creator was considered public domain as long as it generates no profit. I think fox would just have to prove the image didn't increase viewers or profit.

    Also, it is not fox the image. It is a graphic designer, blame the designer, not fox.

    And this person is bitching over NOTHING. It was just a simple photo. I could understand if the designer stole an entire template, or logo, but a photo you posted yourself?! You weren't getting anything out of it, so how does fox using it even hurt you in the lease?

    If she wins this court case, she is seriously a humongous bitch.
    • skellener, on 12/26/2007, -2/+8> I always thought anything posted freely on the internet by the creator
      > was considered public domain as long as it generates no profit.

      YOU THOUGHT WRONG!
      • se1zure, on 12/26/2007, -8/+1well it's still covered on the fair use act, as it is a parody of the original.
        so basically, YOUR WRONG.
        • sirbeta, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2Uh, how is it a parody of the original? Because it had a hat photoshopped on top? That makes it a parody? I think you'd have a hard time proving that.
    • superkendall, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4"I always thought anything posted freely on the internet by the creator was considered public domain as long as it generates no profit."

      Then you aren't going to be working for Fox much longer, and you have a terrible understanding of the law. As soon as a work is created, there is an implicit copyright attached. It's only when you *explicitly* put something in the public domain,or the copyright term expires, that the work is no longer copyrighted.

      You can also explicitly register a work with the copyright office, which gives you some benefits including suing for greater damages.

      If you look at the original photo on Flickr, the license clearly states "(c) all rights reserved" so even if "putting it up on the internet" was not covered they have made very clear the work was considered copyrighted.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1"I always thought anything posted freely on the internet by the creator was considered public domain as long as it generates no profit. I think fox would just have to prove the image didn't increase viewers or profit. "

      this is one of the internets biggest lies. The word public domain gets thrown around too freely. The author as to be dead plus 75 years for it to be legally public domain or they set it up that way as a royalty free. In any case copyright violation is a serious issue. Its also a Federal Crime, and if you have taken steps to officially copyright your work there are huge payouts for legitimate victims
    • ecidnac, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Anything that CAN be copyrighted IS copyrighted by default as of the date of its creation. If you choose to give up that right, you must do so explicitly (although, you could also more easily just go ahead and ignore any infringement, to the same general effect). You don't even need to state that all rights are reserved. You don't need to state a freakin' thing. You're better protected if you register / keep records / make your terms available, but none of that is by any means necessary.
      You might be thinking of trademarks or service marks, which are quite another matter, and if it's not obvious, gain legitimacy through their use in trade and/or service...
  • dreicher, on 12/26/2007, -3/+63Fine, she got ripped off. Now, execute this person for dressing their dog!
    • Rsulliv1, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4and for having the most irritating style of writing...
      • dezman2003, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Yeah it was like being told a story by someone who is half drunk when you're stone sober.
  • macwac, on 12/26/2007, -2/+18She obviously doesn't download mp3s...
  • codyman, on 12/26/2007, -2/+8A guy I work with just got put on engadget not too long ago (a picture of him dressed as a pirate / playing wii).. as soon as I saw it, I just told everyone and we posted it on the wall for a laugh instead of recommending lawyers he should call...
  • trer, on 12/26/2007, -12/+1And don't tase me too!
  • mwalker05, on 12/26/2007, -8/+33it wasnt even fox news. it was the NFL on fox. the two are only related by the network. buried as inaccurate and lame.
  • funkysandman, on 12/26/2007, -8/+16I'm going to copyright my farts...and if I smell anybody copying them..watch out!
    • PopcornDave, on 12/26/2007, -1/+9Please let us know how that works out. Or how long before you stop sniffing people's asses.
    • ecidnac, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I doubt that you could copyright a fart. However, you could certainly copyright a recording of a fart (um, or the sheet music???), and potentially sue for infringing public performance...
  • slotar, on 12/26/2007, -6/+19As much as I hate IP laws, the fact is that Fox and especially the NFL vehemently attack anyone infringing on their copyrighted works. She has every right to be pissed.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3why do you hate IP laws? do you not think anyone should own their own work?
  • grapfx, on 12/26/2007, -4/+12She had this on her flickr site. I wonder if she has a myspace page with the same picture. You all remember that Terms of Service myspace has/had about all content showing is property of good ol' Rupert. Good looking dog too.
    • dreicher, on 12/26/2007, -1/+10Please back this up. According to their current terms of use "MySpace.com does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, ... that you post to MySpace.com...By displaying or publishing any Content on or through the MySpace Services, you hereby grant to MySpace.com a limited license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute Content solely on and through the MySpace Services."
      • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -3/+1You are right, but the original comment is not all wrong. If she did have it on MySpace, then Fox is free to use it for any reason they want. They don't own the copyright, but for as long as it is posted to MySpace, Newscorp basically has joint ownership. Maybe that is too strong a description. But the point is, if you post something to a site like MySpace, or Facebook, or Flikr, or YouTube or any site like that, you have absolutely no say in whatever that site does with that image, including making money off it. It is like that guy who had a video on YouTube and then saw it on some VH-1 site about viral videos. Perfectly legal because VH-1 had a deal with YouTube to use them.
        • Rsulliv1, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Dreicher's quote explains that, doesn't it?

          .."solely on and through the MySpace Services", doesn't that say that they can only use the content from MySpace for MySpace?
          • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -1/+1Depends on how broad the "myspace services" interpretation is. For example, if Newscorp decide ot make a syndicated show with MySpace videos, then that qualfiies. Even if they wanted to do a MySpace segment in an existing show.
  • JasonCox, on 12/26/2007, -14/+8"Its stealing her copyrighted work."
    So suddenly taking pictures of your pets and posting them on The Internets is copyrightable?
    • AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -1/+8Using a persons photos without permission is theft no matter where the source comes from.
      • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -6/+3Once again, you attempt to blasty Fox News and come out looking foolish. Honestly...just a tip. WE know you are pathetic and hate Fox News. But when you blast them for something that it obviously NOT TRUE, like this, how on earth do you think that makes THEM look bad and not you?
      • gamerzworld, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2@ bingobongony
        Are you from Fox News? The comment you replied to was NOT bashing Fox News. Please leave.
      • Habemus, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Using a person's photo to make a derivative work as a parody is fair use and is not illegal. Fox is in the clear here.
    • Kythas, on 12/26/2007, -0/+20Technically, any original composition or artwork is automatically copyrighted upon the moment of publication. So, yes.

      Legally, you don't even need to put a copyright notice. It's preferable if you do (and more defensible), but copyright law covers it just the same.
    • tetfsu, on 12/26/2007, -1/+4uh yeah... any picture you take is automatically yours to choose what license you release the work on the internet. You can release it as a creative commons, GPL, or other open license, but if you do not specify a license (assuming your in the US) it's automatically covered by US Copyright law.
  • bitterbug, on 12/26/2007, -9/+3Can someone edit Bill O'Reilly's head into the goatse guy? I would but the mere thought of it gave me hysterical blindness.
  • codehkr77, on 12/26/2007, -5/+10why did this story even make it to the front page?
    • PopcornDave, on 12/26/2007, -1/+7Because of the words Fox News, even though erroneous, in the title.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1...well that and the fact that it has to do with copyright abuse by an two entities (Fox and the NFL) that warn others heavily against it.
    • wellyuk, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1"Become popular. Once a submission has earned a critical mass of Diggs, it becomes “popular” and jumps to the homepage in its category. If it becomes one of the most popular, it qualifies as a “Top 10”. If a submission doesn't receive enough Diggs within a certain time period, it eventually falls out of the “Upcoming” section"

      That's why.
  • Nivardus, on 12/26/2007, -6/+9Dugg for validity of claims, but scorned for terrible writing.
    • se1zure, on 12/26/2007, -7/+4since they added the hat it's considered a parody and ther fore, it's covered under the fair use act. So the the claims are not valid
      • fotbr, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1hey, look, bingobongony is back with a different name after being called out as a murdoch shill
    • GreenAlien, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3It's not a parody.
  • djdavey, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8Ya gotta love Google Images search.
  • KenSPT, on 12/26/2007, -3/+23The woman did nothing but hurt her cause by writing what she did. She came across as unintelligent and egotistical. Sure, it's not right that Fox stole the image, but there's right ways to approach things and wrong ways to approach things ... she chose the wrong way.
    • AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -9/+1Exposing Faux News for the frauds and thieves they are is the wrong way?

      She'll probably sue soon.. give her time.
      • dannyapplesauce, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5This has very little, if anything, to do with FOX NEWS. IT WAS A FOX SPORTS BROADCAST. RTFA
      • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3This comment of yours exposes you for the pathetic and completely ignorant human being that you are.
    • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -7/+1Fox didn'tsteal anything. The second she uploaded itto Flikr, she gave Yahoo the right to allow others to use it.
      • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -3/+1It is kind of sad that my 100% factual (obviously so) comment is getting buried. No wonder why no one is offering Kevin money for Digg. Unfortunately for Kevin, Digg's USERS would go along in the sale. That icnludes people like AndrewDBarker, and companies don't want that.
    • rubyeyes, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1Yeah really she should have gone to her legal department to draft a letter.
  • skellener, on 12/26/2007, -3/+5Get a lawyer and get some dough. If it was the reverse I guarantee you FOX would be suing your ass for copyright infringement. Most likely they'll just pay you a settlement. They used your art for part of their promotion, they should pay you for it.
    • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -8/+1This post makews you look foolish. In more ways than one. Just to let you know.
    • Habemus, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Parody = fair use. She will lose if she were to sue.
  • GoingToShibuya, on 12/26/2007, -4/+6What a horrible blog post. DO WE REALLY NEED CAPS? Because we know you're pissed. If this person was smart, they would call the Fox legal department and hopefully someone would get in touch with her. I know she's probably not a professional photographer, but yes, they should have at least e-mailed her to ask for permission. But you know, most people don't know copyright laws and thats why people steal pictures without thinking about it.
    • Niightwitch, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2I personally think the dog is a fool.
  • saejinn, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8The hat shopped on the dog is the same one that guy is wearing.
  • AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -9/+6Photoshopped!!!!

    *What.. the one time you can say it and it's true..
  • proseandpromise, on 12/26/2007, -5/+6Really? An article indignant about piracy on Digg? Since when did this community not ingratiate at the feet of theft via technology?
  • mogebier, on 12/26/2007, -13/+7What a moron. They used the photo in a comical way and not to make profit. Stupid person. It's parody, if anything.
    • NoCt1, on 12/26/2007, -3/+1How did they not make a profit on this, millions of people saw this and some probly said aww how cute. Also,, It is air time.. So it cost money for it.
      • gh0st3000, on 12/26/2007, -1/+0someone saying "aww, how cute" counts as profit now? They say a cute dog in a hat, told all their friends to watch, and bumped the ratings up a point?
        • fotbr, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3And higher ratings = more advertising $
        • Habemus, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1Parody = fair use. See Fark and Worth1000 photoshop contests. They make money off of them through ad revenue same as Fox.
  • netsql, on 12/26/2007, -4/+3Every violation of DRM = 20 years. Make point?
  • mach32, on 12/26/2007, -11/+10you people steal copyrighted material via the piratebay and other torrent sites all day long. people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
    • georgetds, on 12/26/2007, -1/+6 The whole purpose of digg comments is to throw stones.
      • JamesMorris, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Duly noted. But my house is made of bricks so go figure..
      • Taorluath, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1Bravo! You just made #1 on my top 10 best digg quotes!
    • Travelsonic, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3Steal copyrighted materials" is an oxymoron.

      It is one, or copyright infringement. PICK ONE!
      Just because some do torrent, doesn't mean all do, and certainly makes your generalization nothing but.
    • PopcornDave, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3Where else would diggers get exercise if they didn't throw stones?
    • NoCt1, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4So if fox can use someones image and its ok, but I post a shot of the NFl on a site, Its not ok?
      Or they use my image but I downlaod a song and have to pay 775 dollars per song?
      How is that ok. They bitch at us for it we bitch at them for it. Hypocritical maybe?
    • UMustBeNewHere, on 12/26/2007, -0/+0Prove it.
    • rayefrenzy, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2However, when/if one steals music, it's generally for their leisure, and they don't profit from it. However, Fox/NFL has used it, clearly, for profit.

      Maybe it is a bit of a double standard, but I think there IS a difference
    • headband, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Fox owns a movie studio as well and probobaly a chunk of the music industry, they go arround complaing about piracy when they need check themselves first

      either way I think it was just a mistake and once they realize they will settle for a sum of money thats pennies to fox but great for the owner and they will all go home happy
  • ajchavar, on 12/26/2007, -24/+16check the fine print on flickr- everything you upload is under creative commons, ANYONE can use your image for free, without telling you if they credit you, OR fi it is modified enough that it a reasonable person would say it has a different artistic or aesthetic value they dont need to credit you at all.

    though it kinda sucks, this is actually legal.

    i took some mediocre photos of hilary clinton (flickr username aj.chavar) for a class and posted them on flickr. a week later they were on hilary's site, and some hilary haters and hilary lover sites. i was pissed because for a while googling my name would yield a contest to doctor one of my photos on some anti-hilary site instead of my portfolio website. then i delved into the fine print on flickr, investigated the way the photos were being used and found it was legal. so now i'm more careful about what i post there.

    there was a wired article about a girl who's embarrassing photo was on flickr, and then some ad company used and credited the flickr account, and it was perfectly legal. i know it was in wired in print, but i cant find it online.
    • eternalsnows, on 12/26/2007, -1/+17Why are people digging this up? It's completely incorrect. See the Flickr FAQ at http://flickr.com/help/photos/#87 .
    • NoCt1, on 12/26/2007, -1/+6 How can I copyright my photos?
      In most parts of the world, including the U.S., Canada, EU countries, and Japan, you are automatically granted copyrights to your photos.
      However, the nonprofit Creative Commons offers six default licenses as an alternative to full copyright so you can choose the one that best suits your needs.
      Remember that you can only copyright images that you own. This means you can't copyright images that you've taken from somewhere else! Additionally, just because an image does not have a Creative Commons license attached to it, doesn't mean that it is public domain.
      You can select a default license for your photos here.
      To add a license for a specific picture, click the "Change" link next to your current photo license (usually set to "All rights reserved") near the bottom of your photo page. On the Privacy and Permissions settings page, click the "Add a license to your photo" link on the right side of the page, near the bottom. On the next page, select one of the Creative Commons licenses.

      Top
      How can I stop people from downloading my photos?

      You can set a global preference that controls who can download all the versions of your photos. Just select a setting — from "Only Me" to "Anyone." This setting applies to all your photos and is combined with your privacy settings.
      Say you publish a photo of ice cream. If you're sharing that photo with only friends, they are the only people who can see it. Even if you set it so "Anyone" can download the photo, your friends are still the only people who can see it and thus download it.
      If you applied a Creative Commons license to your photos, they can be downloaded by anyone. If you don't want others to download your photos, remove the Creative Commons license here.

      Top

      So its known... sorry for the length
    • platypibri, on 12/26/2007, -2/+4pretty sure all my images say "© all rights reserved"
    • Taorluath, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3oops, sorry for digging you up, I thought you were telling the truth
  • evo8ftw, on 12/26/2007, -12/+6Where to start on this one? For starters this lady hyphenated her last name little pretentious but whatever. However the real kicker is her husband did it as well. Also fyi lady just because you put a notice on your web page that doesn't legally make your work copyrighted.
    • lostmongoose, on 12/26/2007, -6/+5indeed, the notice didn't make it legally copyrighted. THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S COPYRIGHTED THE MINUTE THE PHOTO WAS TAKEN!
    • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -2/+6Anything you put online, is copyrighted automatically if it is original.
      I am not saying that I think that this women is in the right, but copyright laws are pretty clear. If you create the work, you own the copyright on it. You don't have to apply for it otr anything.
      • evo8ftw, on 12/26/2007, -5/+1ignorance is such a beautiful thing
        • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -2/+2As long as you are talking about your own ignorance, your post makes sense. But seriously...please don't try to digg yourself out of the hole you put yourself in. You are just digging deeper and deeper and making yourself look stupid. A quick research session on copyright will show you how wrong you are.
          Do you honestly think there is some application process to get copyright? It is not a patent, or a trademark.
          • evo8ftw, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2http://www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html

            this is what i call a pwning

            shut your ignorant mouth
          • wheresjim, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2"http://www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html
            this is what i call a pwning
            shut your ignorant mouth"

            The Pwner becomes the Pwned:

            http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html ...
          • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Like I said...don't try to digg yourself out of the hole because you will just digg yourself deeper. I noticed that after wheresjim destroyed you, you just slunk away. Does this mean you have finally taken my advice and let it drop, acknowledging that you are wrong?
            Don't say I didn't warn you.
          • evo8ftw, on 12/26/2007, -1/+1You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.” --

            Hence its not a legal copy right pwnage
          • wheresjim, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2It is. I make a living creating intellectual property (though patent-related, not copyright). At any rate, she is the legal copyright holder of the photo in question, and was once she took the picture (see http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc). If she chooses to file suit, she can choose to register the copyright for the image as stated, but registration is a formality, typically only done in the event of an infringement claim.

            I do, however, agree with you on the hyphenated name thing.
    • mtekk, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2"just because you put a notice on your web page that doesn't legally make your work copyrighted"

      In the United States, any work created is automatically the intellectual property, and hence copyrighted property of the author for the life of the author plus 70 years.
      • NoCt1, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2plus 75 years.... Which means Mickey mouse is soon to become free domain pretty soon
        • bahamutxd, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3.. until they extend the law again. Mickey Mouse may as well be granted copyright immortality.
    • platypibri, on 12/26/2007, -1/+4sux to be so wrong.
  • joebasirico, on 12/26/2007, -1/+18I agree with her points in principle, but am I the only one that can't stand all this language that can only stand to make the writer look like an idiot?

    If I were Fox, stuff like: "I can haz" and "MY FREAKIN' HEAD..." would burn any little credibility and validity for a case that she's built for herself.

    The blog is not a legal forum and never will be. If she really cares about her photography, and I think she should, she should get herself a lawyer and send a real letter, or call Fox's Legal department.
    • UMustBeNewHere, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2While I agree with the fact that she didn't come across as the most eloquent writer, I don't agree that it affects any credibility for a case. The victim of a crime is still a victim, even if they are overly dramatic.
    • mstoneburner, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1She doesn't have a case. She wasn't damaged in any way.
  • mwalker05, on 12/26/2007, -6/+32and i'm sure this "copyrighted" photo of hers doesn't violate any copyright laws?

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sweetney/1331408730/
    • BlueScreenOD, on 12/26/2007, -4/+9Actually, that's satire and is fair use.
      • Habemus, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1So was Fox's use of her dog. Notice they added the santa hat? That makes it parody.
    • peaceninja, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3agreed, i dont think she's seriously going to pursue litigation against Fox, but I think she was making a point that despite the fact that Fox Corporation flips out at youtube videos, they don't have a good internal policy for avoiding using copyrighted material in their own broadcasts.

      I wish we just get rid of copyright altogether and implemented some new system, it is such a pain that this article makes it evident that infringement cannot be avoided by even large corporations.
      • bingobongony, on 12/26/2007, -4/+1And she is wrong. Fox has every right to BOTH prevent people from posting their shows on YouTube, and to use that image. Again...the second she posted that image on Flikr, she allowed Yahoo to do anything they want with it. And that includes allowing other corporations to use it.
        There is simply no way to spin this to avoid making this woman look like a complete fool.
        She is not going to sue because if she ever tried to get a lawyer to handle her case, she would be physically removed from their office for wasting their time.
    • Haecceity, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5Parody = Fair Use
      • Habemus, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1Fox's version was also a parody. Notice the santa hat. That makes it a parody.
        I could photoshop a santa hat onto an AP photo of Dick Cheney and that too would be a parody would it not?
        AP would not win a copyrught suit over that and she won't win over Fox for the same reason - parody = fair use.
  • mdman, on 12/26/2007, -17/+4Its a different dog dumb ass....
  • Typhoon2009, on 12/26/2007, -8/+3I bet the woman bought that dog after hearing about the hackers on steroids who call themselves Anonymous. I heard they treat the web like a real life video game D:
  • russianmike, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3*****, a bigger robbery is what the stock photo sites charge. It wasn't fox that stole it, it was an underpaid graphics guy they have working in a basement somewhere.
    • ChefGroovy, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1And nothing says Christmas spirit like getting a check for $100 and get some kid fired from Fox
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 162 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.