Comments on: Children of a Greater God? http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/ Like a chicken with a jewel in its beak. Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:13:30 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: shacker http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-47519 shacker Sun, 04 Feb 2007 07:28:28 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-47519 For the record, I (Scot) did not post the photo of Scarlett in question -- that was posted by my wife on Flickr. For the record, I (Scot) did not post the photo of Scarlett in question — that was posted by my wife on Flickr.

]]> By: John Hacker http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-47514 John Hacker Sun, 04 Feb 2007 06:52:35 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-47514 Interesting. One the one hand Scot, you allowed a photo of my daughter (Scarlett) to be posted on the internet without telling Jamie or I. We had no control of where you posted her photo, or what the political/social implications attached to the photo would be, or in whose hands it may end up. Since she is fully half of the photo, and you are upset that Miles face was associated with Hilarios message, shouldn't I be just as upset with you for putting Scarletts in the same situation? Only I should be more upset since at least you knew where you were posting Miles photo, and I had no idea Scarletts image was even heading into public access. On the other hand, Its obvious you had no specific intent to have this photo used by others other than viewing your posting of it. Once Hilario reused the image (and that of my daughter)against your desires, screw him. We could debate this for ten years and nothing would get solved in my opinion. Hey Hilario, post pictures of your own gay hating family, not my family. So Fuck You!! (If its not clear, I join in the photographers request for you to not use the image in question any further - although she may not appreciate my tone, or reasons for that matter). You know, I have a job where I could do alot of shitty things to people and cause them alot of hard ships and technically not violate any laws. But I dont....and you know why? Because that would make me an asshole. That's why. I dont like being an asshole. Do you? Who gives a shit wether or not you are technically violating any law? No one would prosecute this sort of thing anyway. Just do what is right so that you are not such a total asshole. If I came across a photo of you, would you want me to post it on to a website titled, "worlds most extreme shitbags"? Jeez... you have made me so mad. I dont blog and I dont usually debate....do you have kids? Oh hell.....who am I kidding...I dont give a shit about you or your kids...just like you dont give a shit about how my brother, the photographer, or I, feel about this situation, or how we feel about our children. Yes, so truly Christian of you! So noble. So admirable. So willing to make people happy. Dont like gays? Then dont butt fuck another man. That is my suggestion. In all honesty, I dont even mind your message about same sex marriage. like most things, I am usually in a gray area on that. But when it comes to my daughter and nephew there is not a grey area. Dont put it on your website. Scot, for clarity, I am not mad at you at ALL. No more posts from me on this.... Interesting. One the one hand Scot, you allowed a photo of my daughter (Scarlett) to be posted on the internet without telling Jamie or I. We had no control of where you posted her photo, or what the political/social implications attached to the photo would be, or in whose hands it may end up. Since she is fully half of the photo, and you are upset that Miles face was associated with Hilarios message, shouldn’t I be just as upset with you for putting Scarletts in the same situation? Only I should be more upset since at least you knew where you were posting Miles photo, and I had no idea Scarletts image was even heading into public access. On the other hand, Its obvious you had no specific intent to have this photo used by others other than viewing your posting of it. Once Hilario reused the image (and that of my daughter)against your desires, screw him. We could debate this for ten years and nothing would get solved in my opinion. Hey Hilario, post pictures of your own gay hating family, not my family. So Fuck You!! (If its not clear, I join in the photographers request for you to not use the image in question any further – although she may not appreciate my
tone, or reasons for that matter). You know, I have a job where I could do alot of shitty things to people and cause them alot of hard ships and technically not violate any laws. But I dont….and you know why? Because that would make me an asshole. That’s why. I dont like being an asshole. Do you? Who gives a shit wether or not you are technically violating any law? No one would prosecute this sort of thing anyway. Just do what is right so that you are not such a total asshole. If I came across a photo of you, would you want me to post it on to a website titled, “worlds most extreme shitbags”? Jeez… you have made me so mad. I dont blog and I dont usually debate….do you have kids? Oh hell…..who am I kidding…I dont give a shit about you or your kids…just like you dont give a shit about how my brother, the photographer, or I, feel about this situation, or how we feel about our children. Yes, so truly Christian of you! So noble. So admirable. So willing to make people happy. Dont like gays? Then dont butt fuck another man. That is my suggestion. In all honesty, I dont even mind your message about same sex marriage. like most things, I am usually in a gray area on that. But when it comes to my daughter and nephew there is not a grey area. Dont put it on your website.
Scot, for clarity, I am not mad at you at ALL. No more posts from me on this….

]]> By: shacker http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-38683 shacker Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:00:07 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-38683 Dylan, true enough. And hell, look at the Image from Nowhere on this site - I make no attempt to give credit for those. I've been up front that I have mixed feelings about what Hilario is doing. What really rubbed me wrong the most was the fact that when asked, Hilario removed the image from the blog in question and re-posted it on another blog. People who borrow need to at least be sensitive to removal requests. When they're not, it goes beyond gentle borrowing to something much more in-your-face. Dylan, true enough. And hell, look at the Image from Nowhere on this site – I make no attempt to give credit for those. I’ve been up front that I have mixed feelings about what Hilario is doing. What really rubbed me wrong the most was the fact that when asked, Hilario removed the image from the blog in question and re-posted it on another blog. People who borrow need to at least be sensitive to removal requests. When they’re not, it goes beyond gentle borrowing to something much more in-your-face.

]]> By: Dylan Tweney http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-37347 Dylan Tweney Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:59:24 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-37347 Lots of people do "Flickring" the way Hilario does... it's not unique to him. For instance check out this blog by Eric Schonfeld, from the magazine Business 2.0: http://blogs.business2.com/business2blog/ He uses Flickr images as illustrations for his posts, and even posts a "Flickr image of the day." Note, though, that he leaves Flickr's credits caption in place, which seems decent. Lots of people do “Flickring” the way Hilario does… it’s not unique to him. For instance check out this blog by Eric Schonfeld, from the magazine Business 2.0:

http://blogs.business2.com/business2blog/

He uses Flickr images as illustrations for his posts, and even posts a “Flickr image of the day.” Note, though, that he leaves Flickr’s credits caption in place, which seems decent.

]]> By: Heng http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-37202 Heng Tue, 02 Jan 2007 03:13:52 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-37202 You should read Frank Hilario's latest blog entry. He calls his usage of other people's Flikr images as Flickring. http://frankahilario.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/bloghard-blogeasy/ You should read Frank Hilario’s latest blog entry. He calls his usage of other people’s Flikr images as Flickring.

http://frankahilario.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/bloghard-blogeasy/

]]> By: shacker http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-33297 shacker Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:44:04 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-33297 Humm... Actually squub, that's a good point. I was thinking in terms of length/size, but you're right - downsampling is quite analaogous since it leaves the whole intact, just in a reduced way. Humm… Actually squub, that’s a good point. I was thinking in terms of length/size, but you’re right – downsampling is quite analaogous since it leaves the whole intact, just in a reduced way.

]]> By: i, squub http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-33283 i, squub Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:59:22 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-33283 <i>There’s no analog to this problem with text or music/audio.</i> Seems to me it's pretty much identical to downsampled audio. Is posting a very low-bitrate version of a song the same as posting a lossless version? There’s no analog to this problem with text or music/audio.

Seems to me it’s pretty much identical to downsampled audio. Is posting a very low-bitrate version of a song the same as posting a lossless version?

]]> By: Scot Hacker http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-32560 Scot Hacker Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:35:51 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-32560 Tim, I hear you, but feel that cases like this are isolated and ultimately harmless, and that we gain so much from being able to post and share publicly that the benefits strongly outweigh any downsides. I'm not going to let rare/isolated eccentrics rain on the whole parade. Tim, I hear you, but feel that cases like this are isolated and ultimately harmless, and that we gain so much from being able to post and share publicly that the benefits strongly outweigh any downsides. I’m not going to let rare/isolated eccentrics rain on the whole parade.

]]> By: Tim http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-32558 Tim Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:56:47 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-32558 As a practical matter, I find that it is just easier not to post pictures of my kid openly on the net, but to keep them behind password protected walls, just so as to avoid cases like this (or worse). As a practical matter, I find that it is just easier not to post pictures of my kid openly on the net, but to keep them behind password protected walls, just so as to avoid cases like this (or worse).

]]> By: shacker http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-31827 shacker Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:51:34 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-31827 Very interesting. Though it initially appears that the court granted the privilege to search engines (which are a special case, since they excerpt from everyone equally and are all about research), the article later implies that the ruling benefits bloggers too. And they do make the distinction between thumbnails and full-size images in terms of copyright. Very interesting. Though it initially appears that the court granted the privilege to search engines (which are a special case, since they excerpt from everyone equally and are all about research), the article later implies that the ruling benefits bloggers too. And they do make the distinction between thumbnails and full-size images in terms of copyright.

]]> By: Dylan Tweney http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-31775 Dylan Tweney Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:13:47 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-31775 Here's some news from 2003 on a court decision about posting linked thumbnails: Court backs thumbnail image linking http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-1023629.html Also, fyi, Flickr puts a "blog this" button on every publicly viewable image -- for me, anyhow, since I've told it the coordinates of my blogs. When I click on this button I get a little wizard that lets me blog the image by sending a linked thumbnail (with description) to my blog, as a post on my own site. So yes, Flickr does facilitate posting thumbnails on my site. However, the thumbnail image is pulled from Flickr's site -- so I suppose if I blogged Amy's photo this way, and she objected, she could pull the image and I would be left with a box saying "This photo is currently unavailable." So that's a very fair way to do it -- Flickr helps bloggers post thumbnails, but gives photographers recourse if they're upset about even that much usage. Posting a larger version on your own site is still pretty crappy, though, IMO. Here’s some news from 2003 on a court decision about posting linked thumbnails:

Court backs thumbnail image linking
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-1023629.html

Also, fyi, Flickr puts a “blog this” button on every publicly viewable image — for me, anyhow, since I’ve told it the coordinates of my blogs. When I click on this button I get a little wizard that lets me blog the image by sending a linked thumbnail (with description) to my blog, as a post on my own site. So yes, Flickr does facilitate posting thumbnails on my site.

However, the thumbnail image is pulled from Flickr’s site — so I suppose if I blogged Amy’s photo this way, and she objected, she could pull the image and I would be left with a box saying “This photo is currently unavailable.” So that’s a very fair way to do it — Flickr helps bloggers post thumbnails, but gives photographers recourse if they’re upset about even that much usage.

Posting a larger version on your own site is still pretty crappy, though, IMO.

]]> By: shacker http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-31741 shacker Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:32:32 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-31741 <i>Scot, if Hilario posted the whole photo on his site, he’s definitely violating the letter *and* the spirit of the copyright Amy put on it.</i> Here we get into an area specific to images. Is a resized version of an image the same, copyright-wise, as an excerpt? It seems like that's what you're saying. I'd say that it's still the full work, just resized. There's no analog to this problem with text or music/audio. Scot, if Hilario posted the whole photo on his site, he’s definitely violating the letter *and* the spirit of the copyright Amy put on it.

Here we get into an area specific to images. Is a resized version of an image the same, copyright-wise, as an excerpt? It seems like that’s what you’re saying. I’d say that it’s still the full work, just resized. There’s no analog to this problem with text or music/audio.

]]> By: Dylan Tweney http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-31695 Dylan Tweney Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:46:45 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-31695 Scot, if Hilario posted the whole photo on his site, he's definitely violating the letter *and* the spirit of the copyright Amy put on it. When I looked at the site yesterday, all I saw was a thumbnail. I thought it linked back to Amy's Flickr account but now I see that he's hosting a larger version of his own. That is, in fact, stealing. This is the one I'm talking about: http://frankahilario.wordpress.com/2006/12/02/make-love-not-war/ If he were to change that link so it pointed to Amy's Flickr account, my guess is that he'd probably be in the clear. As it is, I think you may have a case against him. Oh, and IANAL! Scot, if Hilario posted the whole photo on his site, he’s definitely violating the letter *and* the spirit of the copyright Amy put on it.

When I looked at the site yesterday, all I saw was a thumbnail. I thought it linked back to Amy’s Flickr account but now I see that he’s hosting a larger version of his own. That is, in fact, stealing.

This is the one I’m talking about:

http://frankahilario.wordpress.com/2006/12/02/make-love-not-war/

If he were to change that link so it pointed to Amy’s Flickr account, my guess is that he’d probably be in the clear. As it is, I think you may have a case against him.

Oh, and IANAL!

]]> By: shacker http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-31623 shacker Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:12:55 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-31623 Dylan, I'm going to play devil's advocate here (i.e. make rejoinders that don't nec. represent my own view) <i>When you post something publicly on Flickr you’re inviting people to blog it.</i> Does "to blog something" mean "to reproduce in full?" Fair use gives us the ability to excerpt works, not to re-publish them. He didn't use part of an image - he used the full image. <i>After all, they’re just reporting on something that exists publicly.</i> This approach certainly doesn't hold in the rest of the publishing world. If Time publishes a photo with a story, and Newsweek covers Time's reporting, Newsweek can't re-publish Time's image without permission. <i>and if it’s not, I blame those DRM-happy, copyright-expanding, public interest-hating Disney lawyers</i> Agreed :) <i>He is not stealing, any more than you “stole” images for your excellent collages.</i> I disagree. Collages are remixes of *excerpts*, which is very different from reproduction of complete works. And remember the case here is complicated by the fact that we asked Hilario to remove the image, he complied, and then re-posted it to another one of his blogs in blatant defiance of the author's wishes. Dylan, I’m going to play devil’s advocate here (i.e. make rejoinders that don’t nec. represent my own view)

When you post something publicly on Flickr you’re inviting people to blog it.

Does “to blog something” mean “to reproduce in full?” Fair use gives us the ability to excerpt works, not to re-publish them. He didn’t use part of an image – he used the full image.

After all, they’re just reporting on something that exists publicly.

This approach certainly doesn’t hold in the rest of the publishing world. If Time publishes a photo with a story, and Newsweek covers Time’s reporting, Newsweek can’t re-publish Time’s image without permission.

and if it’s not, I blame those DRM-happy, copyright-expanding, public interest-hating Disney lawyers

Agreed :)

He is not stealing, any more than you “stole” images for your excellent collages.

I disagree. Collages are remixes of *excerpts*, which is very different from reproduction of complete works. And remember the case here is complicated by the fact that we asked Hilario to remove the image, he complied, and then re-posted it to another one of his blogs in blatant defiance of the author’s wishes.

]]> By: Dylan Tweney http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/comment-page-1/#comment-31521 Dylan Tweney Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:56:38 +0000 http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/12/01/children-of-a-greater-god/#comment-31521 Scot, this is a tough case. When you post something publicly on Flickr you're inviting people to blog it. Even if you copyright the image (and Amy has) people have a strong case for posting a thumbnail with a link back to the Flickr page -- as Frank has done. After all, they're just reporting on something that exists publicly. Google does this all the time. Using linked thumbnails should fall well within fair use (and if it's not, I blame those DRM-happy, copyright-expanding, public interest-hating Disney lawyers). You can't say that you're in favor of free remixing and sharing on the net, and then renege on that when someone who disagrees with you remixes your stuff. Sure, it's upsetting, and you have a right to be upset. That's the whole point of remixing, after all... it enables the expression of new ideas that the creator didn't think of, and maybe doesn't even agree with. Welcome to the dialog. The guy may be a religious right winger but in this case it seems clear: He is not stealing, any more than you "stole" images for your excellent <a href="http://www.birdhouse.org/images/scot/dali.html" rel="nofollow">collages</a>. Scot, this is a tough case. When you post something publicly on Flickr you’re inviting people to blog it. Even if you copyright the image (and Amy has) people have a strong case for posting a thumbnail with a link back to the Flickr page — as Frank has done. After all, they’re just reporting on something that exists publicly. Google does this all the time. Using linked thumbnails should fall well within fair use (and if it’s not, I blame those DRM-happy, copyright-expanding, public interest-hating Disney lawyers).

You can’t say that you’re in favor of free remixing and sharing on the net, and then renege on that when someone who disagrees with you remixes your stuff. Sure, it’s upsetting, and you have a right to be upset. That’s the whole point of remixing, after all… it enables the expression of new ideas that the creator didn’t think of, and maybe doesn’t even agree with. Welcome to the dialog.

The guy may be a religious right winger but in this case it seems clear: He is not stealing, any more than you “stole” images for your excellent collages.

]]>