Advertise here: Contact FM.

look who's stealing pics of flickr now: Wired. yeah, really.
November 8, 2007 11:40 PM Subscribe

screenshot perhaps you're used to some obscure blog stealing your images from flickr but a major publication can't claim ignorance. it says "All rights reserved" but still they did it.
posted by krautland (54 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

This post was deleted for the following reason: Yeah, self-linking isn't really so much a "no-no" as it is the fundamental thing you do not do. I realize you spend most of your time on Askme, krautland and so not gotten that, but this is a long way from cool. -- cortex

Self-link. Get your own blog. One-link Flickr post. This is terrible.
posted by punishinglemur at 11:48 PM on November 8, 2007

But information wants to be free.

And copyright infringement isn't stealing, and it's wrong to call it that. And you still have a copy of the work don't you?

Besides, think of all the great publicity that wired is giving the photographer in question! He'll make so much more money know that people see his picture.

Pretty shitty arguments, aren't they? They don't get any better when it's the work of a large corporation versus an individual. I grow tired of the double standard, where the only difference between "stealing" and "copyright infringement" is whether a large corporation has ownership of the work.
posted by zabuni at 11:50 PM on November 8, 2007

I love this argument. Also, I love it when atheists and libertarians have something to add to a discussion of God or taxes. Also, can we talk about fat people and circumcision? I'm for one and against the other! How about you?
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:59 PM on November 8, 2007

omg flickr terrible outrage self-link banned
posted by dhammond at 12:00 AM on November 9, 2007

Srsly, you've been around long enough (though this is your first FPP) to know that this right ain't shit. WTF?
posted by wemayfreeze at 12:03 AM on November 9, 2007

Unfortunately this post does not meet the standards of the Metafilter community. Have you tried submitting this to Digg or perhaps Reddit? I think they are more what you are looking for. They have been know to be quite accommodating to these types of submissions. We wish you all the best.
posted by chillmost at 12:06 AM on November 9, 2007

krautland?!?!! NOOOOOOOoooooo
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:10 AM on November 9, 2007

And to think that you were one of my so-called "contacts" on Flickr. Harumph.
posted by dhammond at 12:11 AM on November 9, 2007

Been here two years, and you make a self-link FPP?

WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
KRAUTLAND.
posted by Arturus at 12:13 AM on November 9, 2007

Dumb move on Wired's part - Dumb move on your part.
Guess you'll have to find somewhere else to get your Wiki entry from.

Happy trails to you... until we meet again...
posted by edgeways at 12:13 AM on November 9, 2007

DID WE NOT LEARN WHEN HITLER SELF-LINKED ON POLAND?
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:15 AM on November 9, 2007 [3 favorites]

You read the guidelines, right? Because linking to your own site or a project you worked on in this space will result in a deletion and your account will be banned. Post it to MetaFilter Projects to announce your work instead, which was designed especially for this purpose.

I just infringed Matt's copyright on this warning.
posted by grouse at 12:15 AM on November 9, 2007 [1 favorite]

I doubt Wired will be bothered that someone took a screenshot and posted it on their Flickr page, even if it says 'All rights reserved'. Seriously, I understand the problem, but as Chillmost suggests, blog it and digg it.
posted by Elmore at 12:16 AM on November 9, 2007

Admit it, Arturus, you favorited this thread just so you could watch as it went down in flames.
posted by lekvar at 12:20 AM on November 9, 2007

Me too.
posted by chrismear at 12:22 AM on November 9, 2007

Oh, and not that this thread isn't doomed anyway, but: It's still copyright infringement, not stealing, and the major difference isn't that it's individual vs. corporation, it's whether the infringement is commercial or noncommercial use.

True, but I've never understood the emphasis of the copyfighter on whether the infringement is commercial or non-commercial. The difference between someone making a mashup because they think it's cool, and someone making a mashup because they want to sell Coke seems arbitrary to me.
posted by zabuni at 12:23 AM on November 9, 2007

ah, I actually wasn't aware of that no-no. well, I'll ask jess to delete then.

(someone's panties are way too tight, btw.)
posted by krautland at 12:23 AM on November 9, 2007 [1 favorite]

and it's probably yours
posted by zabuni at 12:24 AM on November 9, 2007 [1 favorite]

I was here.
posted by sveskemus at 12:24 AM on November 9, 2007

I wasn't.
posted by stavrogin at 12:26 AM on November 9, 2007

Admit it, Arturus, you favorited this thread just so you could watch as it went down in flames.

True.
posted by Arturus at 12:27 AM on November 9, 2007

Two years? I guess a refresher is in order then.
posted by -t at 12:32 AM on November 9, 2007

Any post that shits on Wired/Conde Nast is ok with me, even one as bad as this. I get constant PR spam from them despite many attempts at getting off their lists.

The wired editor suffering the same fate a while back gave me a pure schadenfreude high.
posted by aerotive at 12:48 AM on November 9, 2007

In before it's gone. I'm trying to work up some Keith Olbermann style outrage for you, though.
posted by empyrean at 1:00 AM on November 9, 2007

Just because Jessamyn commented on your Flickr shot, doesn't mean you get to tout your own horn. It's not a bad picture, though.
posted by spiderskull at 1:15 AM on November 9, 2007

What Arturus said.
posted by knave at 1:25 AM on November 9, 2007

Pretty shitty arguments, aren't they?

And how *rare* it is to be exposed to a righteous rebuttal of them. I mean, do people have a macro for this shit or what? It would save so much time as we tread them out, over and over again.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:28 AM on November 9, 2007

T                                    \`.    T
|    T     .--------------.___________) \   |    T
!    |     |//////////////|___________[ ]   !  T |
     !     `--------------'           ) (      | !
                                      '-'      !

posted by knave at 1:28 AM on November 9, 2007 [5 favorites]

How could anyone who isn't a complete newbie think that this was an acceptable post?

Except I know what explains it: he was outraged. Being sufficiently outraged justifies anything, doesn't it?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:28 AM on November 9, 2007

In case this post gets deleted, I'd just like to say that nevermind doesn't like fish.
posted by rudster at 3:43 AM on November 9, 2007

Rabbits Make Lousy Pets
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:45 AM on November 9, 2007 [1 favorite]

In case this post gets deleted, I'd just like to say that quonsar doesn't like fish. Unless they are in his pants.
posted by grouse at 3:45 AM on November 9, 2007

spiderskull: "Just because Jessamyn commented on your Flickr shot, doesn't mean you get to tout your own horn."

In his defense, his horn is very shiny, has an extremely accurate pitch, is non-slip, and only costs $49.99.
posted by Plutor at 3:46 AM on November 9, 2007 [1 favorite]

Screenshot.
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 3:54 AM on November 9, 2007

After two years, 33 questions, and 839 answers—you're still a dumbass. That'll be five dollars...
posted by ryanrs at 3:55 AM on November 9, 2007

I used to be here. i don't think here is going to be here much longer.

It's toot his horn, not tout.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:59 AM on November 9, 2007

That's a nice picture of Mjolnir, TV.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:00 AM on November 9, 2007

yesterday i saw a fat guy getting circumcised in an SUV. i infringed his copyright.
posted by quonsar at 4:05 AM on November 9, 2007

memos to the future says:

I don't think that they are using this image as part of a news story but as an illustration. besides ... my price for images has always been and still is $349. at least for online.

All this is bitching over $349????
posted by R. Mutt at 4:09 AM on November 9, 2007

Crap post.

If the photograph were a pop song, 1000 MeFites would be here railing about how the little artist who recorded it doesn't really need to make money to eat, and arguing that the photo was there for the taking.
posted by spitbull at 4:10 AM on November 9, 2007

$349 - $5 = $344 .
posted by R. Mutt at 4:11 AM on November 9, 2007 [1 favorite]

All this is bitching over $349????

Heck yes, that's food for a good three or four weeks. Or half a dinner, depending on who you're with.
posted by chrismear at 4:18 AM on November 9, 2007

Where's jonmc?
posted by ryanrs at 4:25 AM on November 9, 2007

okay, that refresher on guidelines is pretty awesome, -t.
posted by rmd1023 at 4:39 AM on November 9, 2007

Self-link. Get your own blog. One-link Flickr post. This is terrible.

Oh noes!!1! It must be the end of the world! Better find out what to do next!

krautland, it's a good story. I'm glad you posted it.
posted by survivorman at 5:02 AM on November 9, 2007

Self-link or not, it's still a crap post.
posted by signal at 5:11 AM on November 9, 2007

I definitely would have known what to do next back when inline images were allowed. Now I feel bewildered and aimless.
posted by grouse at 5:13 AM on November 9, 2007

*touts horn*
posted by MetaMonkey at 5:24 AM on November 9, 2007

so often it is the case that some young punk band releases an album of someone else's songs

For covers of songs, federal law has established a uniform mechanical royalty, which is 9.1 cents. Anyone can cover any song. Making a music video (synchronization rights) is a different story.
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:45 AM on November 9, 2007

You shouldn't assume Wired took it from your flicker account. It may have been harvested by someone else and repackaged as stock.
posted by FunkyHelix at 5:51 AM on November 9, 2007

FAIL
posted by triv at 6:03 AM on November 9, 2007

This is the sort of discussion that makes me afraid to post here. Hey-- this guy broke the rules! Let's get him! What a loser! I can't believe he's been here two years and he still doesn't get that he's not allowed to hang with the cool kids!

If you think the post is bullshit, how about this plan-- ignore it! Don't comment. You are all correct inasmuch as it was a boring and pointless FPP, so what you do with boring and pointless FPPs is move on.

(And yes, I know I read the whole thing, but it was because I kept thinking "what am I missing here, it was a stupid post, why are people getting so worked up?)
posted by nax at 6:08 AM on November 9, 2007 [4 favorites]

« Older Video game soundtrack, sans video game.... | Ken Murray's Hollywood Without... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

look who's stealing pics of flickr now: Wired. yeah, really. November 8, 2007 11:40 PM Subscribe

look who's stealing pics of flickr now: Wired. yeah, really.
November 8, 2007 11:40 PM Subscribe