Comments on: Web 2.oh-no-you-don't

Web 2.oh-no-you-don't

GuyZero — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:21:52 -0800

CityTV to apologize for photos stolen from Flickr. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has issued a ruling that CityTV must make a rare on-air apology for broadcasting pictures taken from Flickr without crediting the photographer.

By: jeffmik

jeffmik — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:35:02 -0800

Its too bad they couldn't make the would-be thief say sorry as well :(

By: rokusan

rokusan — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:40:17 -0800

I guess even CityTV employees are confused by the "this photo is public" label. Flickr should really change those default labels so they say, like, "this photo MAY NOT be used" or something. Preferably in red. And blinking.

By: dersins

dersins — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:56:49 -0800

I guess even CityTV employees are confused by the "this photo is public" label. I suspect they are not confused. I suspect they just don't care. They're "The News," the rules don't apply to them, man.

By: loiseau

loiseau — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:04:13 -0800

Ugh, I hate Torontoist, but this story is interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about it though. I definitely believe they should have credited his photos with a by-line, but wouldn't the only context in which they could have been used have been saying that they were taken by the person whose house was being burglarized? In other words, was the origin of the photos not an important aspect of the spoken part of the original report? Also, is the term "my Flickr site" really accurate or credible?

By: mikedouglas

mikedouglas — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:00:30 -0800

An apology? This post is preciously Canadian.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:10:18 -0800

An apology? This post is preciously Canadian. Perhaps you don't understand - an on-air apology in Canada is 2 and three-quarters of primetime TV lost to advertisers. It's a big deal up here. Note to viewers: it won't really take that long.

By: chudmonkey

chudmonkey — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:14:08 -0800

Thanks for posting this. If this story was truly "Canadian", it would have ended 9 months sooner with the news director at City apologizing profusely and giving the guy a box of Timbits. Not very Canadian to try and disavow wrongdoing and give the guy the runaround, IMO.

By: Eekacat

Eekacat — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:17:01 -0800

Heh, and if you RTFA he still doesn't get credit. Kind of a backwards victory: he won because he got an apology, but he still didn't get credit for his photo.

By: Potsy

Potsy — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:56:43 -0800

I bet dollars to donuts the guy, despite his righteous anger over his "stolen" photos, has a hard drive filled with downloaded music / movies / whatever.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:16:36 -0800

Potsy writes "I bet dollars to donuts the guy, despite his righteous anger over his 'stolen' photos, has a hard drive filled with downloaded music / movies / whatever." He probably also has a card which gives him access to an exclusive club where he can read tons of books, rent CDs and DVDs, all without paying a dime. The nerve!

By: Frasermoo

Frasermoo — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:19:52 -0800

Potuguese thieving Toronto scumbags!!! (only posted to wind up my Portuguese friend in Toronto)

By: Frasermoo

Frasermoo — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:20:29 -0800

Pot a what? time for bed. epic fail.

By: orange swan

orange swan — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:23:42 -0800

Like that's all City TV has to apologize for.

By: stevil

stevil — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:16:24 -0800

...Everywhere

By: mek

mek — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:36:56 -0800

Is CityTV the one that (used to) play really terrible softcore pseudo-porn movies late night (that were a total waste of my time because they were mostly plot)?

By: mkn

mkn — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:50:42 -0800

used to? They still do. It is also the tv station that is the influence for Videodrone, for that very reason.

By: loiseau

loiseau — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:06:34 -0800

After the Gord Martineau sexist/asshole between-shot clips that came out a few years ago he shoulda been fired. Speaking of which, anyone know where they can be seen online? They all got pulled pretty quickly due to legal threats and I want to see them again.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:07:44 -0800

Potsy writes "I bet dollars to donuts the guy, despite his righteous anger over his 'stolen' photos, has a hard drive filled with downloaded music / movies / whatever." Depending on how he sourced these hypothetical whatevers, possession of the material without having compensated the copyright holder can be perfectly legal in Canada.

By: avocet

avocet — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:55:46 -0800

loiseau: right here!

By: padraigin

padraigin — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:05:52 -0800

An online magazine I used to write for did this (and the image they used belonged to someone who had previously written for them, of all the dumbass moves). It was one of the factors in my departure, because their response was just so limp. It was kind of an "I'm sorry you're mad" apology, which sucked.

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:37:25 -0800

An online magazine I used to write for did this (and the image they used belonged to someone who had previously written for them, of all the dumbass moves). A print magazine I used to write for ran a photo of mine that they'd lifted from Flickr (illustrating a piece one of their writers paraphrased from an entry on my weblog, to add insult to injury). They didn't apologise, instead pointing out that it was Creative Commons licensed, which, regardless of the actual license used - attribution, non-commercial in this case - means 'free for anyone to use how they like' in medialand. Since I'm freelance and wanted to continue writing for them at the time, I left it at that, but I can definitely understand why Charlebois was so pissed off.

By: rhymer

rhymer — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:59:37 -0800

I had this photo from my site run by the UK's Sun newpaper. They didn't credit it but when I phoned up, they paid me promptly and the fee was perfectly acceptable. I completely understand why they operate like this. Firstly the photo was in the public domain (so no privacy issues) and there was no proof I'd taken it (so why risk crediting to the wrong person). They have a paper to get out in hours, so trying to get my permission would be impractical. As there was no CC or other license on it, the copyright remains mine and when I got in touch they paid immediately (I'm always a bit surprised when people who CC license their work complain...) Realistically it's the only way they can work. It's just one story amongst thousands for them.

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:28:58 -0800

(I'm always a bit surprised when people who CC license their work complain...) Well, if I take the trouble to add a license that frees up the possible uses of an image, it seems reasonable to get a bit miffed if people ignore the license and nick my stuff for profit. Or do you mean that CC licenses aren't worth the paper they're written on, practically speaking? In which case I'm inclined to agree. (Do they even have a proper legal status like copyright? Or are they really more like a political gesture?)

By: spoobnooble

spoobnooble — Fri, 09 May 2008 04:15:58 -0800

For the past few months at least, CITY-TV in Toronto has been running ad spots during their own news broadcasts asking viewers to send in their cell photos from news scenes. It's touted as a way for viewers to participate in their local news show, but it still comes across as a cheesy way of soliciting free media for broadcast. It's possible that people who send in photos get paid for their work, but nothing about payment is mentioned in the ads, so my guess is that it's all 'on spec'. Copying photos from Flickr while arguing that they are 'public' seems like the same philosophy in action. It helps keep cost margins down, after all. (I know that doesn't mean a whole lot coming from someone who paid $5 to write on an otherwise public message board, but still...)

By: rhymer

rhymer — Fri, 09 May 2008 05:46:13 -0800

Or do you mean that CC licenses aren't worth the paper they're written on, practically speaking? In which case I'm inclined to agree. Yes. I think the problem is that most people believe that if they don't mention a CC license or whatever, that means anyone can take their work. But it doesn't at all - at least not in most western countries. You automatically own the rights to what you create. It seems to me that if you want to get paid if someone uses your work, you are better off leaving it unlicensed. If anyone wants a pic off my site, I ask them to contact me and if it's non commercial, they can use it for free. If it's commercial I might ask for a fee. And if they were going to take it without asking, they'd do that regardless.

By: dasheekeejones

dasheekeejones — Fri, 09 May 2008 06:13:38 -0800

But it's the internet! Everything is free and fair use! (they say) This is the argument I go through every day with the morons at work.

By: rokusan

rokusan — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:33:47 -0800

[City TV] is also the tv station that is the influence for Videodrone. That's Videodrome... but now that I think about it, I like your typo better. More apt.

By: Frasermoo

Frasermoo — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:41:09 -0800

Interesting. I had a photo lifted from Flickr and used in an online article. I was credited so I sort of left it at that.