Web 2.oh-no-you-don't
May 8, 2008 4:21 PM Subscribe
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.
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.
posted by rokusan at 4:40 PM on May 8, 2008
Preferably in red. And blinking.
posted by rokusan at 4:40 PM on May 8, 2008
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.
posted by dersins at 4:56 PM on May 8, 2008
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.
posted by dersins at 4:56 PM on May 8, 2008
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?
posted by loiseau at 5:04 PM on May 8, 2008
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?
posted by loiseau at 5:04 PM on May 8, 2008
An apology? This post is preciously Canadian.
posted by mikedouglas at 6:00 PM on May 8, 2008
posted by mikedouglas at 6:00 PM on May 8, 2008
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.
posted by GuyZero at 6:10 PM on May 8, 2008
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.
posted by GuyZero at 6:10 PM on May 8, 2008
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.
posted by chudmonkey at 6:14 PM on May 8, 2008
posted by chudmonkey at 6:14 PM on May 8, 2008
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.
posted by Eekacat at 6:17 PM on May 8, 2008
posted by Eekacat at 6:17 PM on May 8, 2008
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.
posted by Potsy at 6:56 PM on May 8, 2008
posted by Potsy at 6:56 PM on May 8, 2008
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!
posted by mullingitover at 7:16 PM on May 8, 2008
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!
posted by mullingitover at 7:16 PM on May 8, 2008
Potuguese thieving Toronto scumbags!!!
(only posted to wind up my Portuguese friend in Toronto)
posted by Frasermoo at 7:19 PM on May 8, 2008
(only posted to wind up my Portuguese friend in Toronto)
posted by Frasermoo at 7:19 PM on May 8, 2008
Like that's all City TV has to apologize for.
posted by orange swan at 7:23 PM on May 8, 2008
posted by orange swan at 7:23 PM on May 8, 2008
...Everywhere
posted by stevil at 8:16 PM on May 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by stevil at 8:16 PM on May 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
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)?
posted by mek at 8:36 PM on May 8, 2008
posted by mek at 8:36 PM on May 8, 2008
used to? They still do. It is also the tv station that is the influence for Videodrone, for that very reason.
posted by mkn at 8:50 PM on May 8, 2008
posted by mkn at 8:50 PM on May 8, 2008
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.
posted by loiseau at 9:06 PM on May 8, 2008
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.
posted by loiseau at 9:06 PM on May 8, 2008
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.
posted by Mitheral at 9:07 PM on May 8, 2008
Depending on how he sourced these hypothetical whatevers, possession of the material without having compensated the copyright holder can be perfectly legal in Canada.
posted by Mitheral at 9:07 PM on May 8, 2008
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.
posted by padraigin at 10:05 PM on May 8, 2008
posted by padraigin at 10:05 PM on May 8, 2008
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.
posted by jack_mo at 12:37 AM on May 9, 2008
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.
posted by jack_mo at 12:37 AM on May 9, 2008
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.
posted by rhymer at 12:59 AM on May 9, 2008
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.
posted by rhymer at 12:59 AM on May 9, 2008
(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?)
posted by jack_mo at 1:28 AM on May 9, 2008
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?)
posted by jack_mo at 1:28 AM on May 9, 2008
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...)
posted by spoobnooble at 4:15 AM on May 9, 2008
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...)
posted by spoobnooble at 4:15 AM on May 9, 2008
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.
posted by rhymer at 5:46 AM on May 9, 2008
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.
posted by rhymer at 5:46 AM on May 9, 2008
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.
posted by dasheekeejones at 6:13 AM on May 9, 2008
This is the argument I go through every day with the morons at work.
posted by dasheekeejones at 6:13 AM on May 9, 2008
[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.
posted by rokusan at 3:33 PM on May 9, 2008
That's Videodrome... but now that I think about it, I like your typo better. More apt.
posted by rokusan at 3:33 PM on May 9, 2008
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.
posted by Frasermoo at 3:41 PM on May 9, 2008
posted by Frasermoo at 3:41 PM on May 9, 2008
« Older Nothing Is Real, not even Real | Vault of McCarthite Terror Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jeffmik at 4:35 PM on May 8, 2008