6 ms·

Why BuzzFeed Should Pay My Invoice For Copyright Infringement

236 points by mopoke 13y ago

chasing 13y ago
Good! I find it depressing how sites like that sponge value off of actual content creators.
- iamshs 13y ago
  It is very interesting business idea. No original research/thought/idea/journalism of their own. Scout common websites (reddit on top), find tidbits, use other people's work (their idea, photos etc.) and post lists. Get your blogger to dilute the content to pander to the most of web so that the virality factor increases, and the author should use "interesting" language. This formula gets you pageviews, and you are on your way to explosive growth.
  - sharkweek 13y ago
    OK let me start by saying... I really despise buzzfeed -- I think it's a waste of space on the web and notorious for stealing content and just re-flavoring it. I have created a little self-righteous boycott of the site where I refuse to click on anything from their domain. A man has got to have a code... HOWEVER -- I think it would be REALLY fun to write for them -- I think the challenge of trying to figure out what's hot on the internet and what has people's attention and then trying to get as much traffic as possible would be a ridiculously fun daily challenge. Would I ever actually consider doing it? Not a chance in hell
    - iamshs 13y ago
      Oh definitely, it is a challenge to figure out how to gauge readers interests and more importantly to generate constant readership. But getting content by vetting internet forums, and regurgitating stuff is also not a taxing task. Let's see: What is author's contribution in this article? http://www.buzzfeed.com/samir/drug-addict-robs-a-store-and-apologizes-a-decade-later http://www.buzzfeed.com/samir/drug-addict-robs-a-store-and-a... Or this one: http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/diesels-new-ad-campaign-features-a-model-who-is-both-topless http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/diesels-new-ad-campaign-feat... Ha a post contributed by a community member: http://www.buzzfeed.com/emilys123/15-signs-you-did-a-musical-in-high-school-eahu http://www.buzzfeed.com/emilys123/15-signs-you-did-a-musical... Or the cliched magazine cover story: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/23-cringeworthy-magazine-cover-photoshop-fails http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/23-cringeworthy-magaz... Or let's see what is hot on imgur: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/obama-asks-the-hill-to-bomb-syria-as-explained-by-the-hills http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/obama-asks-the-hill-to-... But looks like brain does some research: http://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/15-celebrities-you-never-realized-released-albums http://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/15-celebrities-you-neve...
  - busterarm 13y ago
    > Get your blogger to dilute the content to pander to the most of web so that the virality factor increases, and the author should use "interesting" language. This formula gets you pageviews, and you are on your way to explosive growth. It's a long-established business model that works. Just look at food grain.
- rabino 13y ago
  You say "sponge value" I say "make visible". Content that no one can see has no value as content. Not defending this particular site, I think it's pretty awful. But some content creators should keep a feet on the ground too.
  - chasing 13y ago
    This guy should "keep a feet on the ground" about someone copying his work without his permission, profiting off it, and making it more difficult for him to use his own work down the line? I think he should be litigiously pissed, which he appears to be.
    - rabino 13y ago
      Can we stop talking about every single piece of content like it it were an original Dali? Be happy your amateur photo got viewed by millions of people, go outside and take more photos.
twilightfog 13y ago
As you mention in your article, copyright infringement is not theft. You have a legitimate claim against BuzzFeed, but don't start using the terminology of MPAA/RIAA , unless you want to be hated as much as they are.
- chasing 13y ago
  Eh, I think we understand what "theft" means in this context. It's "theft" more in the "theft of service" or "theft of value" sense: Buzzfeed has taken something that would otherwise cost money to use and has used it without payment ("theft of service"). And has potentially sapped value from it by making it tougher for the author to use as he wants (like in a book -- "theft of value"). "Theft" works, here.
  - westicle 13y ago
    The problem with doing that is it condones language-creep for rhetorical reasons. Theft has a meaning which involves "taking with an intent to deprive the owner of their rightful possession". Sure I understand you when you misuse the word, but that doesn't make it a good thing. My response to this is to say the OP is using extortion to squeeze money out of Buzzfeed with the threat of expensive lawsuits. That makes him sound like a real bastard doesn't it? Because it isn't really extortion, it is a legitimate attempt to settle a legal dispute. My answer is... let's use words as accurately as we can, rather than twisting them to make our point.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  MPAA/RIAA aren't hated for abusing terminology. They're hated for extorting exorbitant payments from people (some of whom don't even own computers, let alone download copyrighted material) by abusing legal process (threatening people with lawsuits that are probably groundless, but which the defendants can't afford to pay a lawyer to defend). I doubt that the author of this article could ever deserve that amount of hatred.
  - benologist 13y ago
    Yeah right. They're hated because they look at the people ripping off their stuff and sites like ThePirateBay profiteering on their content and try to stomp on that sandcastle.
smoyer 13y ago
Well Reverend ... I think your claim has merit but I'd be interested in knowing what denomination ordained you with language like that. I'd recommend you avoid curse-words like that in your court filing and in the event you talk with officials involved in your case.
- lightyrs 13y ago
  Where is it written that a Reverend shall not use such language?
  - vacri 13y ago
    Religious arguments frequently don't work like that. Where is it written, for example, that Catholics must not use condoms?
    - lightyrs 13y ago
      That's pretty much my point.
      - vacri 13y ago
        I think the GP has a fair question - the stereotype of people who label themselves 'Reverend' includes a considered reluctance to use profanity. It's not saying that reverends can't do this if they're 'real', but it is far enough out of the stereotype to ask just what kind of denomination is the author a reverend for? Whether or not it's "written" somewhere doesn't mean that there isn't a stereotype as to how 'holy' men (it's always men...) should behave. Witness the confusion when Westerners got into Indian religions in a big way, then couldn't quite square the way some gurus shagged themselves silly - 'holy' men were 'supposed' to be celibate, if not in actuality, then at least in behaviour. It isn't the done thing to have your Anglican priest bragging about his last shagging session with his wife, for example. Or is the author using 'reverend' as a joke appellation, without seriously being one?
    - bcoates 13y ago
      http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/docume... Section 14, "Unlawful Birth Control Methods"
lightyrs 13y ago
I feel your pain. On the plus side, you take great photos and now I'm aware of your work (I know, I know — doesn't do much to help).
sethbannon 13y ago
From the article: "On Slate Jonah Peretti goes on to say ”would love if every image contained some secret metadata and a way to license that image. But the practical reality is that it is pretty challenging“." Now there's an interesting startup idea.
- benologist 13y ago
  Exploiting other people's content is fundamentally baked into the business models of these guys and their "I-can't-believe-it's-not-plagiarism" cousins.
- minimaxir 13y ago
  It already exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography#Digital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography#Digital Unfortunately, it's easy to thwart. (just transform the image slightly)
  - deletes 13y ago
    I saw i paper a long time ago of a stenography quite resistant to transformations so the basic information was still extractable from the picture. Still i think that a photograph of the monitor would remove it. EDIT: Even a photo filter might not succeed if it did a homogenous effect across the pixels. I have to find that algorithm someday.
    - minimaxir 13y ago
      Knowing BuzzFeed, they would probably just apply a photo filter and call it a day.
  - maurits 13y ago
    Not at all. Enough methods, such as spread spectrum watermarking, survive a multitude of digital deformations and 'analog' attacks like printing and physically deforming. Action from 1.30 and German, but the demo is pretty clear. [1] [1] http://www.3sat.de/mediathek/index.php?display=1&mode=play&obj=11689 http://www.3sat.de/mediathek/index.php?display=1&mode=play&o...
larrys 13y ago
"As the kids grow up I’ve been collection various “Parent Hacks” were I’ve discovered useful ways of doing things, with the aim of one day producing a “10 Neat Things I Learnt While Being A Parent“. Now one of those things has been splashed all over the internet, which kind of devalues the usefulness of the list I was planning." The above is the thing I find most amazing. If you are compiling a list so that you can one day produce "10 neat things I learned" etc. then the last thing you should be doing is putting that info anywhere on the internet. The saying that comes to mind is "possession is 9/10th of the law". By posting it online, multiple small parties will potentially take it, spread it around, and you will never have enough legal resources to police it. Effectively it is gone forever.
- FireBeyond 13y ago
  > The saying that comes to mind is "possession is 9/10th of the law". The saying was never really that - only through bastardization and a gradual veering away. In fact, it was that "possession is nine /points/ of the law".
hartator 13y ago
Am I the only one who think the OP may have overreacted?
- venomsnake 13y ago
  I don't think he overreacted. 1st - the law is obviously on his side. 2nd - he is the little guy in the case which for me matters 3rd - he is not looking at extreme damages but is making a small claim. 4th - it seems to me that he is mostly annoyed for not being credited properly and being just dismissed/made fool of by the company statements. And lets be honest - whatever a person views should be for non commercial infringement (mine are extremely lax) and sampling/transformation (the author should be entitled to part of the earnings, but should not have the ability to stop the work from being created or distributed) if you make money out of someone's IP he is in his right to say Fuck you, pay me! for some part of that amount.
- rabino 13y ago
  No, you're not the only one. I totally get him, but I think the way in he expressed his belief came up as just whiny. Also I believe the problem is with copyright laws and not with BuzzFeed. They are not selling that image, they are just illustrating their content and the same article without his image would have exactly the same value. But beyond all, what pisses me off the most is the blue background on those link, good lord!
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    I have tried reading Cracked articles without the images to save traffic (they pay and attribute every image). It was not the same - the experience was degraded for me. Images do provide lots of value.
    - rabino 13y ago
      They changed the image for other similar to the original. How that changed the value?
      - 13y ago
dmourati 13y ago
This happened to a bunch of flickr photographers and me for a Toyota advertising campaign. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42743425/toyota-and-saatchi-used-images-from-flickr-without-permission/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42743425/toyota-and-s... When Toyota's ad agency Saatchi was confronted about the misuse, they offered a flat fee of $500 (if I recall correctly ) for each photo. Several of the photographers took the deal. A group of around 10 of us hired a lawyer and settled for much more (withholding amount was part of the deal) per infringement.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Wow, $500 is an amazingly insulting offer. Statutory damages for willful infringement are $150,000!
  - sgfc 13y ago
    That is the maximum for the willful infringement of an image that is registered with the copyright office [1] and awards are highly vaiable. [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright... [2] http://www.ipinbrief.com/whyitsdifficultpredictstatutorydamages/ http://www.ipinbrief.com/whyitsdifficultpredictstatutorydama...
    - dmourati 13y ago
      After the infringement was discovered and before the settlement, I did have to register the photo with the US copyright office. It was a simple procedure and I think I paid $35. This was done to establish that I did indeed hold the copyright Toyota and friends infringed.
freework 13y ago
Someone needs to create a new internet where everything that makes it way onto it is automatically Creative Commons "by Attribution". If you can read it, you can use it (as long as you give credit).
- chakalakasp 13y ago
  This would not work, as it would be difficult to impossible to distinguish legit content from content uploaded by liars, thus breaking the trust model you are trying to create. Here, I uploaded the entire Harry Potter series via ebook, it must be Creative Commons; right?
austenallred 13y ago
BuzzFeed bothers me as much as the next person, but how mad can you really be at BuzzFeed for linking back to the wrong page, according to how you see it, that still contains the original picture and is publicly viewable?
- dmazin 13y ago
  Well, that's why the author said it's why they're not _pleased_ with the way it was used - because they linked to it in the manner least beneficial to the creator.
- porsupah 13y ago
  One thought that comes to mind is in the line "So all those 4 million plus views who may click through, will they count as “Views” on my Flickr page? No." Bear that in mind - if this is accurate (and the guy once worked on Flickr), then linking to the download page avoids bumping the photo's view count up, which might indicate to the photographer that the photo's been featured on a highly trafficked page.
  - austenallred 13y ago
    That sounds like a Flickr problem more than a BuzzFeed problem.
- trafficlight 13y ago
  The point is that they linked to the source, which did not specify that it was licensed under Creative Commons, and offered a convenient way to contact the photographer.
- mnutt 13y ago
  It'd be more nitpicky if the image were Creative Commons-licensed in the first place, but it wasn't. Buzzfeed linking back to the original is just pretending like it's CC and attribution is all that is required. (assuming they didn't just make a mistake) Linking to the wrong page sounds like they were probably on that page to download the image, and when they went to get the attribution they just happened to have that tab open. Most likely laziness, not malice.
sengstrom 13y ago
Now in Bulgarian! http://agronet.bg/agro-news/interesni-novini/874-2009-02-09-06-10-58.html http://agronet.bg/agro-news/interesni-novini/874-2009-02-09-... Tineye seems to be out of date, but google image search comes through with a wealth of copies out there.
loceng 13y ago
Good luck.
aidanbrandt 13y ago
This is good to see. Too often the scum at Buzzfeed get away with blatant infringements.
o0-0o 13y ago
Congrats, buzzfeed! You just made my hosts file.
exratione 13y ago
And this is an example of one of the many, many reasons why intellectual property in the age of the leviathan state is a terrible idea, terribly executed. As a practical matter you can't own public, unencrypted arrangements of bits. All attempts to enforce ownership of public, unencrypted arrangements of bits are forms of rent-seeking or forms of begging or, at the pleasant best, forms of politely asking other people to go along with your view of the world for a while.
- mangoman 13y ago
  What? Not everything on the Internet is public domain. Just because I put a photo on the internet that's not encrypted doesn't make it fair game to go sell my photo. Maybe I just didn't understand what you were trying to say...
  - logic 13y ago
    His position, I'm guessing, is that when a good has no natural scarcity (pictures and music in digital form, for example, or compiled code), society should not be creating an artificial scarcity in its stead (ie. compelling others not to reproduce it through force of law). He views the idea of this compelled scarcity to be, basically, rent-seeking behavior codified into law. I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect the "you can't own" portion of his statement was a point of possession and direct control, not necessarily law. exratione, please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your position here at all, and I'll correct my post. (I'm intentionally leaving out my opinion, just trying to clarify yours. :))
    - exratione 13y ago
      Yes, you have the correct interpretation.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        I tend to agree with your point, but apart from the obvious question of paying creators, there is another question: what do we do with scarce, intangible resources, like creators' reputations? Suppose we abolished copyright. Should a creator be able to prevent the WBC from using their creations in a way that might defame the creator, or to promote a cause that is highly offensive to the creator?
tristosam 13y ago
Keep me updated. Really fascinated by your quest to get back the $75 they probably owe you. My god it must be nice to have something like this actually be a problem in your life and make you mad.
- interlopers 13y ago
  * $500 to $5,000
  - hojoff79 13y ago
    This is worth 500 to 5000 in the same way that the Winklevoss twins should own half of facebook
porsupah 13y ago
It doesn't have to be this way, does it? Yes, if BuffPo were to agree some payment for photo or writing reuse, they'd have much greater outgoings. However, they'd also then become legitimate channels for syndication, rather than incidental leeches. I do profess some grim amusement in noticing that serial infringers - the Daily Mail comes prominently to mind - are never punished with anything greater than a nominal fee for whatever work they've lifted. Given these are outfits that are entirely based around profit (rather than simply linking to them in a personal journal, for example, with no money involved), surely the consequences for copyright infringement ought to be amplified, rather than diminished into inconsequentiality? Imagine a BuzzFeed that shared the ad revenue with the creators of the photos involved. It wouldn't lead to anyone's early retirement, I'm sure, but we have the means to make such happen, very easily. Shouldn't such sites be working toward helping creators be rewarded for what fuels those very sites?
chakalakasp 13y ago
In general there are many companies out there who create entire biz models on ripping off photographer's photos and compiling them into lists that sit side saddle to paid ads. I have lots of personal experience with this, and if a photographer registers his or her copyright, such companies are very much liable for compensating the artist. These companies know this. Most photographers don't notice the infringements or if they do haven't registered their images. If more photographers registered, the pool of stolen images would be full of many more legal torpedoes, so to speak, and the companies who are less risk averse would spend the 30 minutes it would take to brainstorm a system for getting images legitimately. (Hint: Cracked.com has accounts with Getty and Corbis. It's not that hard.)
fourstar 13y ago
I'm running into a similar problem with a trademark I hold for my brand (that I created and am developing). People have fast-followed with different (similar) Twitter accounts, but are calling themselves my trademark (thus diluting the brand). The problem is, I reached out to Twitter and they said that these accounts weren't in violation. I spoke to a lawyer who referred me to someone else. Should I pursue it further or just be flattered that they are promoting the name? The problem if I do that is that then everyone thinks it'll be okay, so the trademark is essentially useless. Any ideas? By the way, some of these accounts have > 400k followers where I only about about 5k.
gallerytungsten 13y ago
This guy has a great claim to some payment, anywhere from $500 to $5,000 (or whatever he can settle for). The usage without permission is not in doubt. The case for payment for this type of usage is well-established. The only question is how much. Buzzfeed is in the wrong and they should pay up, pronto.
- Natsu 13y ago
  He mentioned that many of his other photos are CC licensed and this is one of the exceptions. Isn't there any way they could have seen the CC licenses on his other photos and mistaken this photo for one of the CC licensed photo?
Thereasione 13y ago
BuzzFeed is notorious for STEALING content from other websites. Using pictures without permission isn't the only bad thing they are doing. They even copy/paste chunks of text verbatim into lists without attribution (For example "13 Things You Probably Didn't Know About the Movie 'Clueless" is comprised almost solely of sentences copied from the IMDB trivia page for Clueless, with no sign that they are anything but his own words.). Also their lists are rehashed from other blogs. http://gawker.com/5922038/remix-everything-buzzfeed-and-the-plagiarism-problem http://gawker.com/5922038/remix-everything-buzzfeed-and-the-... http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2013/03/buzzfeeds-happiest-facts-all-time-were-mostly-plagiarized-reddit/62918/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2013/03/buzzfeeds-ha... http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/06/_21_pictures_that_will_restore_your_faith_in_humanity_how_buzzfeed_makes_viral_hits_in_four_easy_steps_.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/06/...
hojoff79 13y ago
What was the invoice amount for? You list all those reasons why "it's not worth a lot" is not a good argument...so what are you arguing it is worth? I have to say, your "I was going to use it" argument sounds a lot like "I had that idea first" argument for start ups. In the end, buzz feed can just execute with that photo better, your idea (no offense) was never going to touch 4.2MM views. Definitely not saying you necessarily deserve nothing, but what amount did you put in your invoice? Want to know what you think the value is
mtgentry 13y ago
I asked Jonah about this very thing a year ago. His response was lacking IMO: http://cdixon.org/2012/07/24/buzzfeeds-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-596874688 http://cdixon.org/2012/07/24/buzzfeeds-strategy/comment-page...
nicholassmith 13y ago
As an amateur photographer I've actually been in the same boat, but with an unnamed newspaper in the UK, it's an interesting process. It's also ridiculously common for media companies to use photography without licensing it properly, and whilst I've heard the argument of "don't post it if you don't want it using" it just doesn't work. The world would be a poorer place if creatives felt that they had to sequester their work away to maintain their own rights of control over their product. Plus most of the time if you approach a photographer first you're going to get a much better deal than when you've decided that licensing it properly wasn't important.

236 points by mopoke 13y ago

chasing 13y ago

Good! I find it depressing how sites like that sponge value off of actual content creators.

iamshs 13y ago
It is very interesting business idea. No original research/thought/idea/journalism of their own. Scout common websites (reddit on top), find tidbits, use other people's work (their idea, photos etc.) and post lists. Get your blogger to dilute the content to pander to the most of web so that the virality factor increases, and the author should use "interesting" language. This formula gets you pageviews, and you are on your way to explosive growth.
- sharkweek 13y ago
  OK let me start by saying... I really despise buzzfeed -- I think it's a waste of space on the web and notorious for stealing content and just re-flavoring it. I have created a little self-righteous boycott of the site where I refuse to click on anything from their domain. A man has got to have a code... HOWEVER -- I think it would be REALLY fun to write for them -- I think the challenge of trying to figure out what's hot on the internet and what has people's attention and then trying to get as much traffic as possible would be a ridiculously fun daily challenge. Would I ever actually consider doing it? Not a chance in hell
  - iamshs 13y ago
    Oh definitely, it is a challenge to figure out how to gauge readers interests and more importantly to generate constant readership. But getting content by vetting internet forums, and regurgitating stuff is also not a taxing task. Let's see: What is author's contribution in this article? http://www.buzzfeed.com/samir/drug-addict-robs-a-store-and-apologizes-a-decade-later http://www.buzzfeed.com/samir/drug-addict-robs-a-store-and-a... Or this one: http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/diesels-new-ad-campaign-features-a-model-who-is-both-topless http://www.buzzfeed.com/regajha/diesels-new-ad-campaign-feat... Ha a post contributed by a community member: http://www.buzzfeed.com/emilys123/15-signs-you-did-a-musical-in-high-school-eahu http://www.buzzfeed.com/emilys123/15-signs-you-did-a-musical... Or the cliched magazine cover story: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/23-cringeworthy-magazine-cover-photoshop-fails http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/23-cringeworthy-magaz... Or let's see what is hot on imgur: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/obama-asks-the-hill-to-bomb-syria-as-explained-by-the-hills http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/obama-asks-the-hill-to-... But looks like brain does some research: http://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/15-celebrities-you-never-realized-released-albums http://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/15-celebrities-you-neve...
- busterarm 13y ago
  > Get your blogger to dilute the content to pander to the most of web so that the virality factor increases, and the author should use "interesting" language. This formula gets you pageviews, and you are on your way to explosive growth. It's a long-established business model that works. Just look at food grain.
rabino 13y ago
You say "sponge value" I say "make visible". Content that no one can see has no value as content. Not defending this particular site, I think it's pretty awful. But some content creators should keep a feet on the ground too.
- chasing 13y ago
  This guy should "keep a feet on the ground" about someone copying his work without his permission, profiting off it, and making it more difficult for him to use his own work down the line? I think he should be litigiously pissed, which he appears to be.
  - rabino 13y ago
    Can we stop talking about every single piece of content like it it were an original Dali? Be happy your amateur photo got viewed by millions of people, go outside and take more photos.

twilightfog 13y ago

As you mention in your article, copyright infringement is not theft. You have a legitimate claim against BuzzFeed, but don't start using the terminology of MPAA/RIAA , unless you want to be hated as much as they are.

chasing 13y ago
Eh, I think we understand what "theft" means in this context. It's "theft" more in the "theft of service" or "theft of value" sense: Buzzfeed has taken something that would otherwise cost money to use and has used it without payment ("theft of service"). And has potentially sapped value from it by making it tougher for the author to use as he wants (like in a book -- "theft of value"). "Theft" works, here.
- westicle 13y ago
  The problem with doing that is it condones language-creep for rhetorical reasons. Theft has a meaning which involves "taking with an intent to deprive the owner of their rightful possession". Sure I understand you when you misuse the word, but that doesn't make it a good thing. My response to this is to say the OP is using extortion to squeeze money out of Buzzfeed with the threat of expensive lawsuits. That makes him sound like a real bastard doesn't it? Because it isn't really extortion, it is a legitimate attempt to settle a legal dispute. My answer is... let's use words as accurately as we can, rather than twisting them to make our point.
greenyoda 13y ago
MPAA/RIAA aren't hated for abusing terminology. They're hated for extorting exorbitant payments from people (some of whom don't even own computers, let alone download copyrighted material) by abusing legal process (threatening people with lawsuits that are probably groundless, but which the defendants can't afford to pay a lawyer to defend). I doubt that the author of this article could ever deserve that amount of hatred.
- benologist 13y ago
  Yeah right. They're hated because they look at the people ripping off their stuff and sites like ThePirateBay profiteering on their content and try to stomp on that sandcastle.

smoyer 13y ago

Well Reverend ... I think your claim has merit but I'd be interested in knowing what denomination ordained you with language like that. I'd recommend you avoid curse-words like that in your court filing and in the event you talk with officials involved in your case.

lightyrs 13y ago
Where is it written that a Reverend shall not use such language?
- vacri 13y ago
  Religious arguments frequently don't work like that. Where is it written, for example, that Catholics must not use condoms?
  - lightyrs 13y ago
    That's pretty much my point.
    - vacri 13y ago
      I think the GP has a fair question - the stereotype of people who label themselves 'Reverend' includes a considered reluctance to use profanity. It's not saying that reverends can't do this if they're 'real', but it is far enough out of the stereotype to ask just what kind of denomination is the author a reverend for? Whether or not it's "written" somewhere doesn't mean that there isn't a stereotype as to how 'holy' men (it's always men...) should behave. Witness the confusion when Westerners got into Indian religions in a big way, then couldn't quite square the way some gurus shagged themselves silly - 'holy' men were 'supposed' to be celibate, if not in actuality, then at least in behaviour. It isn't the done thing to have your Anglican priest bragging about his last shagging session with his wife, for example. Or is the author using 'reverend' as a joke appellation, without seriously being one?
  - bcoates 13y ago
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/docume... Section 14, "Unlawful Birth Control Methods"

lightyrs 13y ago

I feel your pain. On the plus side, you take great photos and now I'm aware of your work (I know, I know — doesn't do much to help).

sethbannon 13y ago

From the article: "On Slate Jonah Peretti goes on to say ”would love if every image contained some secret metadata and a way to license that image. But the practical reality is that it is pretty challenging“." Now there's an interesting startup idea.

benologist 13y ago
Exploiting other people's content is fundamentally baked into the business models of these guys and their "I-can't-believe-it's-not-plagiarism" cousins.
minimaxir 13y ago
It already exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography#Digital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography#Digital Unfortunately, it's easy to thwart. (just transform the image slightly)
- deletes 13y ago
  I saw i paper a long time ago of a stenography quite resistant to transformations so the basic information was still extractable from the picture. Still i think that a photograph of the monitor would remove it. EDIT: Even a photo filter might not succeed if it did a homogenous effect across the pixels. I have to find that algorithm someday.
  - minimaxir 13y ago
    Knowing BuzzFeed, they would probably just apply a photo filter and call it a day.
- maurits 13y ago
  Not at all. Enough methods, such as spread spectrum watermarking, survive a multitude of digital deformations and 'analog' attacks like printing and physically deforming. Action from 1.30 and German, but the demo is pretty clear. [1] [1] http://www.3sat.de/mediathek/index.php?display=1&mode=play&obj=11689 http://www.3sat.de/mediathek/index.php?display=1&mode=play&o...

larrys 13y ago

"As the kids grow up I’ve been collection various “Parent Hacks” were I’ve discovered useful ways of doing things, with the aim of one day producing a “10 Neat Things I Learnt While Being A Parent“. Now one of those things has been splashed all over the internet, which kind of devalues the usefulness of the list I was planning." The above is the thing I find most amazing. If you are compiling a list so that you can one day produce "10 neat things I learned" etc. then the last thing you should be doing is putting that info anywhere on the internet. The saying that comes to mind is "possession is 9/10th of the law". By posting it online, multiple small parties will potentially take it, spread it around, and you will never have enough legal resources to police it. Effectively it is gone forever.

FireBeyond 13y ago
> The saying that comes to mind is "possession is 9/10th of the law". The saying was never really that - only through bastardization and a gradual veering away. In fact, it was that "possession is nine /points/ of the law".

hartator 13y ago

Am I the only one who think the OP may have overreacted?

venomsnake 13y ago
I don't think he overreacted. 1st - the law is obviously on his side. 2nd - he is the little guy in the case which for me matters 3rd - he is not looking at extreme damages but is making a small claim. 4th - it seems to me that he is mostly annoyed for not being credited properly and being just dismissed/made fool of by the company statements. And lets be honest - whatever a person views should be for non commercial infringement (mine are extremely lax) and sampling/transformation (the author should be entitled to part of the earnings, but should not have the ability to stop the work from being created or distributed) if you make money out of someone's IP he is in his right to say Fuck you, pay me! for some part of that amount.
rabino 13y ago
No, you're not the only one. I totally get him, but I think the way in he expressed his belief came up as just whiny. Also I believe the problem is with copyright laws and not with BuzzFeed. They are not selling that image, they are just illustrating their content and the same article without his image would have exactly the same value. But beyond all, what pisses me off the most is the blue background on those link, good lord!
- venomsnake 13y ago
  I have tried reading Cracked articles without the images to save traffic (they pay and attribute every image). It was not the same - the experience was degraded for me. Images do provide lots of value.
  - rabino 13y ago
    They changed the image for other similar to the original. How that changed the value?
    - 13y ago

dmourati 13y ago

This happened to a bunch of flickr photographers and me for a Toyota advertising campaign. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42743425/toyota-and-saatchi-used-images-from-flickr-without-permission/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42743425/toyota-and-s... When Toyota's ad agency Saatchi was confronted about the misuse, they offered a flat fee of $500 (if I recall correctly ) for each photo. Several of the photographers took the deal. A group of around 10 of us hired a lawyer and settled for much more (withholding amount was part of the deal) per infringement.

mikeash 13y ago
Wow, $500 is an amazingly insulting offer. Statutory damages for willful infringement are $150,000!
- sgfc 13y ago
  That is the maximum for the willful infringement of an image that is registered with the copyright office [1] and awards are highly vaiable. [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright... [2] http://www.ipinbrief.com/whyitsdifficultpredictstatutorydamages/ http://www.ipinbrief.com/whyitsdifficultpredictstatutorydama...
  - dmourati 13y ago
    After the infringement was discovered and before the settlement, I did have to register the photo with the US copyright office. It was a simple procedure and I think I paid $35. This was done to establish that I did indeed hold the copyright Toyota and friends infringed.

freework 13y ago

Someone needs to create a new internet where everything that makes it way onto it is automatically Creative Commons "by Attribution". If you can read it, you can use it (as long as you give credit).

chakalakasp 13y ago
This would not work, as it would be difficult to impossible to distinguish legit content from content uploaded by liars, thus breaking the trust model you are trying to create. Here, I uploaded the entire Harry Potter series via ebook, it must be Creative Commons; right?

austenallred 13y ago

BuzzFeed bothers me as much as the next person, but how mad can you really be at BuzzFeed for linking back to the wrong page, according to how you see it, that still contains the original picture and is publicly viewable?

dmazin 13y ago
Well, that's why the author said it's why they're not _pleased_ with the way it was used - because they linked to it in the manner least beneficial to the creator.
porsupah 13y ago
One thought that comes to mind is in the line "So all those 4 million plus views who may click through, will they count as “Views” on my Flickr page? No." Bear that in mind - if this is accurate (and the guy once worked on Flickr), then linking to the download page avoids bumping the photo's view count up, which might indicate to the photographer that the photo's been featured on a highly trafficked page.
- austenallred 13y ago
  That sounds like a Flickr problem more than a BuzzFeed problem.
trafficlight 13y ago
The point is that they linked to the source, which did not specify that it was licensed under Creative Commons, and offered a convenient way to contact the photographer.
mnutt 13y ago
It'd be more nitpicky if the image were Creative Commons-licensed in the first place, but it wasn't. Buzzfeed linking back to the original is just pretending like it's CC and attribution is all that is required. (assuming they didn't just make a mistake) Linking to the wrong page sounds like they were probably on that page to download the image, and when they went to get the attribution they just happened to have that tab open. Most likely laziness, not malice.

sengstrom 13y ago

Now in Bulgarian! http://agronet.bg/agro-news/interesni-novini/874-2009-02-09-06-10-58.html http://agronet.bg/agro-news/interesni-novini/874-2009-02-09-... Tineye seems to be out of date, but google image search comes through with a wealth of copies out there.

loceng 13y ago

Good luck.

aidanbrandt 13y ago

This is good to see. Too often the scum at Buzzfeed get away with blatant infringements.

o0-0o 13y ago

Congrats, buzzfeed! You just made my hosts file.

exratione 13y ago

And this is an example of one of the many, many reasons why intellectual property in the age of the leviathan state is a terrible idea, terribly executed. As a practical matter you can't own public, unencrypted arrangements of bits. All attempts to enforce ownership of public, unencrypted arrangements of bits are forms of rent-seeking or forms of begging or, at the pleasant best, forms of politely asking other people to go along with your view of the world for a while.

mangoman 13y ago
What? Not everything on the Internet is public domain. Just because I put a photo on the internet that's not encrypted doesn't make it fair game to go sell my photo. Maybe I just didn't understand what you were trying to say...
- logic 13y ago
  His position, I'm guessing, is that when a good has no natural scarcity (pictures and music in digital form, for example, or compiled code), society should not be creating an artificial scarcity in its stead (ie. compelling others not to reproduce it through force of law). He views the idea of this compelled scarcity to be, basically, rent-seeking behavior codified into law. I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect the "you can't own" portion of his statement was a point of possession and direct control, not necessarily law. exratione, please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your position here at all, and I'll correct my post. (I'm intentionally leaving out my opinion, just trying to clarify yours. :))
  - exratione 13y ago
    Yes, you have the correct interpretation.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      I tend to agree with your point, but apart from the obvious question of paying creators, there is another question: what do we do with scarce, intangible resources, like creators' reputations? Suppose we abolished copyright. Should a creator be able to prevent the WBC from using their creations in a way that might defame the creator, or to promote a cause that is highly offensive to the creator?

tristosam 13y ago

Keep me updated. Really fascinated by your quest to get back the $75 they probably owe you. My god it must be nice to have something like this actually be a problem in your life and make you mad.

interlopers 13y ago
* $500 to $5,000
- hojoff79 13y ago
  This is worth 500 to 5000 in the same way that the Winklevoss twins should own half of facebook

porsupah 13y ago

It doesn't have to be this way, does it? Yes, if BuffPo were to agree some payment for photo or writing reuse, they'd have much greater outgoings. However, they'd also then become legitimate channels for syndication, rather than incidental leeches. I do profess some grim amusement in noticing that serial infringers - the Daily Mail comes prominently to mind - are never punished with anything greater than a nominal fee for whatever work they've lifted. Given these are outfits that are entirely based around profit (rather than simply linking to them in a personal journal, for example, with no money involved), surely the consequences for copyright infringement ought to be amplified, rather than diminished into inconsequentiality? Imagine a BuzzFeed that shared the ad revenue with the creators of the photos involved. It wouldn't lead to anyone's early retirement, I'm sure, but we have the means to make such happen, very easily. Shouldn't such sites be working toward helping creators be rewarded for what fuels those very sites?

chakalakasp 13y ago

In general there are many companies out there who create entire biz models on ripping off photographer's photos and compiling them into lists that sit side saddle to paid ads. I have lots of personal experience with this, and if a photographer registers his or her copyright, such companies are very much liable for compensating the artist. These companies know this. Most photographers don't notice the infringements or if they do haven't registered their images. If more photographers registered, the pool of stolen images would be full of many more legal torpedoes, so to speak, and the companies who are less risk averse would spend the 30 minutes it would take to brainstorm a system for getting images legitimately. (Hint: Cracked.com has accounts with Getty and Corbis. It's not that hard.)

fourstar 13y ago

I'm running into a similar problem with a trademark I hold for my brand (that I created and am developing). People have fast-followed with different (similar) Twitter accounts, but are calling themselves my trademark (thus diluting the brand). The problem is, I reached out to Twitter and they said that these accounts weren't in violation. I spoke to a lawyer who referred me to someone else. Should I pursue it further or just be flattered that they are promoting the name? The problem if I do that is that then everyone thinks it'll be okay, so the trademark is essentially useless. Any ideas? By the way, some of these accounts have > 400k followers where I only about about 5k.

gallerytungsten 13y ago

This guy has a great claim to some payment, anywhere from $500 to $5,000 (or whatever he can settle for). The usage without permission is not in doubt. The case for payment for this type of usage is well-established. The only question is how much. Buzzfeed is in the wrong and they should pay up, pronto.

Natsu 13y ago
He mentioned that many of his other photos are CC licensed and this is one of the exceptions. Isn't there any way they could have seen the CC licenses on his other photos and mistaken this photo for one of the CC licensed photo?

Thereasione 13y ago

BuzzFeed is notorious for STEALING content from other websites. Using pictures without permission isn't the only bad thing they are doing. They even copy/paste chunks of text verbatim into lists without attribution (For example "13 Things You Probably Didn't Know About the Movie 'Clueless" is comprised almost solely of sentences copied from the IMDB trivia page for Clueless, with no sign that they are anything but his own words.). Also their lists are rehashed from other blogs. http://gawker.com/5922038/remix-everything-buzzfeed-and-the-plagiarism-problem http://gawker.com/5922038/remix-everything-buzzfeed-and-the-... http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2013/03/buzzfeeds-happiest-facts-all-time-were-mostly-plagiarized-reddit/62918/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2013/03/buzzfeeds-ha... http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/06/_21_pictures_that_will_restore_your_faith_in_humanity_how_buzzfeed_makes_viral_hits_in_four_easy_steps_.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/06/...

hojoff79 13y ago

What was the invoice amount for? You list all those reasons why "it's not worth a lot" is not a good argument...so what are you arguing it is worth? I have to say, your "I was going to use it" argument sounds a lot like "I had that idea first" argument for start ups. In the end, buzz feed can just execute with that photo better, your idea (no offense) was never going to touch 4.2MM views. Definitely not saying you necessarily deserve nothing, but what amount did you put in your invoice? Want to know what you think the value is

mtgentry 13y ago

I asked Jonah about this very thing a year ago. His response was lacking IMO: http://cdixon.org/2012/07/24/buzzfeeds-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-596874688 http://cdixon.org/2012/07/24/buzzfeeds-strategy/comment-page...

nicholassmith 13y ago

As an amateur photographer I've actually been in the same boat, but with an unnamed newspaper in the UK, it's an interesting process. It's also ridiculously common for media companies to use photography without licensing it properly, and whilst I've heard the argument of "don't post it if you don't want it using" it just doesn't work. The world would be a poorer place if creatives felt that they had to sequester their work away to maintain their own rights of control over their product. Plus most of the time if you approach a photographer first you're going to get a much better deal than when you've decided that licensing it properly wasn't important.