I had done a post about the ADN letter to another blogger to take down a picture he'd gotten from their website and I'd supported the ADN's decision. But I also pointed out that the ADN had used blogger photos without permission in the newspaper and newsreader. While I favor general openness, I accepted what some people argue - that a photo is a complete work and so using the whole photo wasn't the same as taking a brief excerpt of text. The rules are evolving here and part of me is for sharing everything as long as there is proper credit and links. But when some people take other people's work stuff for profit, that isn't acceptable to me.
I wrote again about my own personal evolving guidelines for blogging two weeks ago and talked about photo policy there too. (There's another one where I talked about photo policy on pictures of kids.)
So, when the ADN had my photo of Smith up I emailed Mark Dent, who runs the ADN Newsreader, with copies to other higher ups at the ADN including publisher Pat Dougherty. I felt a little bad ratting on Mark like that without giving him a chance to make a correction first, but this was an issue bigger than him, and they needed to know their paper wasn't following the policy they insist bloggers follow.
I got an immediate reply from Dougherty apologizing, something about policy and actual practice needing to get in sync, and that the photo would be down before I got the email. Well, it wasn't. And it wasn't down later either. Mark sent an apology too saying he would take it down and there was some reference to fair use and 'icon-sized' photos. I asked him whether he was saying people could use 'icon-sized' photos of ADN pictures and he referred me up to the policy makers. I didn't follow up on it then, but last week when I checked out a sitemeter link from the ADN newsreader I found that the picture was still up and sent another email to the ADN.
I don't post the contents of private emails to me without the permission of the emailer, so I sent another email to Pat to ask if I could post his response and he wrote that was fine with him.
So, here's what I asked:
So, Pat, is the ADN policy now that it is ok to post 'icon size photos' even if they are copyrighted and you don't have permission? If so, I assume that means that isAnd he responded:t[w]hat bloggers can do with ADN photos. Please clarify.
That's correct. I realize "icon-sized photo" is a term of art, without a precise definition. The intention is simply to provide our readers with the visual information that a photo is available by following the link provided. We try to do that with small versions of the photo that don't supplant the experience of viewing the photo in its full published form.
We are assured that's an appropriate fair use.
It's worth noting that the point of the Newsreader is to make it easy for readers to find content -- text or photos -- on sites other than our own. I have no issue with someone else doing the same with our material. [emphasis added]
"Supplant the experience of viewing a photo in its full published form" is definitely a term of art too. Thumbnail is a tiny picture that I interpret as smaller than what the ADN has published on the newsreader. Icon sized is what you see when you use Google image. Another aspect here is how big the photo file is. The basic question is, if the viewer clicks on the photo will it show up the same size or be much bigger. Originally, my photo of Smith could be enlarged on the ADN site, but they eventually changed that. [Now I can't even find the post anymore.] In fact it looks like they really are using smaller photos on the newsreader now, though most can be enlarged because, presumably, the ADN has copyright permission since they mostly are from AP or other Alaska newspapers.
I would note that when I googled - "icon-sized photo" fair use - I got this:
However, if you look up thumbnail sized photo and fair use, you get a lot of hits.Wikipedia tells us this interpretation of the Fair Use Doctrine comes from
Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation (280 F.3d 934 (CA9 2002) withdrawn, re-filed at 336 F.3d 811(CA9 2003)) is a U.S. court case between a commercial photographer and a search engine company. During the case ownership of Arriba Soft changed to Sorceron, the operator of the Internet search engine Ditto.com. The court found that US search engines may use thumbnails of images (size limits not determined), though the issue of inline linking to full size images instead of going to the original site was not resolved.Clearly a thumbnail of an image that someone searches for on a website or search engine is a different animal than the pictures at the ADN Newsreader. The Newsreader is more an extension of the ADN's news service, though Dougherty does phrase his reply to give it the search engine spin. But I'm not going to hire a lawyer over that. And the pictures the ADN is using now are getting pretty close to the size of the icons of pictures Google uses in Google image search results.
But Pat's email does say that the ADN photos can be used by bloggers without asking permission IF they are "icon-sized." Or better yet, thumbnail sized.
"But Pat's email does say that the ADN photos can be used by bloggers without asking permission IF they are "icon-sized." Or better yet, thumbnail sized."
ReplyDeleteI had to laugh when I clicked on the thumb-nail photo of the thumb nail: it was gigantic!
Whose thumb *was that!?
ADN ripped my pictures off and then lied to me about removing them also. You're not alone.
ReplyDeleteWell, for one, aren't most photos contained in a blog or in any computer format 'icon-sized'??? I think that's not a clear way to define this (obviously). Most photos in a blog and/or on a computer screen are going to be 'icon-sized'. Please.
ReplyDeleteThink about the wonderful nature photos you take, or anything else for that matter... cultural events, etc. Those are all your property... intellectual, photographic, etc.
If you posted a photo someone else took, wouldn't you give them credit? I believe you do.
I think you have demonstrated sufficiently, from the history of your blogging, of which photographs are in integral part, that everything contained in your blog is your property. Don't let the ADN get a free ride on this. They need to fix this pronto and issue an apology. Otherwise, you know a lawyer, or two... right??
:_)
cs
Julie, you're right, it was huge. That was from the lowest quality setting coming out of photoshop. Sometimes it's good to have a photo that can be enlarged so people can read it, but it uses a lot of space and takes longer to download the page. It's more manageable now. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteDennis, yes, I know, and you're problems are mentioned in the linked post. But, knowing motives isn't easy. I'm inclined to believe that the communication between the policy makers and the people who actually do the work isn't all that good. And especially in your case there is much more reason for them to use your photos than for you to use theirs. But now Phil and others who might want to use an ADN photo can do so if they keep it thumbnail. But they didn't tell Phil or others that when they told them to take the pictures down.
Steve, years ago I had the chance to hear a conference presentation with a number of intellectual property heavy weights. It's then I learned about Stanford's fledgling effort called "Creative Commons"
ReplyDeleteIt's really important everyone knows about it. It's an alternative and legal method, internationally, to publish or protect IP rights. It gives options that simple copyright doesn't and it needs to be considered in this environment as well.
Check it out and see if you think it's worth a post or two. I think you will.
Jay
Ah, the conumdrums of cyberspace!
ReplyDeleteThere have been a few times in the past when the Daily News used my images to link to my site through their newsreader and, while technically, no one had sought my permission, I was delighted as it would lead new readers to the site.
I have wanted to blog for years, since blogging first showed up on the scene, but I held back until just last year because I was so afraid that folks out there would steal my photos right out of cyberspace.
Then, finally, I decided that the whole world of photojournalism as I had known it was disintegrating, yet reconstituting itself online.
So, not knowing what would come of it, even as I knew my photos would get "stolen" I decided to jump online and start blogging without any idea what I was doing or where it would lead.
And sure enough, I see photos that I have put on my blog pop up in many places, from facebook to the ADN. And I just accept it as being how it is in the new world.
Now, if I should come across someone truly putting my photo to ill and unauthorized use, or using it in such a way as to reap in profits from it, that will be another matter and I will have to take legal action.
But the Daily News, using one of my photos to call attention to my blog?
I wish it could happen every day!
http://wasillaalaskaby300.squarespace.com/