At least one well-meaning but misinformed Random Pixels reader left a comment on yesterday's post that concerns my dust-up with the Miami Herald over the posting on my blog of a couple of low res photos from a Herald slide show."Want to write a blog? Shoot your own pics. Write your own stories. Or link back to the herald instead of copying.""Matt" apparently doesn't read that well.
If he had looked at the post in question carefully he would have seen that I posted two Herald photos - from a 42 picture slide show - along with my own commentary. That's called fair use.
I also included a link to the Herald's slide show page.
What "Matt" doesn't understand - and Herald executives and lawyers choose to ignore - is the fact that those links drive traffic to the Herald's site.
Below is a screen shot of the exit link activity for this blog. The log shows that 20 readers clicked on the link for the Herald photo galleries.
The exit link drill down page (not shown) shows that the activity was over the past three days.
Not a lot.
But those 20 pairs of eyeballs my blog directed to this page on the Herald's web site also saw several ads in addition to the slide shows.
Instead of harassing me, the Herald should thank me. A maybe send a nice check?
Kinda makes you wonder if anyone in charge at One Herald Plaza has any idea what this Internet thingy all about and how it works.
Bill: it's not about the traffic, it's not about the use of photos...it's about making sure you know who is the boss.
ReplyDelete.
So sad, but true!
ReplyDeleteThis is a point that I've made, as well.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder newspapers are going out of business.
I think it's pretty telling what part of my comment you didn't quote in your follow-up post:
ReplyDelete"It's simple to be ethical, really."
Here you are, stealing/repurposing Herald photos — shot by photographers the Herald pays — while at the same time, urging people to complain/drop their subscriptions to the Herald in a recent post.
Amazing. Truly amazing. Classy guy.
Sorry, Bill: no matter how much you tell yourself that you're an innocent victim here, that it's you against the big mean paper, you're in the wrong.
And I assume you stole that tragic "graphic" of the red arrow flying out of the laptop too, right?
— Matt (That's really my name; no need for quote marks)
Hey, Anon-
ReplyDeleteBill rightly ignored you: you have nothing worthwhile to say. You've conveniently ignored the facts so you can anonymously spew lies without any accountability whatsoever. Coward.
The fact is, you gutless simpering sleaze, that Bill didn't steal anything. His use of the material is legal under the Fair Use doctrine of copyright law. But it's too much to expect honest discourse from someone too cowardly to even create a pseudonym to comment with.
Anon, you have no moral highground to preach from. Go crawl back under your rock.
Hey Matt
ReplyDeleteYou're gone buddy!
Identify yourself or get lost.
Banned from Random Pixels?!? The most self-important blog this side of Perez! Oh no, whatever will I do?
ReplyDeleteJust as I figured: you can't answer the question, so you deflect. Feel free to email a personal reply, since you're too afraid to do it here: indianaexile@gmail.com.
BTW, Do you censor all the "anon" posts here in your little blog kingdom, or just the ones the you disagree with?
—Matt
Dude;
ReplyDeleteYou stole content. It's not about "driving traffic." You stole somebody else's work. I know it's Net norm. But bloggers may be facing a reckoning on your "borrowing." Will you be the test case?
Reality check: he posted 2 fully attributed photos that were part of a larger slideshow, which he linked. The story was about the quality of the work of the two fully attributed photographers.
ReplyDeleteThat very clearly makes this "fair use."
For this to be construed as theft, Bill would need to make it look like the photos were his. Which he didn't do, therefore it can't be construed as theft.
Get a clue, Anon 12:27.