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.
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.
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.
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.
I could not possibly disagree with that viewpoint more. I'm just going to paste my favorite statement from the internet loved Judge Posner.
"A distinguishing characteristic of intellectual property is its "public good" aspect. While the cost of creating a work subject to copyright protection—for example, a book, movie, song, ballet, lithograph, map, business directory, or computer software program—is often high, the cost of reproducing the work, whether by the creator or by those to whom he has made it available, is often low. And once copies are available to others, it is often inexpensive for these users to make additional copies. If the copies made by the creator of the work are priced at or close to marginal cost, others may be discouraged from making copies, but the creator’s total revenues may not be sufficient to cover the cost of creating the work. Copyright protection—the right of the copyright’s owner to prevent others from making copies—trades off the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work in the first place. Striking the correct balance between access and incentives is the central problem in copyright law. For copyright law to promote economic efficiency, its principal legal doctrines must, at least approximately, maximize the benefits from creating additional works minus both the losses from limiting access and the costs of administering copyright protection."
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...
To put your "arrangement of bits" trivialization into a more realistic perspective: A 3x2 true color bitmap with just 6 pixels requires 144 bits to store. There are thus 2^144 such possible images.
Lets pretend that every computer connected to the internet today starts randomly generating images. Lets optimistically say they can generate 1 million per second each, and optimistically assume there are 3 billion such computers. For any particular image as described above, these computers have an expected time to generate the image of around 2^24 years. That's almost the age of the universe so far. Increase the image size to 3x3 and those computers will effectively never generate the image (expected time something like 2^75 times the age of the universe).
Those bits in an image aren't arbitrary. Do not trivialize the importance of digital content by equating a picture to an "arrangement of bits." Even a seemingly very small arrangement of bits is extremely special.
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.
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“."
Digimarc did this years ago but the problem has always been enforcement, not detection. As noted in the article, BuzzFeed knew where the image came from and could have figured out a way to license it pretty easily- but they didn't want to.
"I'd love it if it remained 'pretty challenging' to identify who owned what on the web, because our whole business model would crater if we had to pay for the content we rip off."
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.
Until I take a screenshot of the image and then use that. Printers create a light band of yellow on every print that helps identify the printer it came from (counterfeiting with a store bought printer is stupid), maybe something along those lines would work?
It would be just as doomed as any other DRM scheme. You can't stop anyone from copying an image, removing any metadata that might be there, or even if they're clever, from cloning out a watermark.
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.
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.
No reasonable person is going to hate him for using ordinary colloquial English. In ordinary English, we can "steal" many things besides tangible property.
If your friend convinces your girlfriend to leave you for him, it is common to say he "stole" her from you.
A sports team that wins from behind at the last minute against a supposedly better team is often said to have "stolen" the game.
If a restaurant owner paid a waiter at another restaurant to spy on the kitchen to figure out a sauce recipe, and then put that sauce on his menu, many would say the recipe was "stolen" [1].
Falling in love is often described as having your heart "stolen".
If someone bugs your office and hears you practicing your pitch for a startup incubator, and then they apply and pitch your idea before you, using the points from your pitch, most would say he "stole" your idea and your pitch.
[1] This may not be such a good example, because the recipe could be a trade secret, and "theft" might then be legally correct usage instead of just colloquial usage since misappropriating trade secrets is actually called "theft of trade secrets" in some jurisdictions. For instance, see 18 USC 1832, "Theft of Trade Secrets" [2].
It's theft of money. You do something that incurs a debt, but instead of paying that debt you simply keep the money in you pocket - money which is, by right, no longer yours. It's like bouncing a check. Generally speaking, that's chalked up as theft.
By focusing on the infinitely reproducible media (which cannot, strictly speaking, be stolen) the RIAA/MPAA made themselves look like idiots. But just because they failed to correctly identify what was being stolen does not mean that no theft was taking place. Focus on the money not changing hands (which obviously can't be duplicated) and the picture becomes a lot clearer.
Edit: Downvotes? I guess the truth stings, especially when the logic is airtight.
Isn't that a little extreme? Don't see how a person protecting the claims on the photo of his/her own child that is being exploited for commercial gain by someone not authorized by the creator to do so is even in the same context as MPAA/RIAA stuff...
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").
"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.
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.
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!
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?
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
[+] [-] dmourati|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chasing|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iamshs|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rabino|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exratione|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] forrestthewoods|12 years ago|reply
"A distinguishing characteristic of intellectual property is its "public good" aspect. While the cost of creating a work subject to copyright protection—for example, a book, movie, song, ballet, lithograph, map, business directory, or computer software program—is often high, the cost of reproducing the work, whether by the creator or by those to whom he has made it available, is often low. And once copies are available to others, it is often inexpensive for these users to make additional copies. If the copies made by the creator of the work are priced at or close to marginal cost, others may be discouraged from making copies, but the creator’s total revenues may not be sufficient to cover the cost of creating the work. Copyright protection—the right of the copyright’s owner to prevent others from making copies—trades off the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work in the first place. Striking the correct balance between access and incentives is the central problem in copyright law. For copyright law to promote economic efficiency, its principal legal doctrines must, at least approximately, maximize the benefits from creating additional works minus both the losses from limiting access and the costs of administering copyright protection."
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html
[+] [-] mangoman|12 years ago|reply
Maybe I just didn't understand what you were trying to say...
[+] [-] mgraczyk|12 years ago|reply
Lets pretend that every computer connected to the internet today starts randomly generating images. Lets optimistically say they can generate 1 million per second each, and optimistically assume there are 3 billion such computers. For any particular image as described above, these computers have an expected time to generate the image of around 2^24 years. That's almost the age of the universe so far. Increase the image size to 3x3 and those computers will effectively never generate the image (expected time something like 2^75 times the age of the universe).
Those bits in an image aren't arbitrary. Do not trivialize the importance of digital content by equating a picture to an "arrangement of bits." Even a seemingly very small arrangement of bits is extremely special.
[+] [-] Thereasione|12 years ago|reply
http://gawker.com/5922038/remix-everything-buzzfeed-and-the-...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2013/03/buzzfeeds-ha...
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/06/...
[+] [-] sethbannon|12 years ago|reply
Now there's an interesting startup idea.
[+] [-] evan_|12 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digimarc
[+] [-] chasing|12 years ago|reply
"I'd love it if it remained 'pretty challenging' to identify who owned what on the web, because our whole business model would crater if we had to pay for the content we rip off."
[+] [-] benologist|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|12 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, it's easy to thwart. (just transform the image slightly)
[+] [-] joshwa|12 years ago|reply
http://www.useplus.com/aboutplus/system.asp
https://www.plusregistry.org/
Though I can't say it's gained much traction.
[+] [-] ajays|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acdha|12 years ago|reply
http://www.photometadata.org/meta-resources-field-guide-to-m...
The problem is that the people you most want to follow this are the least likely to check IPTC metadata first.
[+] [-] chrismarlow9|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krapp|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lyndonh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NelsonMinar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rorrr2|12 years ago|reply
I agree, it could be a startup.
[+] [-] twilightfog|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greenyoda|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|12 years ago|reply
If your friend convinces your girlfriend to leave you for him, it is common to say he "stole" her from you.
A sports team that wins from behind at the last minute against a supposedly better team is often said to have "stolen" the game.
If a restaurant owner paid a waiter at another restaurant to spy on the kitchen to figure out a sauce recipe, and then put that sauce on his menu, many would say the recipe was "stolen" [1].
Falling in love is often described as having your heart "stolen".
If someone bugs your office and hears you practicing your pitch for a startup incubator, and then they apply and pitch your idea before you, using the points from your pitch, most would say he "stole" your idea and your pitch.
[1] This may not be such a good example, because the recipe could be a trade secret, and "theft" might then be legally correct usage instead of just colloquial usage since misappropriating trade secrets is actually called "theft of trade secrets" in some jurisdictions. For instance, see 18 USC 1832, "Theft of Trade Secrets" [2].
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1832
[+] [-] alexqgb|12 years ago|reply
By focusing on the infinitely reproducible media (which cannot, strictly speaking, be stolen) the RIAA/MPAA made themselves look like idiots. But just because they failed to correctly identify what was being stolen does not mean that no theft was taking place. Focus on the money not changing hands (which obviously can't be duplicated) and the picture becomes a lot clearer.
Edit: Downvotes? I guess the truth stings, especially when the logic is airtight.
[+] [-] sologoub|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chasing|12 years ago|reply
"Theft" works, here.
[+] [-] larrys|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] hartator|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] venomsnake|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
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!
[+] [-] treysome|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] austenallred|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tristosam|12 years ago|reply
My god it must be nice to have something like this actually be a problem in your life and make you mad.
[+] [-] interlopers|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chakalakasp|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lightyrs|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aidanbrandt|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] porsupah|12 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] sengstrom|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gallerytungsten|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgentry|12 years ago|reply
http://cdixon.org/2012/07/24/buzzfeeds-strategy/comment-page...
[+] [-] nicholassmith|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fourstar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hojoff79|12 years ago|reply
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