snapped shot

now in ap-approved text mode

 
What happened to the pictures? Exhibit A, Exhibit B
Will they ever come back? Yes and no

This Blog's So-Called "Demise"

Brian C. Ledbetter · Tuesday, March 4. 2008 15:53
Heh, I'm seeing the scuttlebutt regarding the "death" of Snapped Shot. We may be down, but we're definitely not out for the count!

Just to prove the point, let me illustrate exactly who would be happy if this blog were to go away. Hopefully properly, this time (Christoph, otoc: I'm counting on y'all to catch this one if I do it wrong! ;-) )—


"Why yes, I am most delighted to see that my media agency --er, I mean the evil Zionists' media agency has shut this pesky blog down!"

(REUTERS/Thaier al-Sudani)


Image is significantly less than the full "wire" resolution? Check.
Link leads to wire source, rather than "local" file? Check.
Proper credit given to original photographer? Check.

Let's just see how this little trial balloon looks.

Update: Heh, 2 of the 3 IP experts I pinged suggested that I might be pushing it, and Rooster suggested that I was flat-out crazy. Fair enough—I've popped the trial balloon... for now. ;-)

Update: 5-Mar-2007, I think it's safe to bring back the "Parody" material, including the ever-popular Rage Boy Photoshops. Most of that stuff was submitted in response to the contest, anyway, so it should be safe to display.
permalink · Daily Fodder · Comments (12) · Trackbacks (0) · digg this
 

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments [RSS]
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Here is what a handful of random people think about this article. But first, the fine print:
The opinions expressed here, even where approved for display, do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website, the management, or any other entity or organization, with the exception of the Vast Zionist Conspiracy. Those opinions we represent in style, yo. Please keep the language in these comments clean, as this is intended to be a family-friendly, work-friendly website. Comments not compliant with this policy will be edited for content where necessary. Abusive or otherwise illegal comments will be reported to the proper authorities, up to and including the aforementioned Vast Zionist Conspiracy. The Management cannot and will not be held responsible for commenters making a spectacle of themselves, even if The Management are the said commenters in question. In other words, don't take yourself so seriously, folks. We're all here to discuss the news, and more importantly, to have fun. Now go get yourself into some OCD treatment program—you obviously need it if you actually read all of this mess.

mikep on 2008-03-04 16:50 #1
*Yeah, sorry about that earlier comment. Maybe I should have said: The End of Snapped Shot as We Know It (TEOSSAWKI).

Is there legal opinion, or knowlegable opinion on the issue of using (for criticism & satire) an image, of a collection of images (representing a portion of the copyrighted work) vs. part of an image with respect to fair use?

That seems like it would be useful to know...but I'm sure you're ahead of little ole me on this but, it seems to me that using one, or even a handful of images, from a wire service -collection- of photos would be legitimate under fair use...I think you have room to work. But the question is, does AP? And do you want to risk it?
Reply  
otoc on 2008-03-04 17:55 #2
*lol, Brian, let's make this a public learning forum.

For this image above, where you are using as a visual aid to the comment and not deal with the site, look at google, the big commercial site, for a standard of thumbnail size. I think you need to downsize it.
http://images.google.com/images?q=Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad&gbv=2&ndsp=20&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&start=0&sa=N

On the other hand, since we are talking about what a service may or may not allow, send them a request and ask them to look at it, explaining we are putting it as Fair Use for educational purposes. :-)
Reply  
Phillip Salzman on 2008-03-04 23:59 #3
*Wow, what have I missed? It seems like only a few days ago we were having to upgrade the server because of increased traffic, and now the A.P. effectively changes course of snappedshot.com completely?

I'm very interested in how I feel about this issue. I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU (ok, so I don't actually CARRY the card), I'm a member of the Professional Photographers Association (who is currently fighting to protect the established copyright laws), and I'm a huge free-speech advocate (hence why I love hosting this site.)

Now the ACLU and free-speech sides of me say: Damn right! Keep on truckin'

The Photographer part says: You're taking food off the table

But in reality you weren't. The A.P. isn't losing money on their photographs, small outlets like snappedshot, even if it wasn't a commentary site, don't have a profit center built allowing them the luxury of paying for content. The photographs that were chosen were already well used. They were distributed vastly and are of political nature.

Ugh, I've confused myself, I just need to go to bed. Too much self-contradiction hurts the brain...
Reply  
mikep on 2008-03-05 10:25 #4
*"The Photographer part says: You're taking food off the table"

This has not been proved and would have to be in a legal case.
Reply  
captainfish on 2008-03-05 13:40 #5
*I dont see how using a low-res version or a cropped version of an image is OK with copyright, whereas using a full size image is not. This makes no sense to me.

The image is the image. If it is ok to use a cropped image, then it would be "fair use" to use an image who image was cropped 1/8th inch all way around?

Again, this is confusing. This is like saying a photocopy is ok to use, but the photo is not.
Reply  
Phillip Salzman on 2008-03-05 14:38 #6
*yeah, I was being dramatic. It was late, and I was sleep deprived. I personally think criticism is what keeps from doing unethical things... such as editing the photos, or lying about their meaning. Much of the art and photography industry is based off of someones critique, which makes me wonder why A.P. wouldn't want their stuff done that way too... w/o a license.
Reply  
jimzinsocal on 2008-03-05 16:48 #7
*Goodness. I hate to see images Brian wants to use as a critique or parody or educational reduced to the form we see above. Yes we see the image in its original form when we select the image...but sheesh.
It's not entertaining...its not immediate and the extra click causes the image to lose any impact the original may have provided [value].

I'm going to keep pestering about this...not that it makes a difference where I work...another site...because we use software that enables members to post pictures that the "site owner" may not wish to be responsible for...so far as copyright stuff.
That may be something for Brian to consider.
The "Blog" format that is typical puts it all on "the guy" verses the simple
"disclaimer" thats attached to "forum" formats. Thats a real consideration.

Im not suggesting anything with this.
I would never steer anyone into a difficulty.
But when I read this? I wonder to myself.....what I might do if faced
with what Brian is needing to endure.

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=80692&topic=10523
Reply  
jimzinsocal on 2008-03-05 16:56 #8
*^^let me add. Where Im from? Were a tech site with a healthy section that deals with politics etc.
We form relationships with other sites when we can and attempt to cement those relationships with visible [even if non pc support] stuff that says..."we get you...and will fight with you"

So thats the deal.
I have no "personal" interest in Brian's deal.
He's simply a good guy we've met along the way that deserves some support.
And clear thinking advice
Reply  
captainfish on 2008-03-06 18:49 #9
*regarding your new AP-friendly pic:
Brian, perfect example of how the AP sees you and your site.


(chuckle)... it is sad sad state when a conglomerate the size of AP with its vast money reserves stooping to crushing a meager critiquing site like yours. Wonder how many other sites got their love letter? hey.. can you use an image of the AP's label, or the AP's building as the placeholder for your linked-images??? snicker)
Reply  
otoc on 2008-03-06 20:03 #10
*Actually you can. The AP logo is a trademark and there is no confusion in if using it anyone above the IQ of a rock would think this site is trying to steal business away.

I think it would have to be used in some form of obvious satire, or criticism of the situation.

I'll have to search on a case I remember reading up on.
Reply  
otoc on 2008-03-06 20:28 #11
*http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-ap-sues-moreover-and-verisign-for-stories-copyright-infringement/
Reply  
otoc on 2008-03-06 20:33 #12
*hit wrong button, otoc bad.

The above link is a report on AP filing suit against Verisign for copyright violations.

AP states they are a not-for-profit and that Verisign harvested and sold headlines and partial ledes to their stories. Interesting read and now I'm feeling better about taking a conservative stance with my advice on this matter. They are creative.

Still looking for the AP trademark though I don't know if you'll want it!
Reply  

Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

HTML-Tags will be converted to Entities.
Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.
BBCode format allowed
Gravatar/MyBlogLog/Favatar/Pavatar author images supported.