If you have recently experienced any downtime it’s due to a few server upgrades I’ve made over the last two days:

1. Following the electrical problems created by an accident in Rosemount and Thunderstorms the other night, I found a brand new UPS on Craigslist for $20 and got that all charged and online. If the power blips out again, as it has for the first times in 4 or 5 years, we should be still good to go.

2. I finally got around to upgrading the OS to the latest version of Debian stable something which was way out of date (for those of you who care: I was still running Etch and the lifecycle ended back in June).

3. I am still running Apache 1.3.x mostly because I was too lazy to update the configuration to the new 2.x setup. With the traffic at all time highs and apparently no end in sight, I am probably going to have to make the jump to 2.2.x. I’ll get around to it before classes start again in October. With the change we should see some performance gains especially when the threads are over 200 comments.

Reminiscent of many other examples of companies using my photos without permission and against the terms of their licensing agreements, I recently had another and this time with a media publishing company that should have really known better. CityPages, based in Minneapolis, recently used one of my pictures on their Hot Dish Blog and when I sent them an invoice they ever so politely told me that US Copyright law does not apply to them because, well, “copyright law on the Internet is a fuzzy thing”. HA!

As we all know, using people’s photos against their express permission–especially mine–is not only a pet peeve of mine but easily avoidable. As you will see from the e-mails received from Jen Boyles at CityPages, she feels that they should receive only a warning for this particular bit of copyright infringement and only thereafter should I be permitted to invoice them for using my photography, including downloading and modifying it for their own use, on their website:

Hi, Mr. Roehl,

I received your letter concerning the snapshot of the LeeAnn Chin store used in this post: http://blogs.citypages.com/food/2010/03/leeann_chin_chi.php

It has been corrected. Thanks for drawing our attention to the matter.

Best,
Jen Boyles
Citypages.com

* note: the picture has been replaced with another, this time apparently used straight from leeannchin.com (also very likely a violation of US copyright law).

Ms. Boyles,

When should I expect payment on invoice #PAFR031410 to be received?

Have a great weekend,
Bill

First notice is like a cease and desist. If it happens again feel free to invoice me.

Ms. Boyles,

There is no such provision in US Copyright law and as such I expect payment to be remitted immediately.

Thanks for your time and have a great weekend,
Bill

The fact remains your photo was on Flickr, and in Creative Commons no less. It was an honest mistake by our writer to not see the ‘not for commercial use” clause, but as it stands copyright law on the Internet is a fuzzy thing — particularly in this case.

I will not be sending a payment for this but bid you good luck in your future endeavors.

Jen

Now, this isn’t the first time that CityPages has found itself caught with its hand in the cookie jar. Ed Kohler over at The Deets provided an impressive expose into the world of CityPages and their apparent “steal first, ask for permission/pull the photo if/when people complain,” policy when it comes to infringing on other people’s copyright. He found 11 specific examples of CityPages using people’s images without their permission and many times without attribution in only 53 attempts. I wonder if I can reply with that link and a picture of my hand out and they’d get the hint?

Anyway, Jen Boyles at CityPages has some real nerve telling me that it’s ok for her coworkers to steal people’s photos and then not pay them when they are caught red-handed. While I do get upset when other companies, such as restaurants, do this to me I usually give them the benefit of the doubt. But when it comes down to it CityPages does not like having its own stuff stolen (via another post on The Deets). Hypocritical much?

So, not that anyone with half a brain bothers to read much of what CityPages puts out anymore but what do you think about this? Just more of the same or should CityPages be held to a higher standard due to them being around and publishing “stuff” since 1979? Should they get a free pass being that this was “their first time” or should they be required to pay up just like anyone else committing copyright infringement? Whatever you have to say about CityPages and their infringement of my photo go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say.

I have two sections I’d like you to vote on for the end of the year: biggest moron commenter and best comment. I narrowed down the choices from lots that were available and all I ask if that you click a few buttons below and submit your vote. Each of the voting options links to the comment which I feel makes it worth of this vote:

 Loading ...

 Loading ...

That’s not all, however:

1. The winner of the best comment of the year will receive a gift certificate to Blue Ox Sandwich Factory in Burnsville.

2. I will be giving away a gift certificate to Ramy’s Pizza in Apple Valley to a lucky random person who comments below.

Many thanks to both Blue Ox Sandwich Factory and Ramy’s Pizza for providing me with the gift certificates to give away today!

Rules:

1. One comment per person per day will be counted (the first of the day) and pick will be done by http://www.random.org/

2. Tweets/retweets are counted as an additional entry per person (if you don’t have a Twitter account, sign up here!)

3. Entries will be accepted up to Saturday January 9th at midnight.

4. Winners will be announced Sunday January 10th!

So go ahead and submit your entries via Twitter and comments below and enjoy the new year!