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.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:45 am
.@CityPages Feels Copyright Infringement Deserves a One-Time Pass: http://bit.ly/cb62Ik
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:48 am
RT @SouthMetroNews @CityPages Feels Copyright Infringement Deserves a One-Time Pass: http://bit.ly/cb62Ik
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:59 am
Launch a nice attach on them like with ThisWeek.. I’ll be right behind you with the pitchfork and hot tar.
Stealing is stealing.. “Oh, I’m sorry Mr. Bank, This is the first time I stole 1 bazillion dollars from your bank, I get a free pass” – No, Bull.. You’d be locked up, no questions asked, or at least out on bail.. – Bill’s photo cost is far less than bail, or some time in a “Federal, pound me in the ass prison” ~ (Office Space)
SO, Cough up the cash, you did wrong, and you know it. – I highly doubt CP would give someone else a ‘free pass’ if they saw their copy being used elsewhere without credit or prior approval.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:59 am
RT @garciasn: RT @SouthMetroNews @CityPages Feels Copyright Infringement Deserves a One-Time Pass: http://bit.ly/cb62Ik
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:00 am
RT: @garciasn: RT @SouthMetroNews @CityPages Feels Copyright Infringement Deserves a One-Time Pass: http://bit.ly/cb62Ik
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:05 am
RT @SouthMetroNews: .@CityPages Feels Copyright Infringement Deserves a One-Time Pass: http://bit.ly/cb62Ik
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:30 am
Wow! @citypages steals a local blogger’s photo then refuses to pay when caught and invoiced: http://bit.ly/bCKHWz
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:32 am
That’s stunning. Considering how many photos they get away with stealing, it seems like paying those who noticed they’ve been ripped off would be a reasonable cost of doing business under their twisted copyright mindset.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:33 am
RT @edkohler: Wow! @citypages steals a local blogger’s photo then refuses to pay when caught and invoiced: http://bit.ly/bCKHWz
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:37 am
Raise hell! RT @edkohler Wow! @citypages steals blogger’s photo then refuses to pay when caught + invoiced http://bit.ly/bCKHWz via @iteeth
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:44 am
RT @edkohler: Wow! @citypages steals a local blogger’s photo then refuses to pay when caught and invoiced: http://bit.ly/bCKHWz
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:46 am
@iteeth I wonder if the photo was indeed in Creative Commons or was copyrighted. This has happened to me before too. http://bit.ly/bCKHWz
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:46 am
CP has sunk so low. RT @edkohler @citypages steals a local blogger’s photo, refuses to pay when caught and invoiced: http://bit.ly/bCKHWz
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:51 am
Slimy RT @rackael @edkohler Wow! @citypages steals a local bloggers photo then refuses to pay when caught and invoiced: http://bit.ly/bCKHWz
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:51 am
I wonder how they would feel if a group of photographers went around after their delivery guys stealing all the paper CityPages they put on stands? And since the paper is free, it wouldn’t really be stealing, would it?
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:53 am
In a case of what goes around comes around I think it’s only fair to blatantly steal their shit because “copyright on the internet is a fuzzy thing”. See how they feel after it starts happening to them. And make sure if it’s a photo to just embed it from their site and use their bandwidth. It’s only fair because online theft is so fuzzy.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:54 am
RT @edkohler: Wow! @citypages steals a local blogger’s photo then refuses to pay when caught and invoiced: http://bit.ly/bCKHWz
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:54 am
Without getting into an IP debate, I will say I have 2 major issues with the City Pages on this:
1) The hypocrisy of complaining about your work being stolen, but then more or less turning around and consistently doing the same thing.
2) Seriously, how hard is it to give someone credit for a photo? Have some respect for your fellow journalists and note that the picture you took off flickr was not taken by one of your staff. Seriously, how hard is this?
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:57 am
jf, to be fair they did give me credit for the phone. Unfortunately for them:
1. They were hosting the image on their site–not permitted.
2. They modified the image (cropped it for some unknown reason) against the terms of the license.
3. They are a commercial entity and commercial entities are not permitted to use my photos without paying for them.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:04 am
If it wasn’t Monday morning, I might be able to come up with some witty remark about giving proper credit to Bill’s phone.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:04 am
Thanks everyone for the RTs on @CityPages using my photo without my permission and then refusing to pay for it: http://bit.ly/bQKAjp
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:08 am
RT @garciasn: RT @SouthMetroNews @CityPages Feels Copyright Infringement Deserves a One-Time Pass: http://bit.ly/cb62Ik
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:10 am
RT @edkohler: Wow! @citypages steals a local blogger’s photo then refuses to pay when caught and invoiced: http://bit.ly/bCKHWz
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:13 am
RT @edkohler: Wow! @citypages steals a local blogger’s photo then refuses to pay when caught and invoiced: http://bit.ly/bCKHWz
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:17 am
RT @garciasn: RT @SouthMetroNews @CityPages Feels Copyright Infringement Deserves a One-Time Pass: http://bit.ly/cb62Ik
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:17 am
Good grief. Again? RT @garciasn: @CityPages using my photo without my permission and then refusing to pay for it: http://bit.ly/bQKAjp
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:23 am
RT @s4xton: RT @edkohler: Wow! @citypages steals a local blogger’s photo then refuses to pay when caught and invoiced: http://bit.ly/bCKHWz
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:23 am
RT @garciasn: RT @SouthMetroNews @CityPages Feels Copyright Infringement Deserves a One-Time Pass: http://bit.ly/cb62Ik
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:35 am
I recently changed all my photos on flickr to all rights reserved. It probably doesn’t make any difference as to whether or not these organizations would use it illegally, but then at least it’s not “fuzzy”.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:39 am
Well considering that CityPages used one of leeannchin.com’s own photos to replace mine and they were caught using photos from the LA Times by Ed Kohler, I doubt it.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:45 am
RT @bigboxcar: Good grief. Again? RT @garciasn: @CityPages using my photo without my permission and then refusing to pay for it: http://bit.ly/bQKAjp
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:09 am
They know better. They don’t care. http://bit.ly/bQKAjp RT @rit @garciasn Sounds like someone @ CP needs to be educated on the diffs b/w CCs
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:12 am
RT @SouthMetroNews: .@CityPages Feels Copyright Infringement Deserves a One-Time Pass: http://bit.ly/cb62Ik
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:14 am
Because they have stopped committing infringement, your only legal remedy looks to be limited to monetary damages for past infringement. In case you are wondering hypothetically what monetary damages you could be entitled to, take a look at 17 USC 504(b) and (c) with a quick google search. (I don’t know enough facts to determine if there is any case for your actual damages or improper profits; maybe there is if some commercial gain occurred as a result of using your picture).
To recover statutory damages under 504(c), you generally need to register the copyright; see 17 USC 412. Section 412 requires that you register the copyright within three months of its first publication. I don’t know when the picture was taken. You may want to think about registering the copyright if you want to fight this further (if you still can).
Don’t take this as legal advice – this is only my (probably incomplete) personal take – their failure to pay up is morally wrong but probably not actionable at law without copyright registration.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:16 am
Not okay! RT @handsomecat: @citypages steals a local blogger’s photo then refuses to pay when caught and invoiced: http://bit.ly/bCKHWz
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:24 am
ACLR, being that I have been down this road several times before I am well aware of the law and how I could choose to pursue this in a court of law but I appreciate your taking the time to post the information.
That said, CityPages may get away with this but as you can see from the 23 tweets and 11 comments along with the 1000s of views I’ve had to this page this morning and the 171 clicks on just one person’s twitter feed: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DeetsAfterDark/~3/jaSIfFWffjY/465719412, CityPages will learn the hard way that they should not screw with people like they choose to do.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:44 am
This still amazes me.
OK, I grab a picture from a website & post it, that’s illegal, but I’m not doing it for monetary gain, nor do I know any better.
Companies like ‘This Week’ & ‘City Pages’ should know better. What dumbasses work there, that don’t know what they can or can’t use? Isn’t that like Newspapers 101 or something?
And like Bill mentioned, they seem to be well aware of it when it happens to them, so don’t tell me they don’t know when they’re doing something illegal.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:46 am
I can completely understand this when a small-time restaurant just getting into it does it. They’re often new to the whole business world and mistakes like this happen. But for someone whose livelihood is in publishing original material, it’s shocking. No, the rules on the internet really aren’t that fuzzy. CityPages needs to get their act together and pay up.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
City Pages is in the publishing business and should know better, and Flickr makes it extremely easy to see what type of usage is allowed for all photos. CP really has no excuse for stealing photos here.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:52 pm
RT @handsomecat: Wow! @citypages steals a local blogger’s photo then refuses to pay when caught and invoiced: http://bit.ly/bCKHWz
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:58 pm
@CityPages Feels Copyright Infringement Deserves a One-Time Pass: http://bit.ly/cb62Ik
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:46 pm
The main issue I see is that Jen Boyles seems to feel that copyright law and it’s application on the internet is a fuzzy thing. Now it may be fuzzy on some former geocites website where a terms of use was not published. But flickr has done things that ensure there is nothing fuzzy about it. Right there in the page with Bill’s images it states specifically what uses are allowed and what are not. http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/
That Jen Boyles points out that you use a Creative Commons license implies she has some knowledge of what that means. If so, then she should also understand that the Creative Commons license will have attributes, and one of those attributes can be Non Commercial use only.
By using and modifying the image, City Pages blatantly violated the Creative Commons license agreement that they were bound to when choosing to use that image. They are taking the wrong tact with Bill. By trying to discredit his copyright, they will force him to enforce it. They would do best to negotiate a settlement with him rather than poke him with a stick.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Its always amazing how lazy some people are. How hard is it to take a picture of a LeeAnn Chin?
The actual response is much more insulting than stealing the picture. Its also more entertaining for those of us following along at home.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:22 pm
RT @theplate: @CityPages Feels Copyright Infringement Deserves a One-Time Pass: http://bit.ly/cb62Ik
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:35 pm
City Pages steals content RT @garciasn: CityPages using my photo without my permission and then refusing to pay for it: http://bit.ly/bQKAjp
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:33 pm
You’re yammering on about a photo of a FAST FOOD RESTAURANT?
Slow down Annie Leibovitz!
A good concert picture, nice cityscape? SURE.
A fast food restaurant?
I think I see the sparks from your axe grinding!
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:39 pm
A BMW, a Porsche? SURE.
A bike?
…
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Yeah, that’s pretty weak of them.
Maybe you can win for “Best Photo Used Without Permission” in Best of the Twin Cities this year. :)
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:29 am
I personally feel that city pages should be raped like the twelve year olds who get raped by the riaa on their first offense downloading metalica.
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:02 pm
OK, to be fair, Bill, I think a more accurate comparison would be a BMW/Porsche vs. a pair of Chuck Taylors.
My point was, and is, that this entire issue is over a picture of a fast food restaurant. And, no offense to the photographer, but the picture doesn’t look all that good, either.
It just seems like you’re trying to make a Supreme Court Case out of a traffic ticket. Whether or not you’re “right,” it seems like you’re really going out of your way to make sure that everyone knows CP didn’t pay you ($25?) for a picture of a fast food restaurant that honestly looks like was snapped with my 5 megapixel camera, while driving in a car. Seems like more personal, hence the axe grinder comment.
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Adam,
*shrug*, they thought it was good enough to use for their website, against multiple licensing terms of the photo and thus it’s good enough to be charged for it.
And no, my photos are $300 per use regardless of quality. If a company doesn’t like that, well, that’s nice they don’t have to use it as I realize money spends good anywhere. But, once they use it without my permission they get to pay what I would normally charge whether they agree with it or not. That’s how the real world works.
Now as far as having an axe to grind, I am not sure what you mean. They fucked up, they should pay. They don’t want to pay so I am happy to let everyone know that they are a bunch of assholes for doing this exact thing to many other people time and time again. If anything it’ll encourage them and others not to commit copyright infringement again.
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:50 pm
CityPages sucks. Really @jen_boyles? RT @garciasn CityPages uses my photo w/o my permission, then refuses to pay for it http://bit.ly/bQKAjp
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 24th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Wow. The people over at City Pages sound like they are either terribly ill-informed and unprofessional, or terribly lazy and unprofessional. If I were an advertiser, I’d be afraid to do business with them.
March 24th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Seems like they’ve received a whole bunch of free passes, just from different people. They are confident that the photo owners will “blink” first in this game of copyright infringement chicken. This works out for CP in the short run.
In the long run, (which obviously they aren’t considering) the damage to their reputation (“The people who we did this to and the people who read our mag and our advertisers TALK to each other?” gasp!); or the chance they’ll infringe on someone who won’t “blink” and will sue them; or other actions (I seem to recall that after the ThisWeek episode, it was after Bill stopped linking to their material (and ergo the number of hits on TW’s online material went down, thereby affecting their advertising hits; that ThisWeek paid the invoice. Oh, and the call to the boss – bringing the situation to the attention of someone who had been kept in the dark about the whole deal – that might have had something to do with it too.)
I bet if someone sent this link to say, CP’s biggest advertisers, along with information on the # of hits this site gets in a given day, maybe one of them will pick up the phone and ask CP: So, what’s keeping you from stealing my stuff in future too? or, conversely: “This guy gets his photo in your mag for “free”: I want a “free pass” on the photo that’s included in my ad – that 3×3 square – I want that for free.” Is print ad space SO easy to sell nowadays that you can afford to do that? I don’t think so.
Yes, Ms. Boyles, that’s precisely how this self-described “free pass” policy could come back to you.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
As you’re probably well aware, I just roll my eyes at some of the rants you’ve been on (scanning licenses at the liquor stores, Billy’s DNA being on file). But this one is particularly irritating to the point where I might have to find another site to find the schedules of my favorite local bands. (anyone know of any good ones that enforce the “no pricks” policy a little better among their employees?)
For me it’s 40% that they undoubtedly know better. I mean please, Creative Commons is ALL ABOUT copyright and allowing clearly defined limited usage, with the most prominent two parameters being “for commercial use” and “can modify or adapt”. You can’t really be looking at stuff covered under CC without having that understanding.
“What dumbasses work there, that don’t know what they can or can’t use? Isn’t that like Newspapers 101 or something?” Ha….well put, Greg. (see how I used quotes and gave credit there Boyles?) Though it seems apparent that they’re not being dumb, just playing the numbers game. It’s not quite on the scale of auto manufacturers comparing the cost of a few wrongful death settlements to that of a vast recall (which has happened) but it’s the same principle.
The other 60% is the arrogant response, which is obviously just the “damage control” part of the game. “First notice is like a cease and desist.” So when she catches us defacing her car with fuchsia spray paint, we’ll….what, just stop painting? What if I was in the middle of a word? “Hypocrite” has a lot of letters. ;)
March 25th, 2010 at 11:15 am
As you’re probably well aware, I just roll my eyes at some of the rants you’ve been on (scanning licenses at the liquor stores, Billy’s DNA being on file). But this one is particularly irritating to the point where I might have to find another site to find the schedules of my favorite local bands. (anyone know of any good ones that enforce the “no pricks” policy a little better among their employees?)
For me it’s 40% that they undoubtedly know better. I mean please, Creative Commons is ALL ABOUT copyright and allowing clearly defined limited usage, with the most prominent two parameters being “for commercial use” and “can modify or adapt”. You can’t really be looking at stuff covered under CC without having that understanding.
“What dumbasses work there, that don’t know what they can or can’t use? Isn’t that like Newspapers 101 or something?” Ha….well put, Greg. (see how I used quotes and gave credit there Boyles?) Though it seems apparent that they’re not being dumb, just playing the numbers game. It’s not quite on the scale of auto manufacturers comparing the cost of a few wrongful death settlements to that of a vast recall (which has happened) but it’s the same principle.
The other 60% is the arrogant response, which is obviously just the “damage control” part of the game. “First notice is like a cease and desist.” So when she catches us defacing her car with fuchsia spray paint, we’ll….what, just stop painting? What if I was in the middle of a word? “Hypocrite” has a lot of letters. ;)
March 25th, 2010 at 11:18 am
FOR THE RECORD, THE POST ABOVE WAS NOT MY WORK OR WRITING! I did however think that Mr Marcos wrote a great post, so I stole his work and posted it as my own.
March 25th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I’m calling my lawyer
March 25th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I just read that comment, everything about it is absolutely original and exquisite, just like in CityPages (I read CityPages 4 times every day) finally I don’t miss CityPages comments because I can have most of it right here at Lazy Lightning. I can’t believe that I can read a comment here that is better than at CityPages where the comment was invented. The photos are excellent, all imported from Flickr, and not too expensive, unless you ask for the “Leeann Chin” that is one of the very best Flickr photos. I recommend Lazy Lightning to all the elite and the middle class citizens of South areas. “A picture is worth a thousand words, just not 300 dollars.” Good day!
March 25th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
My lawyer charged me $200 and suggested I post the much funnier response, “that’ll be $300 Chad”. Thanks…..bitch
March 25th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
(For those of you who have no idea where the above nonsense came from or if you’re just looking to relive the memory of the original rambling comment that still makes no sense to me after reading it for the 20th time, check it out here: http://www.lazylightning.org/casa-nostra-pizzeria-ristorante-italiano-lakeville-mn#comment-44800. Thank you Mario for this lasting piece of entertainment.)
March 25th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Boy, there sure are some bad mother fuckers up in this joint! (As long as we’re bringing up old comments that still make us laugh! that’s an old one though, not even sure where to find the link)
March 25th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
http://www.lazylightning.org/bad-motherfuckers-in-apple-valley
March 25th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Oh and http://www.lazylightning.org/dreaming-of-bad-motherfuckers-in-apple-valley
March 25th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Oh and I almost forgot about this one: http://www.lazylightning.org/there-really-are-bad-motherfuckers-in-apple-valley
March 25th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Would you believe me if I said the check is in the mail?
March 26th, 2010 at 2:55 am
Haha, I just find it Hilarious sort of as an artist myself that a cellphone picture (I saw it) of a fast food restaurant is being considered a “stolen piece of (Work)”. Absolutely ridiculous. I mean it’s the internet. For the time spent blogging about this you could easily have typed in the right web address and “Licensed” the (cough) “Photo”.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:22 am
PMG,
Your feelings on the quality or content of a picture are nice but I am not sure how this at all relates to copyright infringement.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:53 am
I for one, am SHOCKED at the civility Bill had in the email exchange! Where are the cuss word! Not one single F-bomb? Fatherhood has turned you soft Bill! :)
March 26th, 2010 at 10:01 am
I can just see a new bill brought before a House Committee (who cares which one, none of them really confine themselves to their committee names anyway).
Rep. Chairman: “The gentleman from Minnesota has an amendment he’d like to suggest?”
PMG: “Yes, sir, I’ve found some serious issues with US copyright law. See, people really don’t care about who takes what picture and frankly, Creative Commons is just a little over my head. I’d like to propose that we amend US Copyright law to exempt from US copyright protection all photos taken with a <5 MP camera as well as all photos of fast food restaurants."
Rep. Chairman: “Sir, what is your occupation?”
PMG: “I’m a priest…I think. But rest assured, I’m an authority on this issue. After all, I’m also sort of an artist.”
Rep. Chairman: “Sort of an artist…okay. So Mr. PMG, why should photos of fast food restaurants be exempted?”
PMG: “It’s not art! When is the last time you saw a photo of a Chinese restaurant and thought, ‘That would look perfect in my den!’”
Rep. Chairman: “But isn’t it entirely possible that a photo of a Chinese restaurant may have some commercial value that is completely unrelated to art and should be protected?”
PMG: “Um, well…”
I could go on for a while but I have a job and PMG has already confused me enough in this little narrative.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:29 am
I was out of the loop, and missed that MN Weekly finally ponied up for the cash! I swear parenting and grad school sure keeps me from keeping up with things like this. ;)
Copyright laws and theft laws aren’t really fuzzy they just aren’t enforced with an iron fist. Its not just City Pages or Mn Weekly but many others who think that because they can easily obtain things off the internet that its ok. Its not because they don’t know its really wrong, of course they know its wrong, but the fact that to punish them it takes a lot of time to jump through hoops. Just as it was posted before its a numbers game and a who’s going to blink first strategy. THowever their “luck” wont last forever – the lawyers who are in the intellectual property field have those jobs for a reason. They are the most shrewd and vicious creatures known to man. It will catch up with them!
March 27th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Checked the mail today, no check from @citypages, @jen_boyles for committing copyright infringement. http://tinyurl.com/yjkcjpb Sad company.
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
March 30th, 2010 at 10:54 am
I’m thinking of producing a book made up entirely of images other people have taken. Don’t worry though, only one image per artist will appear and if I get caught it will be considered a first offense. Maybe I will name it “City Page, by City People, taking pictures of City Things.”