This photo look familiar? Well it should. I recently used the photo to head up a post entitled, Rosemount City Council is Wrong About the MVTA. Strangely enough I saw it today on my front step when I got home from camping. No, my wife didn’t throw the computer out of the second story window and onto my sidewalk, Thisweek’s delivery people put evidence of their defiance/ignorance of Creative Commons licensing (non-commerical, attribution required) and ethics right there next to my front door by delivering this:
Now, I realize that Thisweek just might not be all that well versed in the world of Creative Commons and Flickr but being that other photos on the front page give attribution/credit where it is due (e.g. “Photo by Tad Johnson”) you would think they would have said to themselves, “hmm, maybe I should do some research first.” Unfortunately for them they did not.
While I would not have granted Thisweek permission to use my photo for free, I wouldn’t have charged them anything astronomical. When asked for commercial use of my photography I generally charge $200 or more depending on the use. In this case, because it was printed in at least 18,633 papers and it was done without my permission and without the slightest bit of attribution, it’s going to be $300 for them (did this article appear in any other Thisweek publications? If so, please do submit the photos! It did not appear in any other editions I am told…and verified in Lakeville and Burnsville). Thisweek, you can expect a bill in the mail this week and be glad I didn’t charge you even more. Another Flickr user seems to feel that 3 to 4x the amount is acceptable for licensing violations like this.
Have you ever had a photo used without your permission? What did you do when you found out? Do you think that it’s right that they not only took this photo and printed it on the front page of the paper but did so without even putting my name under it? Whatever you feel about this issue go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
June 29th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Oh man, they are so screwed. :) It’s funny, but you are the second person this month that I know had this happened to them (although the other was not by ThisWeek). Geesh. Hope they make things right…
June 29th, 2009 at 8:22 am
I look forward to hearing about your attempt to get paid.
June 29th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Emily, the invoice goes out today. If I find that it appears in all four editions, the other three will go out tomorrow. I hope for Thisweek’s sake that there is nothing to tell about the experience other than that and I really hope that no one else ever has a tale to tell about it either.
June 29th, 2009 at 8:43 am
It’s amazing that so many people think that whatever they find in a Google image search can be used however they see fit. Glad you caught this one Bill, I’m sure that they will pay up quickly.
June 29th, 2009 at 8:48 am
How many k-12 kids do you think give attribution for the images they put in their school reports? How many adults who build flyers for home and work, reports or power points for work? My point being, with people growing up with the ever present WEB, and the ease of finding images you can save to your computer. I imagine is is a challenge for publishers to educate their inexperienced writers and editors.
That said, you would think they would be more vigilant. Good luck getting them to pay for it.
June 29th, 2009 at 8:54 am
I’ve had a few from Flickr used elsewhere, but always with my permission. I was going to ask if you’d seen the woman whose family pic had been stolen and used in a grocery ad in the Czech republic.. turns out that was likely a hoax.. even I fell for that one.
June 29th, 2009 at 8:59 am
This is unbelievably timely… Prior to publication of the June 19 Thisweek, a reporter called my place of business asking if we could provide a photo of an event some staff members were going to attend the next day, as he would not be able to be there. They ran my photo and attributed it to the reporter, making it seem like he actually attended this event he was reporting on!
June 29th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Crazy, I fell for that one too.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Wow. I wondered how often this sort of thing happened. Quite interesting!
June 29th, 2009 at 9:07 am
There is a Texas case that deals with Virgin Mobile using a picture of a kid from Flicker in an Austrailian advertisement campaign. (Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the Austrailian company).
June 29th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Yeah, this unfortunately happens a lot, though that doesn’t make it alright. My guess is that someone misread the CC licensing, or like Mikeh said, this was done by someone inexperienced who didn’t think or know to check.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:17 am
sui generis wrote:
I don’t believe that is related. From what I understand Virgin Mobile’s Australian unit was named (and not the USA part) and that’s why it was dismissed. Also, from my limited understanding a person in the photo used was upset that her likeness was used in the campaign without her permission. Although I could be wrong entirely.
Tim wrote:
I think it has already been proven, many times, that ignorance is no excuse. It’s a costly mistake, just like any other legal issue happens to be.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:36 am
All of a sudden our friend Derrick is silent. Must be busy checking the AP style on his huge hot dog cart expose.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I run in to too many people thinking the same thing – if it’s online, it’s free for the taking. As this shows, it’s only a matter of time until it comes full circle and it isn’t a “free” photo any more.
This is one reason of many that I don’t have any ads on MinnPics. I credit the flickrites properly and I’m not making a dime on it.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Austrailian unit WAS named. That is why it was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. As far as any othert parties that could have been added, claims of those whos likeness was misappropriated, and potential claims of the photographer, those will go unanswered, as there was no jurisdiction for any of those arguments to be made.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:42 am
MSPD, to be fair, it wasn’t Derrick’s work that we’re talking about here. But, I’m laughing hard at what you said none-the-less ;-)
June 29th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Not exactly silent, MSPD, just don’t check the site every hour.
Bill, don’t know what to tell you, man. Surprising considering how much of our own file photos and stock art we have available. I can’t speak to how it happened for a number of reasons, chiefly being I honestly don’t know.
That said, I know usage of photos and even text were once covered by something called “fair use.”
Now it’s antiquated in today’s world of Flickr and the Internet as a whole, and it was 2004 when I last studied it, but the idea was that images and words could be used if there was no reasonable expectation of profit or if there was no reasonable expectation of privacy or reserved rights.
That is why companies can’t be sued over photos used in inter-company memos, and students can’t be sued if images are in book reports. I don’t know how the latter works anymore.
I don’t know how or if any of this applies, but it’s what I learned back in the day.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Derrick’s work or not, I also find it funny has been silent on this topic as well as all he seems to profess is professionalism and ethics of journalists and journalistic courtesy vs bloggers and the silence from Derrick is deafening. Cat got your tongue Derrick? BTW Bill, I think you bill is cheap of $300 and payment terms with interest for any delays in payment should be put on your invoice(s). I would also expect a correction to the next edition giving credit for the photo in addition to the $300 per edition it appeared in.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Fair use requires a few things including attribution (citation) and non-profit use. This particular violation includes neither.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Fair use? Give me a break Derrick, your newspaper is a for profit enterprise. It fails right there.
A quick google search would have told you that.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Yeah, they’d just bury it even though it appeared on the front page. Not really worth it although I wouldn’t mind it.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Hey. BK. I’m not arguing for or against fair use. Just telling you what I know. Or what I think I know.
And Thought Leader … the post came in at 7:30 this morning. I don’t think my silence is anything but me having a life considering it’s 10 a.m. Do you honestly read this blog every hour on the hour? Sheesh.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:12 am
I was just needling Derrick.
It is a bit shocking that, especially for a front-page story above the fold, they would just randomly grab a photo off the internet. I mean, I have no idea what their newsroom looks like but it must be some kind of two-bit operation if they can’t get their own photo of an MVTA bus.
What’s next, “Photo courtesy of lucky find on Google StreetView”???
June 29th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Come on, Derrick, don’t you know that you’re supposed to be able to explain and justify every single decision anybody at Thisweek makes? :)
June 29th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Give Derrick a break guys, he’s not at fault here nor is he the mouthpiece of Thisweek.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Since we all know ThisWeek staffers monitor this site like hawks, their silence is telling! Bill, $300 is not nearly enough. This is a shortcut credible news outlets simply would not allow, and probably a fireable offense.
Photo pricing is based on much more than circulation numbers alone, including what size the image is reproduced at and whether it is used regionally/nationwide/internationally. Pricing is also based on photo placement (front page, above the fold costs more), black and white or color (they reprinted in color), print-only use or is this image also on their website? And, yes, the source must ALWAYS be cited.
It’s no wonder their business model is floundering.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:32 am
So Bill, you think they’re actually going to pay your bill that you send them?
My bet is no.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Derrick may not be at fault, but his first post on the topic certainly appears to try to derail this by intimating “Fair Use.”
Ethically, I would thing that strays a bit from the high ground. It has ZERO relevance in this case, so why bring it up? If you truly are just ignorant, then it would probably be better to remain silent. There is an old saying about that, I just cant recall how it goes right now………
June 29th, 2009 at 10:51 am
It’s clearly not fair use, but I didn’t see that as an attempt to derail the thread. No need to go reaching for the tinfoil.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:51 am
They don’t have a choice.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Bill, we at Thisweek are checking into how this happened. I’d like to offer a full explanation here on your blog and tell you how we expect to resolve this with you, but I hope you understand that’s not possible until we discuss this internally at the newspaper. We’ve got a lot going on this morning, but this matter is a priority.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Thanks Jeff.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Chad, please read what I wrote again. I’m not trying to “derail” anything. I’m just telling you what I learned five years ago as a chubby little college kid. I never even said that fair use was germane to the issue …
That said, it may hold relevance. What if a member of the production staff asked MVTA for a stock photo and they provided this one? What if a google search didn’t link to Flickr, but to a different Web site who had gotten a hold of it that didn’t imply copyrights? That would be covered under fair use.
Also, can it be proven that TW used the photo on purpose to increase sales and thereby profit? That is, or was a fair use issue.
Now I am not saying the photo’s use is OK and I’m not saying fair use applies here. Just saying what I recall.
Frankly I don’t know how it happened and there’s a good chance it may remain out of my purview.
Bill: thanks for the qualifier.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:11 am
1. You would have to contact the MVTA to recoup your losses.
2. You would have to contact the other website to recoup your losses. Remember, if you receive infringed property, knowingly or not, you are still at fault.
Doesn’t matter. You published the photo in a for-profit publication. Thereby intent was implied.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Derrick, first of all, I used the word intimate, which I thought was gentle. I would change it now to imply.
You and Tim both indicte that your intent was not to imply or intimate that Fair Use might apply, yet you then go on to attempt to tell us why it might in fact be Fair Use.
Bill might also have pointed out in his response above that not only did you publish it in a for profit paper, you published it above the fold on the front page.
Really, Jeff’s response was much better. He did not actually say or promise anything, however he did not use any thinly veiled attempt at misdirection either.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Whoa, Chad, where did *I* say that?
June 29th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Tim,
I dont know how to make the giant quotes but from post 29:
“It’s clearly not fair use, but I didn’t see that as an attempt to derail the thread. No need to go reaching for the tinfoil.”
This appeared to be a direct response to my post number 28. I am sorry if I misunderstood you.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Bill: I think I’ve tried to be clear, but I’ll say it again; I don’t know fair use laws. I’m just telling you what I once learned. I’ll take your word for it if you’ve read up on, and or studied it anytime lately.
Chad: Here’s the bottom line … from me … not the reporter.
It’s not likely to be covered by fair use. Bill’s right. But at the same time, we don’t know the exact circumstances surrounding its use.
While you want to jump to conclusions and act as if you know it all, I’m simply playing devil’s advocate. That’s all.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Chad wrote:
Use [blockquote]foo[/blockquote] but make the [ ] <> instead.
Derrick wrote:
Thanks for the further clarification. I’m dense.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
The MVTA needing to use Bill’s snapshot of the their bus would be 10x as hilarious as a local paper being so unresourceful!
I can’t even eat my lunch I’m laughing so hard at this whole thread.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Then the cutline would read: Photo courtesy of Minnesota Valley Transit Authority.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Bill: I think you know this, but the clarification wasn’t really for you. ;-)
And as an aside … cutlines aren’t always needed according to some people in the industry. I’m not arguing one way or another, but some industry insiders say that if a photo is generally obvious, not particularly artistic, and/or stock art, it need not have one.
Personally, I don’t ascribe to that …. but it is what it is.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
LOL. From Thisweek’s online bio of Laura Adelmann, the reporter covering the MVTA story:
But she evidently doesn’t dig deep enough to discover where the image accompanying her story came from.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
She may not have had anything to do with it. Reporters don’t usually layout their stories or choose photos, from my experience.
(bill, can you delete the first, I messed up the tags)
June 29th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Deleted per request.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:58 am
To sum up-
1) Derrik in not a lawyer.
2) Bill’s photo is now famous in Apple Valley
3) Fair use is confusing
4) MVTA is too lazy to shoot their own stock photos
5) Bill might get a reduction on his This Week subscription fee as compensation.
If that’s all, I hear Target has a sale on frozen tater tots. I love tater tots.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Mmmmm casserole.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Tater-tot hot dish is quite tasty. I wonder if they can make a tater-tot pizza. Is that sacrilege?
Definitely not a lawyer. Not nearly smart enough…
June 30th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I love making tater-tot nachos. They’re delicious. I also love a lawyer.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Umm recipe? Duh!
I hope it never comes to that for me.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
But, Lawyers in Love.. that’s a great title for a song.
Shitty song mind you. but a song.
Tater Tot natchos… how many points is that?
June 30th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
“Bill might get a reduction on his This Week subscription fee as compensation.”
Well seeing that TW doesn’t have a subscription fee, I think a reduction would only be fair. People who think modern journalism is failing and think they can do it better are just idiots with computers. Silence by the TW staff should be encouraged by the logical person as not to legitimize bloggers who will remind you frequently that they are not journalist. You all have to much time on your hands. I would know, I also have very little of a life. The only difference I see between most of you and me is I don’t still live with my mother.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
*woosh*
June 30th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
This is just me, an “idiot with a computer” but considering that copyright laws protect the work product of This Week, as well as give rise to the potential of such laws being used against This Week in the event of its violation of such laws, perhaps a brush-up on the ins and outs of fair use would be in order. Maybe a quick Continuing Journalism Education type seminar would be a good idea for the entire TW newsroom. I’m serious here.
I’m not saying I think I “… can do it [journalism] better…”, (to quote “Jade H”), I just see no reason for a person to not know the laws which impact their profession on a day to day basis, for the use of those laws both as a sword and as a shield. Would you respect a police officer who does not know the ins and outs of Miranda?: “I read about it this one time… something about being quiet?” Come ON.
edited by Bill to fix blockquote
June 30th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
ok, so apparently I really am an idiot,as my maiden use of the big quotes failed miserably!
June 30th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Whit, want me to kick the quotes in the face for you?
June 30th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Hey dm! “mostly”, yeah :) and get those “air quotes” users too while you are at it!
June 30th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Whit o’ wit-
I’m well aware of fair use as it relates to written or spoken words, as are most of the reports in most newsrooms.
But the world of fair use as it relates to images, audio and video has been evolving at a rapid pace for a number of years.
Most reporters, my newsroom included, go to two or three journalism conventions a year. There we do exactly what you suggest.
But I’ll disagree with you in this respect: fair use and copyright law is very full of obfuscation and very broad. If someone is going to sue someone else for copyright infringement, they need to get a specialized lawyer who deals with such cases, and they must do so in federal court. A person with a claim can’t hire just any lawyer.
In other words, it’s not a subject that a reporter can simply brush up on. A cop knows miranda — general idea — but the prosecutor knows the specific points of law.
That said, I think a general idea is enough to suffice for the vast majority of cases a reporter will come across.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:37 am
Derrick, thank you for continuing to comment on this topic, it’s interesting for me to hear that professionals who I wrongly assumed would be well versed in a topic which, IMO, would be of the utmost importance to their work are confused as to how it works.
Oh and Whit, I fixed your blockquote.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:27 am
Its a tough concept. Dont copy someone elses work unless they give you permission.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:45 am
Derrick- I’m thinking of college, when I was in Jschool monks copying manuscripts were a media channel. There was Dr. Eng, my favorite instructor teaching Media Law, one of my favorite subjects and had I not been a chicken shit I’d have been in lawyer. Anyway.. we didn’t do fair use back then we spent two years on Libel and figuring out what a public figure is and how the laws are different.
Jade- You have a really excellent grasp of the obvious, good job.
ANd, for the record I DON’T live in my mothers base. My mother lives in MY basement. Tied to the water heater.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:52 am
Chad, I think what Derrick is trying to say that he is confused as to what the “news reporting” portion of fair use covers in instances like using photographs lifted from the web.
In classic old media fashion, they have not caught up to the way things work in the new world and it shows yet another reason why they are suffering the way that they are.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:57 am
Bill, I don’t see how your derive my or any other reporter being confused from my comments.
Professionals of any trade can be considered experts in their field, yet not be completely versed in every nuance.
It’s why there are narcotics investigators, gang and SWAT team members, and crime scene experts within a Police force. I’m sure many if not all officers have a working knowledge of gangs, CSI techniques and narcotics training, but realistically, there are so many tentacles to any given profession, it’s hard to ask an officer, for example, to be 100 percent versed in all things law enforcement.
Look at our IT guy. We’ve had issues with our server, and the IT professional needed to call in to get advice from another tradesman because there was a problem he wasn’t able to handle.
I know some of you expect journalists to be held to some higher standard — expect them to be more of an expert in their trade than many of you are at your own. At the end of the day, journalists are the same kind of worker as all of you are. They wake up, go to work, take a lunch break, finish work and then go home to be with their wives and children.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:56 am
Let’s try this again:
Derrick: I’m talking about gaining additional knowledge about the matters of fair use so as to not getting in the situation of having to hire a “specialized lawyer”, meaning, not having to even get to the point of having to pay a lawyer (impacting a company’s bottom line) to defend such a claim. Prevention is never a bad idea in any situation. If you recognize something is lacking in your knowledge base, and your national convention has not, to date, addressed the topic, as I said, maybe its time for a mini-workshop of your own.
The alternative interpretation of your quote would be that because of the expense of getting a “specialized lawyer” and filing in federal court, a plaintiff may be less likely to sue, say for the sake of an example, a newspaper, for infringement, and therefore, an infringer has a little wriggle room (even if there is a slam-dunk violation) because of the expense of filing the suit. The answer to this question is not a matter of “fair use”, its a matter of ethics.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:39 am
“Ma can we get some meatloaf?!”
Thank you Jade H…It’s only 9:30 a.m. so I have all day to engrave your name into my “Moron of the Day” trophy!
“Mom. The MEAT LOAF!!!! Fuck.”
“What is she doing back there? I never know what she’s doing.”
July 1st, 2009 at 9:45 am
Great movie.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:53 am
My spouse and children will be SO delighted to learn Grandma has moved in with us. Now … where is she?
My crusty, former journalism professor will be baffled to learn that source citations — and even cutlines — are optional when for-profit newspapers lift and distribute others’ work.
And Jade will be grateful to learn: http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000258.htm
July 1st, 2009 at 11:40 am
Please note that Derrick’s comment #63 above was stuck in the spam filter and you might miss it if I didn’t point it out.
Derrick, I never said “reporters” and you are confused because you continue to post that you just don’t understand it all that well when the facts are cut and dried.
I expect you to be able to back up statements of ethics and integrity with exactly that.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Did you really just pull the “high expectations” card Derrick? Really? Reporters are not held to too-high standards.
Police are held to higher standards, teachers, politicians, basically anyone who is paid out of public funds is held to higher standards while the public frequently forgets they’re human too.
Reporters and newspapers aren’t held to higher standards, especially in this instance. The internet is a major part of life now, you’d damn well better know what you’re doing when you use it. That’s just a part of your job, not an exception to the rule that only few should know about.
I know that you weren’t the one who wrote the article, nor did you attach the photo to the article, but your asinine comments here and on other threads make me doubt your abilities. You don’t know the law. We get it, stop reiterating it and spend that time researching the law so that you do know fair use and this doesn’t happen to you.
I don’t ever read the local papers, but knowing you work for one certainly isn’t going to make me pick one up anytime soon.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Dawnmarie, I have to beg your pardon. I’ve been told by Bill and others on this very blog that journalists should be held to higher professional standards than everyone else. Let me say that again … I’ve been told by people on this blog that I, as a journalist, should be held to a higher professional standard than those working in other professions.
And I think that’s as asinine as you seem to think my comments are. So I guess we’re in agreement. Sorry.
And way to stay classy.
I’m glad we’re still capable of having civil conversations and discourse in this world. Imagine a day when two people who don’t agree on things can talk about it without the conversation devolving into an attack on one’s character, ability or, heck, professional credibility.
Sometimes it all makes me want to give up.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I know what you’re asking, Bill. I get it.
I’m just trying to play devil’s advocate.
It’s tough to be a devil’s advocate for a bunch of devil’s advocates.
And personally, I think I have backed those things up. But I only can speak for myself.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Derrick, let me be clear since I apparently was not the last time. I meant you have to be held to a higher standard than *ME*, a person writing a blog, when *WE* (journalists vs. bloggers) are covering the same story.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Shameful journalism no matter how it gets justified.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Derrick, I think I was pretty classy. Just call me San Diego. Not a swear word in sight, my personal opinion that you are incorrect, stated clearly.
We’re having a discussion about credibility and ability in your profession, so sarcastically bemoaning an attack is not helpful to your “cause”. It is not professional, and only proves the point for those who are attacking your professional credibility. You want a professional debate, keep it professional. You want credit for being credible, be credible.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Derrick, I dont know if you are deliberately misinterpreting what people have said, or you just dont get it.
I am guessing from the attitude, condescending tone, and lack of any sort of objectivity that you just dont get it. On the bright side, I remember when I was young and knew everything as well. You will grow out of it and then some redeeming qualities might creep out.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I understand everyone’s a little testy here–and rightfully so (believe me, no one is more annoyed by all of this than me)–but let’s keep the attacks, veiled or otherwise, away from the personal sides of things. Cool?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
DM: I’m sorry you disagree with me so vigorously that you “doubt my abilities,” and that I suck so bad, you’re not going to read your local weekly.
Here’s what reporters need to know about fair use: like something someone’s already written or taken a photo or video of? Ask for permission. Don’t get it, don’t use it.
An analogy could be that it’s like murder. Personally, I don’t need to know the difference between first and second degree because I’m not going to kill someone.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:01 pm
What have I misrepresented, Chad?
I couldn’t agree more, Bill.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Derrick, reading ftw! Misinterpreting is not = to misrepresenting. Although I think you have done some of both. I think you knew when you first brought up fair use that it had no bearing on this discussion, so in my mind that is misrepresenting.
As far as misinterpreting, its a fairly common theme on this blog that people should be accountable for their actions, and if you are a professional, you should be held to a higher standard than an amateur. For you to twist that around to somehow think we are saying that only professional journalists should be held to a higher standard, and not professionals in all fields, is either an example of you deliberatly misunderstanding/misinterpreting, or in your rush to tell us how much you know and or dont know (depending on the post), you really just dont get it.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I accepted my trophy, and checked my grammer (twice). My hero, Rush Limbaugh, once said, “Don’t argue with an idiot or else people might get you confused.”
July 1st, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Derrick, please don’t insult yourself on my behalf. I never said you “suck so bad”.
I also said I don’t read the weeklies now, so the blame does not lay at your door.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:17 pm
So … three full business days have now passed. Bill, I’m curious. Have you received a response regarding this “priority” matter?
July 1st, 2009 at 5:21 pm
No.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
For those of you interested, Derrick has an interesting post up on his personal website entitled, “Rant: The evolution of arguing”. It’s something you may find to be an interesting read.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
You didn’t check your spelling, though, Jade.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:08 am
[...] of the South Metro News Roundup. Please note that until Thisweek pays my invoice in full for ignoring copyright I will not be linking to their material. No sense in giving them business when they steal from [...]
July 10th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Thisweek has chosen to only send a partial payment. An invoice for the remainder of what is due will go out shortly.
Thisweek staff, please note: this is not a joke–you will remit payment in full.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Thisweek staffers have the stupid.
$300 is a small price to pay for a front page image.
$300 is an especially small price to pay after being caught STEALING said image.
$300 is an incredibly small price to pay after being caught STEALING said image from someone that runs a very influential blog.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Was the payment appetizer accompanied by an explanation and profuse apology?
July 10th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I consider this only a partial payment on the total balance due. This is not a joke people, this is a serious matter. Do companies routinely pay 1/6th of an invoice and call it good? I doubt it.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“Do companies routinely pay 1/6th of an invoice and call it good? I doubt it.”
Only if 1/6 of the material or service has been delivered/performed. Best of luck collecting the remainder buddy.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Well, this is how I see the invoicing process carried out in the private sector. In the event that an invoice is not paid in full, a dispute with the invoice should be raised, documented and delvered to the individual or company sending the invoice and the monies for the shotfall in payment should be placed in escrow until the dispute is resolved. In the event that the dispute can not be reconciled between the parties an agreed upon mediator can be leveraged or a claim filed in a local court would ensue. If the dispute is settled in favor of the invoicer, late payment penalties, interest, and costs to reconcile the dispute may be considered and assessed.
August 15th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Thisweek has paid the invoice in full, including late fees, and I now consider the matter closed. This thread will remain open until Tuesday morning for comments (since the majority of people here don’t read until Monday anyway) and then I will close this thread to future commenting.
Please note that the article above now has a disclaimer that the issue is closed. Thanks for all of your support everyone.
August 15th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
[...] This issue has been resolved to my satisfaction and is now closed (see here). [...]
August 15th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Bill, glad to see your diligence paid off and that you got paid.
August 15th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
wa-HOOOO! Good for you, Bill.
August 15th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
About time Thisweek….. I am glad to see that Thisweek finally got around to doing the right thing. Now I may actually read the paper before removing it from the black box and tossing it in the trash.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Not sure why they dicked around with this for so long, but I’m glad that someone over there was smart enough to settle this matter.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:49 am
It took one invoice and two followup statements as well as an e-mail to ECM Publishers, Inc.’s CEO to get the job done. I’m glad that I didn’t waste anymore of my own time or someone else’s time to get what was due me.
It was nearly two months since the saga started but I’m glad to be able to link to their content again and stop wondering if they were going to do the right thing.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:39 am
[...] it did. A for-profit business used one of my photos without my permission and without attribution. Last time it was a local newspaper, this time it’s a local restaurant–and one that I wasn’t [...]