Skip to main content

View Diary: Copyright (314 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  When will Kos open PHOTO repository? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    norm, zeke L, historys mysteries

    Isn't it time for Kos to start using photo made by regular folks/contributors instead of going AP hardcore

    1. Yeah I know it doesn't fit all type of news class. (international/national)
    1. but for local news/grassroot activism. Kos can definitely start the idea of people generated content, instead of fattening up AP.
    1. whatever happen to creative commons pix/material? hmmmm... too viral even for so called progressive media?  (works that is "permission by mentioning" can fit dKos bill right?)

    bottom line, don't go hardcore corporate media yet, without exploring other possibility.

    Better use the money paying AP, to start own picture service.

    •  Anything that lets us little guys (6+ / 0-)

      get a foot in the door is a great idea, but I would worry that we don't have the same protections against fraudulent pictures as someone like the AP or Getty Images has, with their huge networks of trusted photographers around the world.  I mean, anyone can use PhotoShop these days and one of the things you take for granted with the big agencies is that they're on the up and up and their photos are always real.

      Amidst all our honest Citizen Photo Reporters there would be sure to be some PhotoShoppers, just like we occasionally get confidence tricksters on the Recommended Diaries.  How would we protect ourselves from that?

      •  same with anything on the net (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        norm, Loquatrix, cookiebear, TiaRachel
        1. nothing is trusted, even AP. All thing has to be corraborated.
        1. History count. A newbie with too good to be true item is suspicious, compared to sensible opinion by long time trusted user with known pattern.

        AP has been known to do propaganda, so I am not THAT much more comfortable with them.

        I rather has 20-30 amateur pictures covering all angles done by 20 different people than 1 good loking picture from AP, that I can't corraborate.

        But my point. Time to invest on our own infrastructure instead of fattening up AP!

      •  Didn't Reuters... or was it AP (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        photoshop some images in the last year or so?  

    •  Intriguing (7+ / 0-)

      But that content is already pretty much available. What about photos of Bush at some news event?

      There might be some argument that some photos have so much value as news material that they should be open source. Like press pool photos, where no independent photog could ever access. Why should the major news outlets own images of historical events?

      But that's not the law. That's something that would have to be earned. And that's a fight I might be willing to engage.

      That's not stealing someone else's words wholesale, but a fight for the visual images of history. Those can't be rewritten or blockquoted.

      So stuff like the Lieberman/Bush "kiss". The image of Bush growing Ellen Tauscher is a WHite House picture, so in the public domain, but what if it wasn't? What if it was AP? We couldn't use it? I have a fundamental problem with that.

      And in that vein, there's C-SPAN claiming credit for their coverage of Congress. That should be open source, or Pelosi and Reid should create a government-funded alternative that provides everything in open source.

      But back to your point -- what would we have to create? Flickr already exists.

      •  It's not the event... (4+ / 0-)

        It's the capture itself.

        Anyone can take a picture of the Grand Canyon.  But photographers routinely copyright pictures of the Grand Canyon, because they spent the time and had the creative eye to capture that scene in a unique and expressive manner.

        The same thing applies to photographing people and events.

        Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

        by Phoenix Rising on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 12:58:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  C-SPAN (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        norm, zeke L, peraspera, joanneleon

        I would argue that C-SPAN should be lumped in with official government photography and should be freely available to the people for reprint and reuse.

        Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

        by Phoenix Rising on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 12:59:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  be nice if it were so (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peraspera, joanneleon, blueoasis

          As I recall c-span claims sole copyright of all their content and will send you a DMCA takedown if you try hosting it. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

          "The power to dominate rests on the differential possession of knowledge" -Foucault

          by Jett on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 01:24:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It would only take an Act of Congress (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zeke L, joanneleon

            After all, they have exclusive filming rights to the floor of the Congress.  Congress almost certainly has control over that, if they want it.

            Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

            by Phoenix Rising on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 02:33:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  C-SPAN (0+ / 0-)

          From their site:

          C-SPAN is a private, non-profit company, created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a public service. Our mission is to provide public access to the political process. C-SPAN receives no government funding; operations are funded by fees paid by cable and satellite affiliates who carry C-SPAN programming.
          http://www.c-span.org/...

          I had always thought they received public funding.  This is a tough one.  If it's offered as a public service, and they have exclusive rights, their material should be in the public domain, IMHO.  

          "War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it." -- George Orwell

          by joanneleon on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 03:24:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Using those photos for political commentary (3+ / 0-)

        would, I think, be protected free speech, and would probably fall into a fair use exception for reporting to boot.  Wikipedia's rules and commentary are excellent on this; they show how it should be done.

        My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

        by Major Danby on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 01:12:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  well (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe not all photographers are into AP. Some has "not so great" picture, slightly blemished that they want to put on either "reduced price" or open for public use.

        etc.

        but there really isn't a "well known" photo repository, or at least a clear place for progressive site to "buy" picture.

        so an photo auction site or a repository of some sort for all progressive blogger would be nice.

        I mean look at flickr. All those amateurs/semi professionals photographers..they look great. A lot of them are given away under Creative commons.
        but flickr is for general "photography" instead of "newsy" pictures.

        but ...the big point... There is no "go to " site for this sort of material for progressive sites/blogger.

      •  Clarify please: No AP, Reuters or News Photos (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Panda

        are allowed now? Or are they allowed with attribution?

    •  on the other hand (0+ / 0-)

      if there were a site-use photo repository, isn't there then an implication that the site takes some responsibility to assert that the photos can, in fact, be used?  that would require either a due diligence policy or a huge batch of disclaimers.  i'd be more inclined to recommend keeping it simple: if it's left up to the individual kossack's use of flickr or other photo hosting service accounts, the site seems to me to have less liability.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site