Comments on: Flattery? http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery Casting a little flavor (and a few aspersions) on the world of food, drink, and life Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:55:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: dan http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery/comment-page-1#comment-9600 dan Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:54:04 +0000 http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery#comment-9600 It does now, it didn't when this was written. I contacted them and asked them to do so, and they did. It does now, it didn’t when this was written. I contacted them and asked them to do so, and they did.

]]> By: susy http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery/comment-page-1#comment-9586 susy Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:16:37 +0000 http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery#comment-9586 It`s funny. I ended here because of "Pasa en Buenos Aires". If you put the mouse on the milanesa napolitana and you hold it there says "the picture is from..." (in spanish!) It`s funny. I ended here because of “Pasa en Buenos Aires”. If you put the mouse on the milanesa napolitana and you hold it there says “the picture is from…” (in spanish!)

]]> By: SaltShaker » Blog Archive » Food Heritage http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery/comment-page-1#comment-9577 SaltShaker » Blog Archive » Food Heritage Wed, 27 Dec 2006 12:52:20 +0000 http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery#comment-9577 [...] Buenos Aires - It’s been awhile since I wrote something for What’s Up Buenos Aires?, but the recent flurry of online activity over local food heritage was just too much fun to resist, especially following on the whole milanesa photo “scandal”… Latest piece is currently up in WUBA’s News section, but will gradually scroll off to the right… a copy is, of course, on my website. [...] [...] Buenos Aires – It’s been awhile since I wrote something for What’s Up Buenos Aires?, but the recent flurry of online activity over local food heritage was just too much fun to resist, especially following on the whole milanesa photo “scandal”… Latest piece is currently up in WUBA’s News section, but will gradually scroll off to the right… a copy is, of course, on my website. [...]

]]> By: Buenos Aires Blog Roundup - Week #2 | Buenos Aires Travel Guide http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery/comment-page-1#comment-8825 Buenos Aires Blog Roundup - Week #2 | Buenos Aires Travel Guide Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:12:01 +0000 http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery#comment-8825 [...] The BA city government steals a Buenos Aires blogger’s photo of a milanesa napolitana. [...] [...] The BA city government steals a Buenos Aires blogger’s photo of a milanesa napolitana. [...]

]]> By: dan http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery/comment-page-1#comment-8812 dan Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:52:53 +0000 http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery#comment-8812 Whether you agree or not, you're simply not correct about what copyright law states. And my site is copyrighted, because I do make some money off it - it's not just a casual personal blog - by law it's no different than if someone copied something out of a book or newspaper and republished it as their own - for money. The copyright notice and law is quite clear about what's required for someone to use the photo - whether it benefits me or not. I also didn't say anything about the intentions of the other bloggers - the only person who I "attributed intentions" to was the government blogsite programmer - and they don't have the picture linked, attributed, or anything - they're not only using it, but they put their own copyright notice on it, the same as the three newspapers did. It's not hard to attribute intentions to someone who blatantly posts their own copyright on your work, on a commercial site - remember, the only sites I'm objecting to using my photo are the three that charge money for subscriptions and used it. (And, note, one of the three newspapers immediately removed the photo and issued an apology for violating the copyright - which is what the other two ought to do, but probably won't.) In terms of four of the five bloggers, I have no objection at all to them using the picture - something I've stated clearly. I didn't ask them and wouldn't ask them to remove the pictures - I do think that it's more proper to clearly note where you got a photo from if you use someone else's photo on your blog (copyrighted or not), but, being non-commercial sites, they're not obligated to do so. And, I do think it's inappropriate for the fifth blogger, who is, by the way, a professional journalist, to have simply copied the photo on his own page, without the link that the others have. Whether you agree or not, you’re simply not correct about what copyright law states. And my site is copyrighted, because I do make some money off it – it’s not just a casual personal blog – by law it’s no different than if someone copied something out of a book or newspaper and republished it as their own – for money. The copyright notice and law is quite clear about what’s required for someone to use the photo – whether it benefits me or not. I also didn’t say anything about the intentions of the other bloggers – the only person who I “attributed intentions” to was the government blogsite programmer – and they don’t have the picture linked, attributed, or anything – they’re not only using it, but they put their own copyright notice on it, the same as the three newspapers did. It’s not hard to attribute intentions to someone who blatantly posts their own copyright on your work, on a commercial site – remember, the only sites I’m objecting to using my photo are the three that charge money for subscriptions and used it. (And, note, one of the three newspapers immediately removed the photo and issued an apology for violating the copyright – which is what the other two ought to do, but probably won’t.)

In terms of four of the five bloggers, I have no objection at all to them using the picture – something I’ve stated clearly. I didn’t ask them and wouldn’t ask them to remove the pictures – I do think that it’s more proper to clearly note where you got a photo from if you use someone else’s photo on your blog (copyrighted or not), but, being non-commercial sites, they’re not obligated to do so. And, I do think it’s inappropriate for the fifth blogger, who is, by the way, a professional journalist, to have simply copied the photo on his own page, without the link that the others have.

]]> By: Singson http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery/comment-page-1#comment-8807 Singson Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:43:16 +0000 http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery#comment-8807 I am not associated with anyone, I just don't agree with what you say attributing intentions to people you don't know. If you did not even ask the sites to remove the picture is because you have being benefied for the linked picture with visits you had not before. So, what you should do is thank thouse sites. Thats prove that there is not only YOUR WAY of attributing the picture. Any one who put the mouse on the image knows where it comes from if he/she is interested in. What you are claiming for is for free advertaisment, but the picture I think is correctly attributed, and nothing had being violating since those sites just shou the picutre from your site. I am not associated with anyone, I just don’t agree with what you say attributing intentions to people you don’t know. If you did not even ask the sites to remove the picture is because you have being benefied for the linked picture with visits you had not before. So, what you should do is thank thouse sites. Thats prove that there is not only YOUR WAY of attributing the picture. Any one who put the mouse on the image knows where it comes from if he/she is interested in. What you are claiming for is for free advertaisment, but the picture I think is correctly attributed, and nothing had being violating since those sites just shou the picutre from your site.

]]> By: dan http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery/comment-page-1#comment-8793 dan Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:02:48 +0000 http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery#comment-8793 Singson, "Attributed" means you state "Copyright SaltShaker.net" or "Photo provided by SaltShaker.net" captioning the photo. I don't know which one of the blogs you're associated with, if any, but I didn't threaten to sue anyone - I didn't ask anyone to even remove the photo, with the exception of the newspapers who used the photo and claimed it as their own copyright (and I didn't threaten to sue them either, just asked them to not use it on a commercial site). I just rechecked the sites, and the two remaining listed above as "not attributed" do not state either of the attributions listed above - but again, I didn't contact either blog owner and ask them to do so, I merely pointed it out here. Singson, “Attributed” means you state “Copyright SaltShaker.net” or “Photo provided by SaltShaker.net” captioning the photo. I don’t know which one of the blogs you’re associated with, if any, but I didn’t threaten to sue anyone – I didn’t ask anyone to even remove the photo, with the exception of the newspapers who used the photo and claimed it as their own copyright (and I didn’t threaten to sue them either, just asked them to not use it on a commercial site). I just rechecked the sites, and the two remaining listed above as “not attributed” do not state either of the attributions listed above – but again, I didn’t contact either blog owner and ask them to do so, I merely pointed it out here.

]]> By: Singson http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery/comment-page-1#comment-8775 Singson Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:52:27 +0000 http://www.saltshaker.net/20061211/flattery#comment-8775 Dear sir: linked IS ATTIBUTED. You are the one who would be sue beacause of what you say of other people. Dear sir: linked IS ATTIBUTED. You are the one who would be sue beacause of what you say of other people.

]]>