Comments on: Flattery?

By: A MilaNapo Quint

A MilaNapo Quint — Sat, 06 Apr 2019 12:07:37 +0000

[…] declared the milanesa napolitana as part of the local culinary heritage. Years ago I even had a minor kerfuffle over a picture I took of one. So, I went on a brief tear here in Recoleta over the last three […]

By: dan

dan — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:54:04 +0000

It does now, it didn’t when this was written. I contacted them and asked them to do so, and they did.

By: susy

susy — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:16:37 +0000

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

SaltShaker » Blog Archive » Food Heritage — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 12:52:20 +0000

[…] 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

Buenos Aires Blog Roundup - Week #2 | Buenos Aires Travel Guide — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:12:01 +0000

[…] The BA city government steals a Buenos Aires blogger’s photo of a milanesa napolitana. […]

By: dan

dan — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:52:53 +0000

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.