Che fine ha fatto …

I agree. The issue IS important. The parties on the two sides of the debate are irrelevant and don’t deserve to be attacked by an angry mob.

This is one of those cases where a court of law is required to resolve the dispute.

The issue for the rest of us is one of public policy and we have a long way to go to win that argument against the absolute control of IP by the right’s holder. There’s too much money behind that position for it to swing towards “Fair Use’ as a commonly accepted excuse.

Fair Use is a legal defense and has no protections and it’s always judged in a court of law if the parties go to court.

So… check the right’s of the images and ask permission. If not then be prepared to potentially face a court action for compensation. Choose the path that excites you to most. No risk, or risk with legal precedent for a defense against damages.

No risk is always better if there are CC images available to tell the story.

Let Lane disagree and protect re-use. Fair enough?

I hope the Richter Scales don’t pay on priniciple becuase they shouldn’t have to pay for a piece of social commentary that re-uses images paid for by Wired. Once Lane was paid by Wired then her work can be re-used for a parody of the Web 2.0 culture. Happy smiling faces of the Web 2.0 party crowd (which Wired paid her to document for us all).

Also I’m concerned with your hypocrisy here – wouldn’t you sue if somebody used your commercial vids without attribution? Are you saying it’s just a matter of degree of use?

Regarding the recent Lane Hartwell fatuousness, I urge Wired to strongly considering not hiring Lane Hartwell for any more work.

She has proved, through her short-sighted and cretinous actions, that she has no understanding of copyright law, fair use, or ethics — nor does she have a shred of common sense.

I will no longer be purchasing Wired and will not be renewing my subscription if her images continue to besmirch my favorite magazine.

He is supposedly a “Viral Video Genius,” and a former marketing professional. Some Web 2.0 Guru. He has a Technoarti authority of 79 (wow… how impressive…) with a ranking of (drumroll…)

89,301

Ranking of 89,301 = Poser. Wannabe. Hack.

IMO, one should be at least in the top 1,000 to be a guru…

The only reason this guy is getting any views at all is because he is glomming on to situation in which a few employees of Google, Pixar and PayPal (look it up if you don’t believe me) stole a photo from a self-employed freelance photographer and then behaved like assholes when she called them on it.

Now, Mr. 89,301th-ranked Viral Video Genius is infringing on her content and encouraging others to do the same.

My guess is the members of The Richter Scales will each be getting some VERY uncomfy emails from the HR dept. in their day jobs, (which is a scary thing when you are not talented enough to make it as a musician.) But Nalts does not have to worry. Nobody gives a rat’s butt what he thinks or says.

89,301. Puh-LEASE.

See for yourself:

http://www.technorati.com/blogs/willvideoforfood.com

So, are you ignorant about copyright (not that your room-temp IQ will be a defense in the end) or are you a former marketing person?

Make up your mind — you can’t have it both ways.

At first I felt bad for Lane Hartwell, getting crucified by all of you guys for merely daring to assert her copyright. But now I envy her. She’s gonna be a nice multi-paycheck for whichever of the IP lawyers she chooses, as I’m sure she is getting solicited by plenty of them right about now.

Suggesting other people do the same will play well in court.

Idiot.

Also, as I understand it, she sent a polite notice requesting removal of the photo and the initial response was something to the effect of “Our attorney says we’re allowed to use it so it’s not going anywhere”.

Looks like that is a clear invitation to set the record straight and let them (and the rest of us) know exactly what the policy is, at least here in the U.S.

And if there’s no money to be had here, how can you say this is about money?

As a side note, what if someone were to take that cleverly written song and use it, without permission or credit, to promote an unrelated concern or idea? The artists might not care, but if they did, they would have the right to put a stop to it. No? And it that someone refused to stop using the song, they’d be well within their rights to take further action. I’d be on their side if the situation were reversed.

I’m weary of this “If it’s on the net then it’s free for the taking” attitude of many people.

I’ve had many of my own photos posted in other locations and every time I’ve found them (uncredited) I have asked that they either be credited or taken down. Not once have I had a problem with any of my own requests. In this instance, Ms. Hartwell still retained control over the photo, so her controlling her own property is definitely not the issue. This IS all about the money; money that doesn’t exist.