Straight from The Whore’s Mouth
The liberal journal, Mother Jones, ran a story this issue that is worth spending some electrons on.
In a story on their Diddly Awards , MJ, listed quotes that were winners in the contest. The “heck of a job” badge for political euphemism went to Hillary Clinton.
The Republicans, in my mind, though, won for the best “Diddly” truth.
The “Truth in Politics” award goes to Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.), for her reply when asked after a speech how she would describe what she does in Congress:
“I’m a hooker.”
She elaborated on her trope by explaining just what she believes a congressional representative’s job to be:
As Joe Friday used to say: “The truth, mam, just the truth.”
“That’s right, I said I’m a hooker,” she insisted to her stunned audience. “I have to go up to total strangers, ask them for money, and get them to expect me to be there when they need me. What does that sound like to you?”
Verification? Aw, c’mon Associated Press
In what may be the latest case of digital manipulation of a photograph passing itself off as a news image has recently made national, and international publication through one of the largest news agencies in the world.
The supposed single-vision feline, nicknamed Cy, reportedly came into the world on Dec. 28, according to owner Traci Allen, an Oregon woman who supplied the photograph to AP.
As The (Bend, Oregon) Bulletin photo editor Dean Gurnsey said,
“It was not an AP photographer and I also have not been able to find her name in the phone book. You can do anything in Photoshop these days and it did not come from anyone whose name I recognized.”
Tom Stathis, AP regional photo editor, said,
“someone from the AP Portland office could have traveled to Allen’s home in Redmond to see the kitten, which she contends she has kept in her freezer. But he said that idea was dismissed because the woman’s home is about a four-hour drive from Portland. “We had a lot of other things on our plate.”
Excuse me? Had a lot of other things on our plate??? Pay attention Tom…AP should never use that excuse. The problem is really that you should have spent some time reading a document that AP has been working on for quite some time…and recently made public. It is seductively titled: THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES.
C’mon Tom…spend some of your time keeping-up with company policy. Afterall, it’s AP’s reputation…something that is valuable enough to clear your plate for.
Federal Appeals Court Rules Using Technicality
In what appears to be a ruling slamming freedom of speech involving the largest internet company in the world, Yahoo (based in Sunnyvale, California), it appears that more than meets the casual-eye was involved.
The case, Yahoo v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, involved two French anti-Nazi groups suing the American internet company for offering Adolph Hitler’s book Mein Kampf , as well as other Nazi-era memorabilia, for sale through its website. Further information concerning this appeals court case is available here. Information concerning the initial ruling in 2001 is available here.
The suit appears on the surface to have been based on a technicality…that of the lower court’s original ruling not being enforcable because it was based in a foreign country. But…and here is the ah-ha moment…in actuality it may be that the appeals court was not wishing to put the courts into a diplomatic dilemma.
As Susan Crawford, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law in New York stated,”The facts in this case allowed the court to avoid the difficult diplomatic issues raised by the dispute.” In translation…the appeals court did not want to allow a ruling that would pit the US courts against the French government.
One of the appeals court judges brought that issue to light when he stated in the decision,
To prevent enforcement in the U.S., a foreign judgment must be “repugnant to public policy,” and the case isn’t in any shape to tell if the French orders meet that requirement, Judge William Fletcher wrote.”Yahoo has chosen not to ask the French court” whether unrelated changes in its policies — like prohibiting auction listings that offer items associated with primarily violent or hateful groups — have indirectly satisfied the foreign order, Fletcher wrote. “Instead, it has chosen to come home to ask for a declaratory judgment that the French court’s orders — whatever they may or may not require, and whatever First Amendment questions they may or may not present — are unenforceable in the United States.”
While it’s possible that Yahoo could be forced to restrict its access to its American users, that possibility is, at this point, “highly speculative,” Fletcher wrote, and therefore not urgent enough. See
So now the questions appear to be:
- what happens if another country passes laws somehow exploiting the decision in this case…how about the new Bolivian president insisting that any internet service based in the United States imposed principles repugnent to the soverign country of Bolivia?
- how about local hate groups moving “offshore”, just like banks, and then filing such suits? Nuisance? Or legal, by this ruling?
Will freedom of speech suffer longterm? Obviously we will see more on this case in the future.
Vital Information for all Blogs/Bloggers
Many of you may already know of this group…for those who are newbies to blogging, like the digitalprof, this is a light in the digital ether.
Do yourself a favor…search their files…they provide up-to-date information on many aspects of what we try to do via the digital world.
They fight for our rights!
A Freelance Photographer Wins A Major Ruling against A Media Giant:Right(s) Win-Out
In light of the current onslaught on author’s rights as evidenced by the GOOGLE Library Project, and the continuing mis-appropriation of photographers work by publications and websites worldwide, a photographer from Tennessee has recently established a groundbreaking precedent in a case against a “flagship” newspaper in Northern California.
Photographer Christopher R. Harris, a professor in the College of Mass Communication at Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN filed suit when he discovered that a photo of Southern author Walker Percy, that he had shot originally while on assignment for Esquire Magazine, was used in a book review by the (San Jose) Mercury News. What was most troubling to Harris was that he had never been contacted by the Mercury News for rights to use the image, and was never paid for any such use. Additionally, the Mercury News had removed his copyright notice from his photo credit when they published the “pirated” photo, thus possibly violating an aspect of the Digital Millenieum Copyright Act under Federal Copyright statutes.
Harris, who still leases stock photos from his collection of images shot over a 25-year career, derives part of income from such leases. Professor Harris is well know for his long-term work with the New York Times, TIME, Newsweek and other national and international publications.
He was one of the first photographers to work with GAMMA/Liaison photo agency, with offices in New York and Paris. Due to the agency’s international scope of representation, the distribution of his many stories, and assignments by GAMMA/Liaison led to his work appearing in literally hundreds of publications worldwide.
Confronted with the legal dilemma of someone “pirating” his work Harris then hired the Silicon Valley law firm Tech & Trial Law Group. Robert Spanner and Susan Kalra , known experts in intellectual property, were attorneys in this suit.
At a hearing on this case in mid-Summer 2005 Judge Breyer hinted that this could be an important case in author/photographer rights. Judge Breyer stated for the record that,
“On the one hand, this case looks like a very small case. I don’t know whether the copyright fee would have been 50 bucks or a hundred bucks, or whatever it is. I don’t know, but it’s not a large amount. So I must believe that what is at stake here is the principle of whether a newspaper writer can take a photograph from a book and publish it without permission of the copyright holder, and I guess there’s sort of a further – there’s some further arguments as to in publishing the photograph, the copyright notice was eliminated, cropped.” (emphasis added)
In its later motion for summary judgment the Mercury News introduced evidence that its practice of accompanying book reviews with copyrighted photographs taken from the book being reviewed was common to other metropolitan newspapers (The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer and others) throughout the country, and that the practice was legal under the “fair use” defense.
That motion was denied in a ruling by, Northern District of California (9ThDistrict) Judge Charles Breyer on January 2, 2006:
“Defendant argues that use of the photo was the equivalent of a pictorial quotation from the book and similarly falls under the fair use exception. Yet the photograph was obviously marked as a copyrighted photograph in the book, both on the page the photograph appeared and then again in the credits in the back of the book. In other words, the photograph was a copyrighted work within a copyrighted work. … As a result, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that use of a copyrighted photograph in a book review, in which the book clearly states that the photograph is copyrighted, constitutes fair use. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (emphasis added)
In plain English, Judge Breyer ruled that no one could successfully claim “fair use” if the claim contained copying copyrighted photographs. The exclusive rights to those copyrighted photographs resides with the copyright holder,i.e., in most cases the photographer.
According to Robert A. Spanner, lead counsel for the plaintiff,
“a photographer’s right to limit distribution and reproduction of his or her copyrighted photographs is a fundamental tenet of copyright law, and the notion that a newspaper can override that right and freely reproduce and distribute – without a license and for free – photographs which the photographer had licensed to a book publisher for a fee, would obviously be a matter of grave concern to the photographers’ profession. Mr. Harris stood up for the rights of his fellow photographers because he believed it was the right thing to do, and we are gratified that his efforts have been vindicated.”
All Writers Should Join
As writers, we are often better organized in producing our final product than we are in protecting it.
My suggestion for all writers, in light of the continuing concern over maintaining control over the rights inherent in our writings…especially in the age of the “Digital World”, is simple: join the Text and Academic Authors association. There are many reasons for doing so.
Additionally, the annual convention is used for education in all areas related to publishing your writing…legal issues, ethical concerns, contracts, publisher info, writing styles and techniques and more.
This year the convention will be in Orlando, at the Grosvenor Resort…convenient to all the local entertainment areas…so you can bring the family and still attend the educational seminars. Don’t forget, attending such educational venues can be a tax deduction. Check with your accountant, but this makes the convention even more inviting!
Start the New Year off on a positive footing…join this leading authors group.
I Only Wish I Could Write Like Him
For those who don’t know about Paul (Lester) Elliott, Paul Lester, Carlos, or the Amazing Homeboy, I’m want to introduce you.
Paul is a prolific writer on visual ethics, among other things. In fact I consider him one of the best writers I know. It is because of this appreciation of his work that I want to share it with others.
Here is a link to his “writings” site with links to many of his progeny. Do yourself a favor for the New Year and read some of his observations/musings.
His Spiral Web on the Nature of Coincidence is a special treat!
When it comes to representing the visual (photojournalists and photo editors, still and video) journalism industry the National Press Photographers Association is tops in its field.
Under the guidance of a respected group from industry and academia the NPPA has issued a set of ethics guidelines that address new technologies in the “Digital World.”
Courts Just Can’t Agree
Two groups of photographers whose work frequently appeared in National Geographic magazine have recently had a new legal hurdle thrown their way courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Douglas Faulkner, Louis Psihoyos and Fred Ward (Faulkner) sued the Geographic in 1997 over the use of their photographs in a CD-ROM collection without their permission, or additional compensation. Jeffrey Greenberg (Greenberg) filed a separate suit against the Geographic in 1998, based on a similar complaint.
The crucial element in both suits was the reuse of the photographers images in a new form…the CD-ROM. What the Supreme Court has ruled is that the reuse of the photographs in the new form was allowable under Copyright Law.
Certainly the cases were not unusual under the auspices of intellectual property as represented by the Copyright Act. The importance of the ruling is that it shows the inability of the current copyright act to address the issues of new technologies.
What A Mockery
The Northern California chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists recently published an “open letter” concerning the SPJ awarding Judith Miller of the New York Times the First Amendment honor at it recent national convention.
To sum-up for those who may not be aware (so where were you that you didn’t hear this story?) Miller went to jail rather than reveal her source for a story appearing in the New York Times concerning information about CIA agent Valerie Plame. Plame is the wife of former United States Ambassador Joe Wilson. Wilson wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times that questioned information in a statement made by President George Bush in his 2003 State of the Union speech.
There has been great debate in media circles regarding this “honor.” If you have some time, and want to read some great venting do a Google search on this subject.
As for my posting…I just could not let the year go by without adding to the questioning of this dubious achievement by a leading organization in the professional world of journalism. And why is this posted on a blog about the “Digital World?” Quite simply, journalism is rapidly becoming a digitally dominated medium. Besides, it’s my blog.
The question I pose is simple: Does a shield law concern outweigh the ethics of “proper” journalism? It really seems to me to be a case of the chicken before the egg. I don’t believe you can have good journalism if a concern for the information received is faulty from the beginning.
For those with their heads still in the ground, the New York Times finally hitched-up their pants and admitted their reporter was “slack” in her duties enough to warrant remideration. Judith Miller was fired/resigned.
And now we will await the news of the source of that leak in the courts. Let’s hope that they do a better job with the truth than award-winning journalists may have done in the past.
Thanks to a comment posted by The Woodchuck I need to make sure to correct what most already know ( I really did know this, but the brain is old…so yup, I got it wrong!)… Ambassador Joe Wilson wrote an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times not a letter to the editor. Later, Wilson wrote a letter to the congressional committee investigating his claim, and that was published in the Times.
Thanks Woodchuck…please read his post…he seems to have an interesting blog. Contribute as you can.