
Clear disclaimer. None story. Send it to the Daily Heil Andrew.
They're at it again. Who? Take a guess: if it's not the Daily Mail, then it's probably the BBC. The corporation has once again been caught pinching photos, wrongly attributing them, and pretending nothing ever happened - in a triumph of crowd-sourced "citizen journalism". But this incident of photo-lifting is slightly more …
"If I put a disclaimer on my car saying "The driver will not accept liability for any harm caused to pedestrians who allow any part of their body to hit this car at speed" it doesn't mean I can do 100mph outside a primary school without impunity does it?"
What a pointless and irrelevant analogy. Thanks for your imput.
Much as I enjoy watching Orlowski get told how much some of his articles fail, I have to wonder what the problem is if he does peruse Stormfront?
I have done myself on occasion. It's like watching two retards having a mud-fighting contest. It's slightly scary, and you really shouldn't laugh but...
Oh right, its all about money, always then is it? You'll get by in the world a little better if you don't exclusively judge the rest of the species on your own narrow values.
You might want to broaden your reading too. Along the way you might work out why some journalists write only on particular topics and others don't.
Do we really need a "copyright violation is theft and straving artists" angle on this kind of stark incompetence by the BBC which seems to be designed to push for another "NATO humanitarian intervention by DU distribution" in a country no-one knows anything about?
I don't think so.
"Thanks to technology lowering the costs of production and distribution, we are all creators now, and we need our rights protecting against their unauthorised, unpaid use by media giants - who want to use our work for no cost and at no risk."
I detest the concept of "creator" and the idea that one should have pennies shoved into one's bank account for every crap one comes up with. Because of "rights". Sod that.
Spoken as a truly ignorant consumer.
"...the idea that one should have pennies shoved into one's bank account for every crap one comes up with".
What utter drivel and that's clearly not what's being implied at all - this is a discussion about use without permission. If something is crap and therefore not worth anything, they wouldn't be choosing to use it in the first place. By definition, choosing to use it gives it value so you don't have a valid argument here.
If I take a photo for my own personal use I don't expect anyone to give me anything for that. If I decide to share it with my friends that is my choice. If a *commercial* organisation, ie, one that intends to directly or indirectly profit in a financial or other way, from the use of a photo decides that they want to use MY photo rather than get one of their *paid* photographers to go and get a similar photo themselves, they can ask for permission and abide by my terms. If they don't receive my permission or refuse my terms then they can use a different photo or live without. That is how a free market works.
Check out the photos taken by Magnum photographer from WWII, or indeed more recent wars. 'Every crap' was them risking their lives, or at least living dangerously, to record what was happening.
Photographs that report are essentail and eventually historic witnesses. They have value. We honour that value by paying for them.
If Destroy All Monsters's suggestion were to be followed, then it would completely remove the incentive for the vast majority of creative work to be produced world-wide.
As in, it really would Destroy the music, video, film, journalism, photography industries et al, and not only All Monsters.
"Either the team responsible for this cock-up didn't attend - or those teaching the courses need to be fired."
As a (senior) lecturer, I cannot accept responsibility for all cock-ups my students make after following or even passing my course. The people teaching the course in source attribution may have been sterling, but let us not forget a student's ability to forget, misconstrue, or otherwise garble any information or skills imparted to them. I have seen all too often that students learn things only to the level to pass the exam, and then get totally plastered to ensure they erase that section of memory as effectively as possible. Fortunately, there are also many students who really want to learn and work hard at it. I have long ago decided to focus my efforts on the latter class, and lose no sleep over the former. After all, they are grown ups, they are responsible.
Many image search tools exist, they should have been able to find the source. If anyone is to be fired, fire those responsible.
As a (senior) lecturer, you probably have no concept of how unabidably crap the average corporate trainer is. It's a certificate culture out there, and the delegates (I won't demean the term "student" by using it here) are expected to sit, listen, maybe "brainstorm" a bit, then walk away with a piece of paper.
It's really rather disheartening.
"As a (senior) lecturer, you probably have no concept of how unabidably crap the average corporate trainer is. It's a certificate culture out there, and the delegates (I won't demean the term "student" by using it here) are expected to sit, listen, maybe "brainstorm" a bit, then walk away with a piece of paper."
Actually, a colleague had to follow an "Academic Leadership" training given by a corporate trainer. His description was telling. Unabidable crap is a fitting designation. The trainer asked questions like: "what would you do if a PhD student turns up at 9:30 each morning?"
Answer by (experienced) trainees varied from: "Nothing, as long as he gets his work done," to "Commend him for consistently arriving before the head of the department."
These were not the right answers according to the trainer (who clearly had no concept of an academic working environment). He honestly expected people to work regular 9-5 shifts. When criticised that this was not how we work, and that many PhD students work say 10 am to 8 pm shifts r longer, he stated this was no way to run a lab. He was questioned whether he had ever run a research department, he had to admit this was not the case, but he stuck to his guns that he knew how it should be run.
My colleague and all other trainees considered the course a complete waste of time, but you had to get the certificate for the new tenure track system. I gather they have now got rid of this course.
Like you, I had to double-check the banner to make sure I really was reading the Reg when I read that atrocious sentence. What, exactly, is Orlowsky going on about now? I know most independent web rags hate the BBC for its 'unfair' position in the market space, and Mr O is particularly rampant, but Christ on a crutch! 'Propaganda'? Is he on a mission or what?
This post has been deleted by its author
If you re-read the article (or maybe read it for the first time? Or just read the title of the article?) you see that the sentence in question came from the screenshot taken from the BBC website. In no way did the author of this article write that sentence.
As for 'what is he going on about' - well, that's simple, right? Someone sends in an image, BBC Editor uses that image without checking proper sources.
It has nothing to do with any unfair position of the BBC in the market space.
If you can't understand the wrongness of such practices - well, i guess you are in the company of a growing number of 'esteemed' Anonymous Cowards with opinions about how every photo should be copyright-free.
I on the other hand, like 'giving credit where credit is due'.
"What, exactly, is Orlowsky going on about now? I know most independent web rags hate the BBC for its 'unfair' position in the market space, and Mr O is particularly rampant, but Christ on a crutch! 'Propaganda'?"
It's pretty clear really. He's not accusing the BBC of propaganda. He's accusing whoever forwarded the photo to them of doing so for propaganda purposes. i.e. find photo of a different massacre, and forward it on to the Beeb, claiming it's from this one.
The BBC were the victim of said propaganda. Although they have access to plenty of tools to be checking the image, and they're a massively well-funded organisation. Plus they are well aware that it's going on, and not all reports are honest or unbiased. Plus they took it from an anonymous source, which is even worse. So they have no excuse.
Maybe this photograph, showing hundreds of dead bodies from Iraq, gives us a clue about what is really wrong with the mainstream media's reporting about Syria. We are told that about 100 people were killed, perhaps by government forces, perhaps by "activists", perhaps by militiamen aligned with one side or the other. Among them were many children. As a result, "Western" nations are severing diplomatic relations with Syria, ordering Syrian ambassadors and staff to leave! Stern measures.
Meanwhile, the US government is responsible for over 2 million deaths in Iraq (including at least 500,000 children according to Madeleine Albright) - excluding the maimed, injured, bereaved, and homeless - and tens of thousands at least in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hardly a week goes by without a story like this: http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/23/11839215-pakistan-official-us-drone-strike-hits-mosque-10-killed?lite. Wedding parties wiped out, mosques obliterated, funerals bombed: here a dozen civilians, there a handful of pre-teen goat-herds... So when are US diplomats going to be expelled by right-thinking governments? Yes, that's right, never.
An upvote isnt enough. This is a very valid point. I am outraged at whats going on in Syria, and at Russia etc, but I realise we (the 'west') are hypocrits. Theres very little difference between whats going on in Syria and what was done in Iraq, except perhaps the scale and sophistication of the weaponry. And please don't tell me its worse to kill a child with a bullet than with a missile or some such crud.
2 million? Reliable sources please.
Yes there has been a lot of deaths but as far as I can tell the highest figure I can find is just under 110,000. Still a lot of people and yes people should be outraged but coming out with unjustified hysterical propaganda helps no-one.
I'm as unhappy as most people about what has gone on in Iraq and Afghanistan but it worries me that you see no difference between (possibly avoidable) civilian deaths caused by an invading foreign military and a government using it's military to kill citizens who show dissent.
"I'm as unhappy as most people about what has gone on in Iraq and Afghanistan..."
So you don't give a shit.
Actually, I DO see a difference between civilian deaths caused by "an invading foreign military" and a government using force to put down an armed rebellion. The invading foreign military you are probably referring to was committing what the Nuremberg Tribunal called " the supreme international crime": an unprovoked war of aggression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression
So the deaths caused by the invasion were illegal and unjustifiable. They were also far more, by a factor of at least 1,000 - probably more.
The government of Syria is apparently using force to resist a heavily armed rebellion by people whom the BBC call "activists" or "the opposition". If such people acted in such a way in the UK or USA, our governments would unhesitatingly call them "terrorists". Indeed, last time some people tried - not to overthrow the government of the USA, but just to declare independence from it - they were brutally repressed in a war that killed over half a million people.
The war in Iraq may have been illegal but why do people like yourself always brush over the fact it was an illegal war that removed a genocidal dictator (regardless of whether you believe that was Bush's intention)?
The Syrian 'opposition' as far as I know weren't well armed until after the government started it's crackdown and still aren't well armed by any standard a professional military would recognise. If you think shelling your own cities to put down rebels with small arms is a sound tactic I really hope you're not in the military.
Also, taking the actions of people out of context and describing them as terrorists is ridiculous. If America's founding fathers had attempted their revolution in modern times they'd just be armed, tax dodging terrorists.
"The war in Iraq may have been illegal but why do people like yourself always brush over the fact it was an illegal war that removed a genocidal dictator (regardless of whether you believe that was Bush's intention)?"
The clue is in the word "illegal". (Also the words "supreme international crime"). As for "genocidal", the USA and its allies killed far more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Do you think removing a dictator is worth 2 million lives? (If so, you may be related to Madeleine Albright). Lastly, Iraq under Saddam was probably the most advanced, civilised, and secular Muslim nation in the Middle East. The war has put it back a hundred years. Today the place is as riven by religious mania and violence as medieval Europe; no woman can safely be educated or go out to work or wear Western dress; Christians and Jews go in peril of their lives; death may strike anyone, anywhere, without warning.
As for "dictator", ask yourself how much more influence you have over the way your country is run than the average Iraqi had under Saddam Hussein. Over a million people marched through London to protest against Britain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq. Tony Blair ignored them completely.
"The Syrian 'opposition' as far as I know weren't well armed until after the government started it's crackdown and still aren't well armed by any standard a professional military would recognise".
Neither are the Taliban. Yet it's now 10 years and counting since the USA invaded their country, and it is losing. Neither were the Viet Cong, nor the French Resistance.
"If you think shelling your own cities to put down rebels with small arms is a sound tactic I really hope you're not in the military".
No, I'm not. But the US military does that all the time - when helicopters, B52s and drones aren't handy. And they use white phosphorus, which I haven't heard of the Syrians using. The cities they shell aren't in their own country, of course - do you sincerely believe that makes it better?
Show me a war that wasn't illegal in some way and I'll give you my life savings. One minute you're criticising the US for dodgy tactics, the next you're saying it's ok for the Syrian government to use those tactics because the Americans do.
You say over a million people marched through London and then point out it achieved nothing as if this means something. You're conveniently ignoring that over 61 million didn't protest at all.
Now you're claiming Iraq under Saddam was some beacon of civilisation? You are George Galloway and I claim my £5.
"Show me a war that wasn't illegal in some way and I'll give you my life savings".
OK. How about the war the USA fought against Japan, after Japan got its timing wrong and declared war after the attack on Pearl Harbor? Or any war fought against any aggressor.
"One minute you're criticising the US for dodgy tactics, the next you're saying it's ok for the Syrian government to use those tactics because the Americans do".
No. I started out by asking why the Western media are making such a big deal out of a relatively few civilians being killed in Syria, on the very dubious evidence of self-admitted enemies of the Syrian government, when those same media completely ignore far large numbers of civilians killed by our own governments.
I then moved on to criticizing the US and UK governments for committing the supreme international crime - according to the tribunal they themselves et up in 1945 - by launching unprovoked aggressive war and killing well over a million people.
Then I pointed out that Iraq was in far better shape under Saddam Hussein than it is now - so even the feeble excuse of expediency fails utterly.
You mean the war where the US massacred 2 whole cities of an enemy that was already on it's knees?
"No. I started out by asking why the Western media are making such a big deal out of a relatively few civilians being killed in Syria, on the very dubious evidence of self-admitted enemies of the Syrian government, when those same media completely ignore far large numbers of civilians killed by our own governments."
You started by claiming that what we were being told about Syria isn't necessarily the whole truth which is fair enough. You then went off on a tirade about the US as if what's happening in Syria can be excused because America might be worse. The media doesn't ignore western atrocities, you even linked to their reports yourself.
Any country looks better before a war compared to immediately afterwards.
"You mean the war where the US massacred 2 whole cities of an enemy that was already on it's knees? [sic]"
No, I mean the war where the USA more or less destroyed an entire civilization.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts153.html
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/After-five-years-of-U-S-occupation-Iraq-is-1267560.php
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/16/us_withdrawal_from_iraq_in_terms
If you want an example of a city that was utterly destroyed (on purpose), try Fallujah.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/11/iraq.rorymccarthy1
http://www.rememberfallujah.org/
This post has been deleted by its author
Well, Anonymous Coward, I assumed that anyone participating in a serious discussion like this would know the facts and figures. Evidently you haven't troubled to inform yourself, so here are some basic sources.
Here is US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright copping to the 500,000 dead children on live TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
More about Albright (or try Wikipedia):
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30942
The Lancet studies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
The ORB study:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties
Note that the Lancet and ORB studies were published in 2006 and 2007 - five years ago. Iraqis have been dying in large numbers every day since then, hence my extrapolation to 1-1.5 million excess deaths by now. According to Colin Powell's Pottery Barn Rule, "you break it, you own it". (Obama has rejected this precept).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule
Efforts were made overnight to track down the original source of the image ? No need to make efforts, just have a look at the EXIF data. There's everything you need right there unless the media organisation you work for uses content management software which ignores or, worse, actively strips out the metadata.
Efforts were made ? Yeah, to make the Beeboid's excuse sound plausible. FAIL.
This post has been deleted by its author
Journalists are out to make a name for themselves by using shortcuts and shock tactics wherever possible. The BBC have somehow got themselves a nice respectable image for being above this sort of thing. Their output 9such as this) shows they are pretty much just a bunch of those Guardianista / Socialist worker tossers and they have an agenda. You know, the ones who hung about at Student Union meetings voting to waste good beer money funds on writing snotty letters to African dictators.
You clearly haven't met many/any journalists or been anywhere near a jjournalistic environment. I think you probably mean editors, managers or media moguls etc , who are the ones in a position to dictate the tone and thrust of a story. I'm slightly surprised you didn't recommend good, honest bloggers as the logical antidote to all those champagne swilling Elitist Socialist control freaks who you clearly believe are in it for the glory.
The truth is out there after all.
There is a lot of money to be made from stock images.
I could knock up a website in about 30 mins and start selling. The only trouble is most of my pictures are either of the moon or birds (feathered variety)
Although all us El Reg commentards could get together and act out some of the news stories and try and sell the them as authentic. It could be a money spinner as the journo's not seem to be able to authenticate them properly.
I would dispute a couple of bits of comment in the article. Firstly using tinyeye or Google image search etc does not make the revelation of the parents of an orphan work "Technology can find the long-lost parents of orphan works". It merely finds other examples of the same or similar images. If they equally have no identifying EXIF or watermarks, then you are no closer to finding the true owner of the copyright. Since many photographers deliberately put robots.txt tags on their online galleries, the software described will not always find the true source of the images.
Secondly the article implies that the government has kicked the small claims track into the long grass. Not so. A consultation and call for evidence was concluded in Feb 2012 (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-enforce-c4e-pcc-response.pdf) and plans are in hand to launch the small claims system, within the soon-to-be renamed PCC by the end of the year. Realistically this probably means sometime in 2013, but at least things are moving forward and not stagnating as Andrew suggests. Details of an interesting recent 'small claims' case here: http://www.thefetishistas.com/index.php?menu=7&sub=47&display=697
Obviously! wrote :-
"Wow! What a big stink about nothing. Does it matter? NO.
Some bloke banging on about an pic he took nearly 10 years ago!"
You have completely missed the point. The point is that a picture that is untrue to the situation was published, a very strong image that may rouse people to strong opinions or action, serious action (like supporting war) that is unjustified. It certainly does matter.
A similar situation occurred in the early stages of WW1 when the British Government encouraged false rumours that German soldiers invading Belgium were chopping babies' limbs off; this was to get the British public to accept total military involvement in Belgium and Northern France
The issue of copyright is trivial by comparison. Doesn't sound to me that the photographer was "banging on" about it. Sounds like a journalist contacted him t tell him about it and his reaction was to say he was "astonished" by it. Sounds like a reasonable reaction to me.
"The Mail recently overtook the the New York Times as the most read newspaper website in the world...."
O.......M........F.........G..........!
Then again, ISTR that it was the NYT responsible for the "Gordon Brown can't play Obama's DVDs 'cos they're all Region 1" idiocy[1], so maybe it's just that there isn't much to choose between 'em and the Fail has more pics and fewer long words.
[1] 'Cos if my player's multiregion, I'll bet the one in 10 Downing Street is too.
This post has been deleted by its author
Anyone who has read my posts on copyright, copyright duration, orphaned works, the 1886 Berne Convention etc., etc. will know how vehemently I am opposed to copyright in its present form. They will also know that I support much freer access to works, easier and more reasonable 'fair use' provisions and the notion of 'thin copyright'.
That said however, I consider the 'stealing' of works from the vast orphaned works collection--no matter how old they may be--as unacceptable. Only in the full public domain would there be a free-for-all, and even then attribution still makes sense for a multitude of reasons, historically, authenticity, cultural etc.
It's lazy sleazebags such as the BBC and ilk that fuck it up for everyone. Even if there were absolutely no moral imperative in the way to disclose and or attribute the source, it still makes sense to do so. For, in addition to the abovementioned reasons, we do not need to give the greedy Copyright Industry any additional legroom or excuse to further squeeze politicians on copyright law and or divide-and-rule the copyright debate.
It's very simple really, when there's any doubt as to the source material, then (a) users should be obliged to do a reasonable search, and (b) such works should be attributed as 'unknown, circa date xyz' etc. Moreover, news agencies such as the BBC will have a fair idea of where the image came from and its approximate creation date--otherwise why would they want to use it other than it must have some contextual meaning with or association to the story in which the image is to be used--and they should be forced by law to say so.
"Either the team responsible for this cock-up didn't attend - or those teaching the courses need to be fired."
Or someone on the team went on the course, and simply made a stupid or lazy mistake.
I know it isn't permitted to make mistakes these days, let alone admit to them, but it doesn't stop them happening.
Besides the fact that it's not theft and you know it, that's the least of the problem here.
They are cutting out real reporting to save money, and printing random stuff people send them, or stuff they found on the internet (see Onion stories posted as real for example) and calling it NEWS.
Using a picture they don't have the right to use is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.
If they had paid for the picture that would not fix anything, it would still have nothing to do with the story it was posted with.
The story here is that they used the wrong photo, not that they didn't pay for it.
It's not that they are trying to save money by not paying for a photo, it's that they are trying to save money by not paying for reporters to actually check the facts and write the stories.
Always makes me laugh when on the few occasions I have visited the Daily Mail website for some reason (usually involves me laughing and saying "oh my balls, what a bunch of BS") and I see a picture credited to "The Internet". I mean seriously FFS!
The scary thing is that most of their die hard fans probably think the internet is an actual legal entity - one which is systematically trying to corrupt their kids with extreme porn!
I think that theres a worse problem here. If the media use pictures from other incidents to back their stories and do not label them as 'library pictures' or such like (I know the picture in this case was labeled as unverified) then it gives ammo to those that might want to deny the events being reported.
I'm reminded of the troubles in Tibet a few years back; The BBC came in for criticism for labelling a picture of an ambulance with some thing along the lines of 'there's a heavy military presence in Tibet'. Other news outlets had used footage of Nepalese Police Truncheoning rioters claiming that the footage was from Tibet. There was even a picture of a large number of Chinese police changing into civvies that was used to back the claim that police were disguising themselves in order to start the riots in the first place, which actually turned out to be a picture taken on a film set where the police were being used to provide a large number of extras. The worst offender was a German news station that allegedly completely mistranslated an interview with a woman on the street in Tibet.
The result was a whole load of ammo to back the claim that the Western media was misrepresenting events and had some anti Chinese agenda.
I could imagine the Syrian regime using this incident to back a claim that the massacre didn't happen, had they not already blamed it on the opposition forces.
Why risk destroying the credibility of the story for a bit of background checking on an image before publishing and some care with labelling?!
And you, El Reg, were fully part of it. What I see in this article is the pot calling the cattle black.
Or have you already forgotten your story where it was allegedly proven that IE users are dumb as a bag of hammers ? You probably tried hard to forget it, but you know; this is the Innernets ;-)
Don't feel too much pained for you were in very good company there. Even local national newspapers (in Holland) prominently carried this story, as if it were a major issue.
Yet that is the underlying issue which symptoms you mention here. Major news companies often do not check sources period. That's /period/.
A development which is very disturbing considering how many people often follow one single news source. Sure, people I'd be tempted to call "less educated" but would be better described as: "much less interested.".
Sure; in the end it /is/ the fault of the masses who will blindly believe a story when it comes from a "reliable source". In the end you should always be very weary when it comes to news credibility and if a story really interests you its a good idea to take some time and read multiple papers with multiple views on the matter.
But as said: this isn't merely about pictures and ownership violation. Its about news agencies who will easily cut corners if a certain story seems so interesting or extreme that they might make a good name with it if they can get it published ASAP.
Don't forget El Reg: you were once full part of that. So lets be a little easy when it comes to criticizing other news agencies, but also dare to put the finger on the sore spot. And you know darn well where that is!
Hint: this isn't about theft or imaging licensing.
So yesterday it was the BBC announcing a critique of the HALO space empire's unwillingness to intervene in Syria. (But in response I must say that the Syria level has not been coded yet!)
Today it is the BBC substituting pictures of the Iraq War in Syrian news coverage.
Tomorrow, maybe the Beeb will announce that they have pictures of Syrian forces attacking the town in question....and then run that part of the first Transformers movie where the scorpion-Decepticon attacks that Arab village!!
After all, Decpticons are no friend of pluralistic politics!!
I can recommend the TInEye plugin for researchers at the BBC. Scraping social media and Googling to produce content, with tabloidesque disclaimers that may as well say, "An insider said ..." or , "A close friend revealed ..."
Due to the unique way that the BBC is funded, quality control is minimal!
Anybody who's been following the Middle East for a while knows by now that Arabic news media's main purpose is propaganda, not accuracy. This is not a failing for them as much as it is for, say, Fox News. They don't make any pretensions to do otherwise; no slogans of "fair and balanced". The Arabic culture is one where flowery tales and lavishly embroidered stories are more prized than plain unvarnished facts. The proverbial rug merchant trying to sell his wares by dint of his gifted imagination as much as their actual quality is a cliche because it is such a standard paradigm in the culture. So coming up with photos to illustrate a massacre is not difficult; but it would be foolish to try to establish the provenance of such photo.
So there are never any mistakes or careless acts so long as the news organization avoids 'citizen journalism'? <- false assumption
Sorry, similar errors or acts of laziness have happened at other outlets. Even when citizen journalists were not involved. There's not much excuse for this failure by BBC, but if you're trying to make a larger point then you'd need to perform a statistical study.
im still wondering what that burning tumbleweed and twits firing wildly into the cupboard inside a house in syria was meant to be in a channel4 report a few months back.
That Jon snow and his chums have really gone down in my estimation . Dont even watch c4 news anymore.
F secs sweaty head in any joint statement tells you all you need to know.