Hey, there! Log in / Register

Globe begins to get this Web thing

When people like Dan Kennedy and Pax Arcana woke up this morning, they were faced with an abomination on boston.com: A Globe op-ed piece reproduced entirely as a giant .GIF image. boston.com has since done the right thing and turned it into text that the visually impaired can read and which won't give people with 20/20 vision headaches.

Equally impressive, at least boston.com-wise, was how its obituary on that poor Newton kid who died of the flu actually has a link to a YouTube video of him playing the piano.

Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:

Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

The Globe emailed me yesterday to use a photo I took at the flash mob pillow fight a few months ago on the website. I gave them permission -- today, I see they've run my photo without crediting me or even linking back to my flickr page. Instead it says "file photo."
http://www.boston.com/thingstodo/gallery/weekend_p...
Here's my flickr page with the original photo on it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/varmazis/2113320171/

Once I gave them permission to run the photo, I get that they don't *have* to credit me as the photographer (though I kind of figured they would). But is it really that hard for them to run a proper credit or link back to a source? What year is this?

--
[VARiable expression] @ http://www.mvarmazis.com

up
Voting closed 0

Tell them that the photo is incorrectly credited. They'll probably fix it.

And next time you give them or anyone else permission, make sure you include a condition that the photo be properly credited to you.

up
Voting closed 0

I might, though I am kind of baffled that I even have to do this. You'd think it'd be a no-brainer in an online publication to link back to a source!

In case the link above expires, here's another:
calendar.boston.com...international-pillow-fight-day

--
[VARiable expression] @ http://www.mvarmazis.com

up
Voting closed 0

you may want to put a Creative Commons Attribution license on your Flickr photos instead of just Public.

Meanwhile, just e-mail them back and tell them they made a mistake. If you don't, they'll keep making the same mistake.

up
Voting closed 0

Good call, Ron. I've just added an attribution license to all my photographs and I'll drop them an email tonight.

up
Voting closed 0

Oh, yeah!

Dear Globe:

It's customary if you use somebody's photo that you give them credit.

up
Voting closed 0

Apparently my name is now "Brian Lewis."

up
Voting closed 0

You should be grateful the magnificant Boston Globe used your photo. They won't be in business much longer - so you can tell your grandkids about it some day.

up
Voting closed 0

Of course! Heck, I should print this out and frame it!

up
Voting closed 0

Once I gave them permission to run the photo, I get that they don't *have* to credit me as the photographer (though I kind of figured they would). But is it really that hard for them to run a proper credit or link back to a source? What year is this?

Maria, it depends entirely on what conditions you set on use of the photos. The proper response to the Globe would not have been "yes", but "You may use the photo provided I am attributed in the caption as follows: Maria Lastname from mvarmazis.com". They have no right to complain and little ground to negotiate; they're getting the photo for free.

If they break that agreement, your first call should be to their legal department, because they're breaking usage rights. They won't take anything else seriously, as you've witnessed.

As for how to "set" your photos- publishing them "public" doesn't erase your copyright or your rights as the owner of the work. You get to dictate how images you created are used, unless they were work product.

I'd also caution you to push harder when people ask to use your photos. By agreeing to let papers use your photos for free and with no condition, you're eroding the power and pricing of professional photographers. Why hire a photographer to cover a story, when you can just surf flickr instead?

up
Voting closed 0

Good points all. I'll definitely keep this in mind for the future -- I am just a snapshot photographer who happened to get lucky with that one picture (my camera's a simple digital point-and-shoot) so I'm not too familiar with photographers' rights.

Your last point is something I thought about when I got their email. I know there was a Globe reporter present at the event but all the photographers there were snapshot-types like me, so in this one case I'm not sure what other option they'd have for a photo of this past event. For the event on Saturday I hope they pay for someone to be there!

--
[VARiable expression] @ http://www.mvarmazis.com

up
Voting closed 0

and replaced it with a much less interesting and less locally-specific picture from "iStockPhoto.com".

Why would they do that instead of just giving you proper credit?

(And I think they also changed the photo in your subsequent link. Is that one no longer yours, either?)

up
Voting closed 0

Hey, Glob!

I hear they've got great photos at hissyfit.com!

up
Voting closed 0

Well when you get an image from a stock photography site, you know exactly where you stand legally when you buy the photo.

up
Voting closed 0

A few friends emailed me telling me the photo was pulled.

Not long after that I got an email from the Globe, from what I can understand, saying there was some kind of mix-up between the Globe photo desk and the boston.com photo desk -- the Globe didn't know boston.com had grabbed the photo, apparently the credit hadn't been put on there yet. All's well that ends well I guess! I got a lot of valuable feedback in this thread on what to do next time if/when someone wants to use my photos.

up
Voting closed 0

free porn erodes the power and pricing of professional porn.

up
Voting closed 0

BOSTON.COM is a DOG.

As media businesses implement a business model based on a web presence, they ought to keep in mind that web pages that take upwards of 5 seconds to load - becuase thay have so many fat ads - will drive people from their site.

I used to go there frequently. I can't stand the wait when navigating from one page to the next.

Who's with me?

up
Voting closed 0

Three words: Ad Block Plus.

up
Voting closed 0

I found the Youtube video rather touching and sad.

Though I didn't know Nathan, the video of him playing the piano was more humanizing and more powerful than traditional text-based obituaries could ever be. It touches you emotionally, and elicits sympathy on a more personal, deeper level.

I think that when done properly and with respect, links to relevant videos like this bring us closer together in a good way.

up
Voting closed 0