One of our forum members has discovered that Kotaku, a popular gamers’ news site, is taking pictures from his blog, cropping them, and posting them as part of their gaming stories. Not only did Kotaku not ask Prince17 for permission to take his pictures, they did not credit his work whatsoever. To make matters worse, this has happened twice: once by author Luke Plunkett and the second time by Brian Ashcraft. Kotaku is often sourced by Neowin both on the forums and on the main page. Pictures need to be sourced just as words do, we have strict rules for that here and we are disappointed to see that Kotaku apparently does not. Prince17 has sent an e-mail to Kotaku; we hope this problem can be resolved without legal action.
View: Original 1 | News Story 1
View: Original 2 | News Story 2
Link: Forum Discussion
View: Original 1 | News Story 1 View: Original 2 | News Story 2 Link: Forum Discussion
Last edited by rajputwarrior on 12 Dec 2007 - 23:41
Done. It's on the front page of Digg
Ok, I understand ripping an article or an original photograph, but isn't this image really the intellectual property of the game developer/publisher? Ethically, it's wrong but maybe a lawyer can inform me on the tort action.
But yeah... the pics were really nice... it's like... it was almost written "steal me" on them
Right. Well, I didn't read the article in-depth, I just assumed this meant in-game screen captures. Were they taken with a camera of a display running the game, it's another argument I presume.
Now don't think that I am defending Kotaku. I care less for that site, in fact I never visit it. But this whole situation is just out of proportions and could have been dealt without everybody's attention.
As for the one who made the original photos, relax dude. Been there, done that. If someone takes your work and uses it (even without asking), then take pride in it instead of stomping with your feet. Apparently something you made was good enough for someone, so just go with it. But if you seek attention and recognition, well, tough luck then. This is internet and people use things they find elsewhere. Even large websites/blogs.
Now don't think that I am defending Kotaku. I care less for that site, in fact I never visit it. But this whole situation is just out of proportions and could have been dealt without everybody's attention.
As for the one who made the original photos, relax dude. Been there, done that. If someone takes your work and uses it (even without asking), then take pride in it instead of stomping with your feet. Apparently something you made was good enough for someone, so just go with it. But if you seek attention and recognition, well, tough luck then. This is internet and people use things they find elsewhere. Even large websites/blogs.
So if you were a professional photographer, you wouldn't have problems with, say, Time or Newsweek using photos you took to sell millions of dollars of magazines? Not much difference other than the revenue amount.
So what was the point in starting a topic then? To say how evil and bad Kotaku is? If you so anal about your work, deal it in private and don't go public unless it's really necessary.
If I were a professional photographer, I wouldn't post any of the photos that I took before some newspaper actually purchased them, unless I want to which then would be for grabs for anyone really.
So he saw his photo's on Kotaku. Who says his photos didn't make to some other 10 websites that don't mentioned him either...
So what?
If any of you have ever downloaded warez, an illegal mp3 or even some crappy ringtone that costs money but you got it from a friend, or even used google to search for images that you later used on your blog/site/etc without mentioning the source, you shouldn't come here and say how big of a deal it is that someone didn't get recognition for 2 photos. This is internet.
+1
I don't see the HUGE deal people are making about this.
These people are using his photos on a website that generates a profit. That's a pretty big difference.
How does that change anything?
How does that change anything?
It means Prince17 is authorized to disseminate those pictures, not Kotaku.
you hypocritical idiots are all for copyright infringement on massive scales.. yet for this stupid picture no one cares about you flip out.
Here are their requirements:
"Audition to become a commenter. To become a registered commenter on this site, you first need to be approved by our team. We're looking for comments that are interesting, substantial or highly amusing. So write a comment, polish up your words and choose a username and password below. Your comment will only appear once (or if) you're approved."
Oddly... They appear to consider the following ok (Does this fall under 'interesting', 'substantial' or 'highly amusing'?):
"BY SLY AT 02/19/07 10:08 PM uhmm i`m prob going to get introuble for this but indians are the cheapest people in the world they have more money than u and me"
And under their legal section concerning copyright infringement regarding images, doesn't this sound rather threatening?
"Please note that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that any material on our sites is infringing your copyrights.
Indeed, in a recent case a company that sent an infringement notification seeking removal of online materials that were protected by the Fair Use doctrine was ordered to pay such costs and attorneys’ fees. The company agreed to pay over $100,000. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether material available online infringes your copyright, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.
Please note that a copy of each legal notice we receive will be sent (with your personal information removed) to Chilling Effects for publication."
Sounds like a site to steer clear of IMHO.
And to the naysayers, theft of personal images by a revenue-generating organization should NOT be permissable under any circumstances. It may be a "god damn picture", but it's a "god damn picture" that isn't theirs to use.
Report it to O'Reilly on Fox News... that's funny!
Report it to O'Reilly on Fox News... that's funny!
well it probably work orielly would love to get his hands on this and say the internet need more laws so this doesnt happen.
Sorry, that was the first thing that came to my mind.
Dirty move by Kotaku but this guy has nothing to complain about.
Besides, he problably downloads music which is more or less the same action.
Dirty move by Kotaku but this guy has nothing to complain about.
Besides, he problably downloads music which is more or less the same action.
You have stuff in your house. People steal stuff. When someone robs you, I guess you had it coming. It'd be a dirty move on the robbers part, but you wouldn't have anything to complain about.
Besides you've probably stolen stuff too, which is more or less the same action.
Hey - that's a great argument! I especially like the part when you assume he's a criminal. You should be a judge or something.
You fail.
Once again, STOP WITH THE STUPID ANALOGIES. I'm tired of them.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.