Kotaku Steals Pictures from a Blogger
Posted by Emil Protalinski on 12 December 2007 - 22:11 · 48 comments & 51231 views
View: Original 1 | News Story 1 View: Original 2 | News Story 2
Link: Forum Discussion
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Emil Protalinski
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Emil ProtalinskiContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(5 replies)
#1 Posted by SkyyPunk on 12 Dec 2007 - 22:22
- Ouch! That sucks on their part that they would do that o.0 is it that big of a deal to just say they got the picture from x???
-
#1.1 Posted by Slimy on 12 Dec 2007 - 22:24
- Digg it if you have an account: http://digg.com/gaming_news/Kotaku_Steals_..._from_a_Blogger
-
#1.3 Posted by rajputwarrior on 12 Dec 2007 - 23:35
- dugg! come on, there should be enough people on neowin alone to get this on the front page of digg
Last edited by rajputwarrior on 12 Dec 2007 - 23:41 -
#1.4 Posted by Netrack on 13 Dec 2007 - 01:34
- keep digging, we need more, lets make this a neowin effort here folks!@
-
#3 Posted by majortom1981 on 12 Dec 2007 - 22:30
- Thats wrong. I just lost respect for their site . I read them everyday.
-
#4 Posted by zshadow on 12 Dec 2007 - 22:36
- Well, I've seen them source images before, maybe just a mistake?
-
#5 Posted by semifamous on 12 Dec 2007 - 22:39
- On Neowin's front page, you used to post your own references to the original sources on the front page itself under the stories. Why have they moved? Now, one must click on the "Read more..." link to get to the original source. I don't care for that option. Yes, you're posting your sources unlike Kotaku here, but your old way was better.
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by Budious on 12 Dec 2007 - 22:43
- "We hope this problem can be resolved without legal action."
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. -
#6.1 Posted by Tha Bloo Monkee on 12 Dec 2007 - 23:08
- Yeah, I thought that was a little funny. I mean, sure. They're taking pics without permission, but does that warrant to sue them? (unless somehow "Prince17" is losing money, I doubt it tho).
-
#7 Posted by PsykX on 12 Dec 2007 - 23:00
- Wow. I read that topic earlier today on Neowin's forums. Never thought ti would make the frontpage here though!
But yeah... the pics were really nice... it's like... it was almost written "steal me" on them
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by Prince17 on 12 Dec 2007 - 23:10
- Budious : I had a press pass for covering this event.
-
#8.1 Posted by Budious on 13 Dec 2007 - 00:34
- Quote - (Prince17 said @ #
Budious : I had a press pass for covering this event.
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.
-
(7 replies)
#9 Posted by Andre on 12 Dec 2007 - 23:11
- Well, boohoo! Instead of making such a big fuss about it, email them and ask them to remove the photos. But no, let alone that the original owner of the photos goes posting about it on the forums, someone from Neowin decides this is somehow frontpage news. Give me a break!
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. -
#9.1 Posted by +Lexcyn on 12 Dec 2007 - 23:23
- If you read TFA, you would see that he did e-mail Kotaku and is waiting for a reply.
-
#9.2 Posted by GOJI_GKing2000 on 12 Dec 2007 - 23:33
- Somebody wasn't held enough as a child
-
#9.3 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 12 Dec 2007 - 23:56
- Quote - (Andre said @ #9)Well, boohoo! Instead of making such a big fuss about it, email them and ask them to remove the photos. But no, let alone that the original owner of the photos goes posting about it on the forums, someone from Neowin decides this is somehow frontpage news. Give me a break!
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. -
#9.4 Posted by majortom1981 on 13 Dec 2007 - 00:00
- He also had a press pas for the event. Keep that in mind.
-
#9.5 Posted by Andre on 13 Dec 2007 - 00:58
- Quote -If you read TFA, you would see that he did e-mail Kotaku and is waiting for a reply.
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.Quote -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.
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...Quote -He also had a press pas for the event. Keep that in mind.
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. -
#9.6 Posted by Tha Bloo Monkee on 13 Dec 2007 - 01:56
- Quote - (Andre said @ #9.5)... 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. -
#9.7 Posted by SureGuy on 13 Dec 2007 - 14:43
- Quote - (Andre said @ #9.5)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.
These people are using his photos on a website that generates a profit. That's a pretty big difference.
-
(4 replies)
#10 Posted by Enigma776 on 13 Dec 2007 - 00:02
- It's a god damn picture get over it.
-
#10.1 Posted by Tha Bloo Monkee on 13 Dec 2007 - 02:02
- +1. It sucks, but it's not as big of deal as some make it out to be.
-
#10.2 Posted by majortom1981 on 13 Dec 2007 - 02:31
- Yes but when you actually had to get a press pass to get those picturesd then yes its a problem.
-
#10.3 Posted by Tha Bloo Monkee on 13 Dec 2007 - 03:46
- Quote - (majortom1981 said @ #10.2)Yes but when you actually had to get a press pass to get those picturesd then yes its a problem.
How does that change anything? -
#10.4 Posted by +Orlando Rays on 13 Dec 2007 - 10:52
- Quote - (Tha Bloo Monkee said @ #10.3)Quote - (majortom1981 said @ #10.2)Yes but when you actually had to get a press pass to get those picturesd then yes its a problem.
How does that change anything?
It means Prince17 is authorized to disseminate those pictures, not Kotaku.
-
(1 reply)
#12 Posted by mystmaster23 on 13 Dec 2007 - 00:22
- who the funk cares seriously
you hypocritical idiots are all for copyright infringement on massive scales.. yet for this stupid picture no one cares about you flip out.
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by thenay on 13 Dec 2007 - 00:42
- that's pretty low of Kotaku, but a lot of news sites grab images off everywhere, permission or not, if its not copyrighted then there's no grounds
-
#14 Posted by That 70s Guy on 13 Dec 2007 - 00:50
- I'm actually not familiar with Kotaku (Hope that doesn't get me in trouble
), but I find the fact that you have to "audition" to become a commenter quite hilarious. I guess this helps weed out the people who they steal from?
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.
-
(2 replies)
#15 Posted by CUBBYJR2005 on 13 Dec 2007 - 02:48
- because of this I wont be going to Kotaku website I dont like going to a news site that steals info. Actually if you report it to bill orielly he may do something about it he a news perosn on fox news.
-
#15.1 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 13 Dec 2007 - 04:00
- Quote - (CUBBYJR2005 said @ #15)because of this I wont be going to Kotaku website I dont like going to a news site that steals info. Actually if you report it to bill orielly he may do something about it he a news perosn on fox news.
Report it to O'Reilly on Fox News... that's funny!
-
#15.2 Posted by CUBBYJR2005 on 13 Dec 2007 - 04:17
- Quote - (GreyWolfSC said @ #15.1)Quote - (CUBBYJR2005 said @ #15)because of this I wont be going to Kotaku website I dont like going to a news site that steals info. Actually if you report it to bill orielly he may do something about it he a news perosn on fox news.
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.
-
#16 Posted by Epimetheus on 13 Dec 2007 - 02:50
- This is hilarious, Neowin and Kotaku duke it out! What a bunch of pure e-penis bull****. If you don't want your grand old photos stolen, don't post them on the internet. I don't even post any of my real information on the internet nor my articles or any thing of that matter simply because it is - the internet - Piracy is the King here.
-
#17 Posted by GEIST on 13 Dec 2007 - 02:54
- Big ****ing deal. I'm going to call my man in Congress right now.
-
#18 Posted by +warwagon on 13 Dec 2007 - 04:02
Sorry, that was the first thing that came to my mind.
-
#20 Posted by seamer on 13 Dec 2007 - 06:34
- Believe it or not, a set of good pictures can sell for a five figure number - you know, an annual salary for some of the people here. Those'd be the ones saying 'who cares?'
-
#21 Posted by SniperX on 13 Dec 2007 - 11:57
- Quote -we have strict rules for that here and we are disappointed to see that Kotaku apparently does not.Yeah, that'll make them feel bad, knowing that you're disappointed in them.Quote -Prince17 has sent an e-mail to Kotaku; we hope this problem can be resolved without legal actionOh dear, has the "Or else I'll sue you" e-mail already been sent? Come on, hands up how many people have received one of those and how many have actually been sued as a result? None? I thought so....
-
#22 Posted by nEGAc on 13 Dec 2007 - 12:35
- Seems they have posted a link to the original image at the bottom of the article now. Or was that already there?
-
(2 replies)
#23 Posted by and1direct on 13 Dec 2007 - 13:10
- IMO, he had it coming; Anything and everything on the internet can be copied so he knew his when he posted it on his blog.
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. -
#23.1 Posted by SureGuy on 13 Dec 2007 - 15:19
- Quote - (and1direct said @ #23)IMO, he had it coming; Anything and everything on the internet can be copied so he knew his when he posted it on his blog.
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. -
#23.2 Posted by Tha Bloo Monkee on 13 Dec 2007 - 19:25
- Quote - (SureGuy said @ #23.1)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.
You fail.
Once again, STOP WITH THE STUPID ANALOGIES. I'm tired of them.
-
#24 Posted by analogbits on 16 Dec 2007 - 20:26
- Wow this story has sure become huge. I wonder whats the big deal about it though.
