Kotaku Pays Blogger for Pictures, Thanks to Neowin & Digg
Posted by Emil Protalinski on 14 December 2007 - 03:34 · 36 comments & 24878 views
Link: Original Story | Digg Story | 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
-
-
(2 replies)
#1 Posted by RAID 0 on 14 Dec 2007 - 03:36
- Congrats! Now would you mind buying me a beer?
-
#1.1 Posted by Slimy on 14 Dec 2007 - 03:37
- Let those Diggers know what they helped achieve: http://www.digg.com/gaming_news/Kotaku_Pay..._to_Neowin_Digg
-
#1.2 Posted by +rm20010 on 14 Dec 2007 - 22:36
- Quote - (Slimy said @ #1.1)Let those Diggers know what they helped achieve: http://www.digg.com/gaming_news/Kotaku_Pay..._to_Neowin_Digg
And let us be informed that a bunch of crack sniffing monkeys post on that site.
-
#2 Posted by Tha Bloo Monkee on 14 Dec 2007 - 03:36
- Now we can put an end to this.
Congrats on the $200 you earned that you would have never earned if they didn't steal your pictures.
-
(3 replies)
#3 Posted by +Berserk87 on 14 Dec 2007 - 03:45
- Gratz to you, glad kotaku dealt with it.
-
#3.1 Posted by Tha Bloo Monkee on 14 Dec 2007 - 03:48
- Of course they dealt with it. Only after they saw the attention it was getting; it was making them look bad.
-
#3.2 Posted by +Berserk87 on 14 Dec 2007 - 04:06
- Quote - (Tha Bloo Monkee said @ #3.1)Of course they dealt with it. Only after they saw the attention it was getting; it was making them look bad.
would of been funny seeing what they said if this story wasnt all over the place
maybe $10 a pic ? -
#3.3 Posted by Tha Bloo Monkee on 14 Dec 2007 - 04:15
- Quote - (Berserk87 said @ #3.2)maybe $10 a pic ?
I was thinking more like $0.
-
#4 Posted by +biohazard on 14 Dec 2007 - 03:47
- Props to Kotaku.
-
#6 Posted by Shiranui on 14 Dec 2007 - 04:10
- Let's hope that particular story generated $200 worth of ad revenue for kotaku.
-
(3 replies)
#9 Posted by kylejn on 14 Dec 2007 - 04:43
- $200 too much. Kotaku has a hell of a lot of integrity, more than any other website that I've been on, and if pictures from another site appeared on Kotaku uncited, then I am 100% sure that it was completely accidental.
-
#9.1 Posted by Slimy on 14 Dec 2007 - 04:53
- Finding a picture, cropping it, and then posting it on your site is not accidental. Especially not when it happens twice.
-
#9.2 Posted by Rudy on 14 Dec 2007 - 05:23
- Quote - (Slimy said @ #9.1)Finding a picture, cropping it, and then posting it on your site is not accidental. Especially not when it happens twice.
someone at Kotaku is getting $200 less on their paycheck -
#9.3 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 14 Dec 2007 - 16:33
- Quote - (kylejn said @ #9)Kotaku has a hell of a lot of integrity
Had, not has. Taking pictures that don't belong to them, cropping them and then using them without paying to do so is wrong and flies in the face of copyright law - I'm no expert but even I know that is completely wrong. It is absolutely not "accidental" and the $200 for rights to use the pictures is a welcome move to correct the situation... I'd have said it was on the low side considering the network they belong to makes serious money but still better than nothing.
I'm glad the issue has been resolved but I have little respect for the site anymore because they behaved in such an unprofessional and immoral way.
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by +Neo003 on 14 Dec 2007 - 05:27
- Of course they gave hime $200.00 if he would've have sued them he would have gotton more.
-
#10.1 Posted by PinkShirtGuy on 14 Dec 2007 - 05:52
- probably a lot less than 200, after he paid his lawyer
-
(1 reply)
#11 Posted by mohan_168 on 14 Dec 2007 - 06:35
- After seeing this article so many people must have visited their website. I did not know about this site before so it was a nice publicity stunt for them as well as good revenues from the ads on their website.
So i guess $200 would not be too much for compensation. -
#11.1 Posted by ibetheone on 14 Dec 2007 - 07:43
- My sentiments exactly, "bad publicity is good publicity." They got the bad publicity from all the news stories floating around the net, so they had to make up for it, so they did something good and in turn is gonna get good publicity and possibly more people coming to there site cause i for one had no idea about the site kotaku but after doing research looks like there owned by Gawker Media which also owns the sister sites Gizmodo and Lifehacker which are much more well known to the public...i found this interesting when i read it on the wikipedia article belowQuote -Gawker.com's annual advertising revenue to be at least $1 million two years ago, and possibly over $2 million a year, knowing that little tidbit, 200 bucks is like a giving a tootsie roll away to them...
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotaku
Kotaku.com is a blog which focuses on video games. Kotaku is part of Gawker Media’s 'Glocker' network of sites, which also includes Gizmodo, Lifehacker.com and Consumerist. The website is often seen as an alternative for news and reviews to bigger, higher-profile sites such as IGN or GameSpot - it is seen as having a more friendly, casual, entertaining style and a less corporate attitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media
Gawker Media is an online media company founded and owned by Nick Denton. It is considered to be one of the most visible and successful blog-oriented media companies. As of May 2007, it is the parent company for 15 different weblogs, including Gawker.com, Defamer, Fleshbot, Deadspin, Wonkette, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, Consumerist and Kotaku.
While Denton does not go into detail over Gawker Media's finances, he has downplayed the profit potential of blogs, declaring "Blogs are likely to be better for readers than for capitalists. While I love the medium, I've always been skeptical about the value of blogs as businesses" on his personal site. However, in the February 20, 2006 issue of New York Magazine, Jossip founder David Hauslaib estimated Gawker.com's annual advertising revenue to be at least $1 million two years ago, and possibly over $2 million a year. Combined with low operating costs — mostly web hosting fees and writer salaries — Denton is believed to be turning a healthy profit.
Last edited by ibetheone on 14 Dec 2007 - 07:59
-
(3 replies)
#12 Posted by NightmarE D on 14 Dec 2007 - 06:39
- Now this is for all those people saying that what Kotaku did wasn't wrong since they were images already on the internet.
Pictures used in an article that was creating ad revenue for a site that didn't even take the pictures. How is that not wrong?
Prince17 deserved the money. His pictures were knowingly used by someone who knew very well they were taken by someone else. Or else why even bother cropping the pictures? -
#12.1 Posted by and1direct on 14 Dec 2007 - 14:39
- Quote - (NightmarE D said @ #12)Now this is for all those people saying that what Kotaku did wasn't wrong since they were images already on the internet.
Pictures used in an article that was creating ad revenue for a site that didn't even take the pictures. How is that not wrong?
Prince17 deserved the money. His pictures were knowingly used by someone who knew very well they were taken by someone else. Or else why even bother cropping the pictures?
Im still saying that Kotaku did something wrong but he should know that anything posted on internet can be copied so.... -
#12.2 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 14 Dec 2007 - 16:37
- Quote - (and1direct said @ #12.1)Im still saying that Kotaku did something wrong but he should know that anything posted on internet can be copied so....And anything put onto CD or DVD can be copied, as can books, patented ideas and musical scores. At the end of the day if a company hasn't paid for the right to use something, and if a right to use it is not enshrined in law, then it is wrong - fair usage obviously does not cover copying someone's work and allowing them to profit from it.
-
#12.3 Posted by and1direct on 14 Dec 2007 - 17:15
- Quote - (theyarecomingforyou said @ #12.2)Quote - (and1direct said @ #12.1)Im still saying that Kotaku did something wrong but he should know that anything posted on internet can be copied so....And anything put onto CD or DVD can be copied, as can books, patented ideas and musical scores. At the end of the day if a company hasn't paid for the right to use something, and if a right to use it is not enshrined in law, then it is wrong - fair usage obviously does not cover copying someone's work and allowing them to profit from it.
Profit? Kotaku didnt gain any profit from this. They just posted in on a review.
By that logic, then the prince17 guy also is wrong when he downloads music something he problably does.
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by CUBBYJR2005 on 14 Dec 2007 - 08:24
- guys its finish lets drop it and move on also the guy who got his pictures got his credit and I think 200 bucks was very nice from the website that put the pic up without checking the facts and etc.
-
#14 Posted by +Orlando Rays on 14 Dec 2007 - 10:19
- Very good on their part. Quick redemption.
As for the complainers, I think Kotaku's actions to remedy the situation quickly should invalidate their arguments.
-
#15 Posted by randomnut on 14 Dec 2007 - 11:35
- Nice one Kotaku, nice to know they're keen to resolve such situations quickly (y)
-
#16 Posted by Chicane-UK on 14 Dec 2007 - 13:07
- Nice one Kotaku. I think perhaps a little TOO generous for two pictures but they've proven themselves again as solid, and having integrity!
-
(1 reply)
#17 Posted by ellianth on 14 Dec 2007 - 14:45
- this might come off as rude, but wow, 200 dollars for THOSE pictures? When i looked at them it looked like he just pulled out his camera and pushed the capture button.
Anyway congrats dude. -
#17.1 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 14 Dec 2007 - 16:40
- So they should be free then? What about all the terrible movies that have been released on DVD: should they be cheaper because you don't approve?
-
#18 Posted by crecente on 14 Dec 2007 - 15:47
- Thanks for the post.
One point to clarify. My "dealing" with this had nothing to do with the Digg post. I dealt with it the second he emailed me.
As I pointed out to Prince17 when we emailed one another about it. I couldn't respond the second he emailed me because I was in the middle of hosting a fund raiser in Denver. I did respond when I got back home that night at 11 p.m.
Last edited by Joel on 16 Dec 2007 - 04:20
-
(1 reply)
#19 Posted by JonathanVP on 14 Dec 2007 - 16:36
- $200? Should more be like $2000!
-
#19.1 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 14 Dec 2007 - 16:39
- Considering the network they belong to makes serious money and that they had previously used them without permission I think $200 is definitely on the low side, though I don't know what would be an appropriate amount - $2000 seems a bit steep.
-
#20 Posted by sLm4ever on 14 Dec 2007 - 23:46
- did this site use the same pic too <,<; !?
http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=23479
