I use to read their website everyday but now maybe 1 time a week tops usually less than that.

How do the copyright laws work regarding social media sites like Twitter and Instagram, etc?

 

If I take a picture and post it on Twitter, doesn't that make it fair game? Same with Instagram?

 

A quick google turned up this regarding Twitter images:

 

The terms go on to state that you also grant “each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in media Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your media from the Service provided that any sub-license by Twitpic to use, reproduce or distribute the Content prior to such termination may be perpetual and irrevocable.”

 

Entire article here regarding Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram...

If I'm reading that correctly, if you upload a picture to Twitter, and someone else wants to use it for their blog, you've already given legal consent.

That's how I read it too.

Here's the reason why I don't really complain about it or anything...a lot of times, I'll post my videos or pictures on Facebook, Twitter, etc. and then they pull them from there.

 

My question is: is it fair game if I throw it out there publicly? Should they still give credit?

 

I'm not sure so I haven't really paid any attention to it. Sometimes they get my pictures via Google image search. Is that fair game?

 

Either way, I have nothing against Jones and have talked to him several times. I even wrote on KSR for a while a few years ago but discovered that it wasn't really my cup of tea, which is fine. I have no hard feelings but I can understand why many people get upset with them.

In my opinion, they should still give a hat tip with a link but I'm not sure how that is viewed by everyone else.

IMO yes they should give credit to stuff they share from instagram, FB, Twitter, YouTube and others...but how should they do that? In most of those cases if you click on the photo from instagram for example it goes to the originators page and you see who put the photo out there. So I guess my uestion is what would suffice in giving credit to someone for a photo or video?

Why are they "nerds"?

 

Because it's a photo! How hard (literally) did this guy "work" to get a photo? Take 2 seconds to pull out his camera and click a button? I don't think this case will go anywhere, and either way Matt knows how to work the public to his benefit, to get the most out of his site and radio show. The dude is genius, and is now probably not really worried about money. I agree though that he (and his site) should at least link your sight Wireman, because you do a great job. I just don't this case against him is worth it. BUT I have never claimed to be a lawyer and know anything about what is going on. :idunno:

In my opinion, they should still give a hat tip with a link but I'm not sure how that is viewed by everyone else.

 

I agree with that completely.

 

That's the right thing to do, regardless of whether it's required legally or not.

Because it's a photo! How hard (literally) did this guy "work" to get a photo? Take 2 seconds to pull out his camera and click a button? I don't think this case will go anywhere, and either way Matt knows how to work the public to his benefit, to get the most out of his site and radio show. The dude is genius, and is now probably not really worried about money. I agree though that he (and his site) should at least link your sight Wireman, because you do a great job. I just don't this case against him is worth it. BUT I have never claimed to be a lawyer and know anything about what is going on. :idunno:

 

I believe the only reason this got to this point is because the guy who took the photos asked them to either take them down or give him credit for taking them. They refused to do either, so here we are. My understanding of it anyway.

Because it's a photo! How hard (literally) did this guy "work" to get a photo? Take 2 seconds to pull out his camera and click a button? I don't think this case will go anywhere, and either way Matt knows how to work the public to his benefit, to get the most out of his site and radio show. The dude is genius, and is now probably not really worried about money. I agree though that he (and his site) should at least link your sight Wireman, because you do a great job. I just don't this case against him is worth it. BUT I have never claimed to be a lawyer and know anything about what is going on. :idunno:

 

As for the photographer who is upset, he bought a really expensive camera; earned media credentials; spent gas, food and hotel expenses for the trip. I can understand his point of view on that. But, I don't see pulling out a $150,000 lawsuit claim or whatever it was. I'm with you...I don't think this will go anywhere.

I agree with that completely.

 

That's the right thing to do, regardless of whether it's required legally or not.

 

I guess that's kind of my view on it. I just think the proper thing to do is just give a hat tip with a link. If KSR did that, their entire public perception would be different.

Because it's a photo! How hard (literally) did this guy "work" to get a photo? Take 2 seconds to pull out his camera and click a button? I don't think this case will go anywhere, and either way Matt knows how to work the public to his benefit, to get the most out of his site and radio show. The dude is genius, and is now probably not really worried about money. I agree though that he (and his site) should at least link your sight Wireman, because you do a great job. I just don't this case against him is worth it. BUT I have never claimed to be a lawyer and know anything about what is going on. :idunno:

 

How about you, me and Wireman go to some random game and sit on the baseline and take photos for a couple hours. We'll each throw 100 bucks into a hat and whoever gets the best photos wins? Side caveat — each photographer's best 25 photos have to be posted on BGP and be open for public critique.

How would a court determine damages in a case like this?

 

By the way, Jones says the info that has been made public is not factual and the case has no merit.

 

I'll be curious to see how this plays out.

More publicity for Matt.