You can definitely point out the loyal KSR fans in here... :lol2:

You can definitely point out the loyal KSR fans in here... :lol2:

 

No doubt I'm a fan of KSR, not always a fan of Jones but I do enjoy KSR... Not sure if being a fan of KSR has skewed my opinion on this matter but this all seems simple to me.

1). When you put your pictures on a public website, expect them to go public.

2). If you want credit for your pics, watermark them or imbed your info. If someone removes that, their breaking a clearly defined law.

3). If you don't want your pics public post them on a members only website. Taking them from there could be a violation of the membership or usage terms.

4). Don't wine just because someone or something is widely more popular than any work you've ever done. That makes people seem small.

No doubt I'm a fan of KSR, not always a fan of Jones but I do enjoy KSR... Not sure if being a fan of KSR has skewed my opinion on this matter but this all seems simple to me.

1). When you put your pictures on a public website, expect them to go public.

2). If you want credit for your pics, watermark them or imbed your info. If someone removes that, their breaking a clearly defined law.

3). If you don't want your pics public post them on a members only website. Taking them from there could be a violation of the membership or usage terms.

4). Don't wine just because someone or something is widely more popular than any work you've ever done. That makes people seem small.

 

Do you think songs played on the radio can be sold without their copyright owner's permission? Do you think downloading music for free from the internet is legal? After all, they don't "watermark" those songs on the radio with copyright info.

 

Do you think it is legal or ethical to take a popular book, reprint it with your name on it and begin selling it as though you were the author?

 

I generally enjoy KSR, but copyright infringement isn't a matter of "silly expectations of courtesy." And I even have a lot of complaints about intellectual property laws, but at the most basic level you simply can't take someone else's work and consider it your own.

4). Don't wine just because someone or something is widely more popular than any work you've ever done. That makes people seem small.

 

So just because KSR has thousands of blind followers that listen to any and everything they post gives them the right to use other peoples work? Get outta here... That's bush league. Try being REAL journalists and doing your own work.

So just because KSR has thousands of blind followers that listen to any and everything they post gives them the right to use other peoples work? Get outta here... That's bush league. Try being REAL journalists and doing your own work.

 

Exactly. Those people who produce those photos are paid salaries, insurance and other benefits by their employers, who also are often footing the bill for the equipment required to render the photos. Or, they're paid on a per-photo freelance basis (and have to pay for insurance, equipment and such out of their own pocket). That's not counting whatever they paid getting their education, as well as on-the-job transportation costs, and gas ain't cheap.

 

As popular as KSR is, they should be happy to pay for the content they use since they don't have to pay the photographers' salaries, insurance and other benefits, as well as equipment. It's a drop in the bucket for Jones and he still does it, and that tells me he'd be happy to skin every last one of his loyal followers for everything they're worth too, because he clearly condones stealing in the interest of furthering his business ventures. Yes, stealing.

Do you think songs played on the radio can be sold without their copyright owner's permission? Do you think downloading music for free from the internet is legal? After all' date=' they don't "watermark" those songs on the radio with copyright info. Do you think it is legal or ethical to take a popular book, reprint it with your name on it and begin selling it as though you were the author? I generally enjoy KSR, but copyright infringement isn't a matter of "silly expectations of courtesy." And I even have a lot of complaints about intellectual property laws, but at the most basic level you simply can't take someone else's work and consider it your own.[/quote']

 

I can see that side of it... It still seems like a gray area to me.

So just because KSR has thousands of blind followers that listen to any and everything they post gives them the right to use other peoples work? Get outta here... That's bush league. Try being REAL journalists and doing your own work.

 

That's nowhere near what I meant... But like it our not, some peoples complaints are based off envy.

That's nowhere near what I meant... But like it our not, some peoples complaints are based off envy.

 

So the only reason these people are upset about KSR using their photos is because they are jealous of the site... Is that your point?

Exactly. Those people who produce those photos are paid salaries' date=' insurance and other benefits by their employers, who also are often footing the bill for the equipment required to render the photos. Or, they're paid on a per-photo freelance basis (and have to pay for insurance, equipment and such out of their own pocket). That's not counting whatever they paid getting their education, as well as on-the-job transportation costs, and gas ain't cheap. As popular as KSR is, they should be happy to pay for the content they use since they don't have to pay the photographers' salaries, insurance and other benefits, as well as equipment. It's a drop in the bucket for Jones and he still does it, and that tells me he'd be happy to skin every last one of his loyal followers for everything they're worth too, because he clearly condones stealing in the interest of furthering his business ventures. Yes, stealing.[/quote']

 

I can understand someone being disgruntled if they are a photographer and someone is taking their work and using it for their own gain. My references and opinions were based off what I've heard in this thread and the assumption some pictures had been taken off of twitter or Facebook...

So the only reason these people are upset about KSR using their photos is because they are jealous of the site... Is that your point?

 

 

I have no idea what everyone that is upset with KSR's motivation is... I do know popularity and success bred disdain and envy. I bet a site with 200 visitors a week wouldn't be getting the attention this is right now.

 

Question; how many pictures are reposted to peoples twitter feed, Facebook or other form of media without the publishers permission?

I have no idea what everyone that is upset with KSR's motivation is... I do know popularity and success bred disdain and envy. I bet a site with 200 visitors a week wouldn't be getting the attention this is right now.

 

Question; how many pictures are reposted to peoples twitter feed, Facebook or other form of media without the publishers permission?

 

I'm not making any money off of the photos, KSR is.

I think Matt Jones is exceptional at his job. I like to listen to him, after Louisville beats UK in football. It makes for a great post game tailgate. Other than those times, I have never or will ever give him my time. Not worth it.

“I am aware of the lawsuit filed against KSR based on photos used on this site 3-5 years ago. We disagree with the allegations in the complaint for a variety of reasons and will defend them accordingly. KSR uses photos on its site based on a variety of sources, including third party agreements. We hope to move past this quickly and focus on our UK sports coverage in the most ridiculous manner possible. Either way, we thank all the media outlets who have decided to cover this issue with vigor for finally acknowledging the existence of KSR and we hope they will thank us in return for the clicks that they sought out in the process.”

 

First point... is this quote accurate? What does "focus on our UK sports coverage in the most ridiculous manner possible" mean?

 

Second point... I don't know the subtleties of Jones' defense, but at first blush I think he is in trouble. If he didn't create the pictures, or hire and pay someone else to, he is almost certainly liable for copyright infringement. He may also be making a huge mistake in fighting it. The statutory damages for infringing a work are between $750-30,000 per act, but he'd probably be able to get away with $1,000 per act, a total of about $10,000-15,000, throwing in a little bit for attorney fees, which are almost always awarded in copyright infringement cases. IF HE FIGHTS, and continues to take the arrogant attitude on display in the article, look for a $2-3,000 per act award, and a heck of a lot more in attorney fees. He could easily wind up turning a $10-15,000 mistake into a $100,000 crushing blow.... I would be careful, and probably a lot more contrite, if I was him. But what do I know....

I would be careful, and probably a lot more contrite, if I was him. But what do I know....

 

He's too much a fan of himself to do that...

If I'm understanding things, the entire situation goes away years ago of he just takes the pics off the site.