Comments on: Why BuzzFeed’s photo spat with Reddit could be just the tip of the iceberg

By: adpressive

adpressive — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:27:43 +0000

It’s understandable that original content creators should get credit (if not compensation) for their work, but the web is basically one giant remix of content itself. In defense of most social networks, UGC websites, Buzzfeed, and Adpressive.com – they actually provide a value-added service. They make money (directly and indirectly) on this remixed content because they go through the often tedious process of finding, sourcing, organizing, editing, writing, preparing, distributing, and marketing this content to very large audiences. They take on substantial risk, spend lots of money in this process, create jobs, etc. They essentially get paid to be facilitators or distributors, thus why companies like Samsung would be willing to pay for native ads wrapped around such content.Check out everythingisaremix.info if you want to get some more insight just how remixed our world is – Star Wars isn’t even original! We need to be careful though about putting to many restrictions on the use of content simply because someone might make money from it. If everyone becomes too scared to use, share, or remix content from the web, the web could become stale, walled off, and dry. Some of the greatest forms of creativity and invention are remixes or hybrids of other existing things.

By: Mark Moran

Mark Moran — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 04:25:07 +0000

Putting a photo on IMGUR is not remixing it.

Buzzfeed and many other sites of its ilk find photos on IMGUR, know that they are probably copyrighted, and use them anyway. That’s wrong.

Referring to fair use as “thorny” doesn’t save the argument, and the fact that stolen photos are mixed with other stolen photos doesn’t make it any more right to steal them.

By: klingaling

klingaling — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:21:54 +0000

Actually, these are easy questions. The “remix culture” has always existed [whether making a collage from magazine cutouts to using a boombox to make a mix tape] and that’s all fine and good for non-commercial purposes. On the other hand, using any IP for any commercial purpose without first negotiating with the copyright holder securing the required rights is weasely, underhanded and plain dumb.

At the end of the day, it’s nothing short of dealing in stolen goods and that’s not a business model. The money they save by not paying for IP will go to lawyers when copyright holders cry foul … and in most cases, it’s much cheaper to pay photographers than lawyers. Throw in the bad press and you’ve got a lose-lose. And I doubt that the advertisers paid BuzzFeed with stolen money or Fair Use counterfeit bills.

More than that, these practices create bigger Fair Use questions: Why can’t a random person or company charge users a fee to access BuzzFeed or other sites? If we’re no longer going to get permission to make money off of another person or company’s property, then this too would fall under Fair Use. But it shouldn’t. Just because no one has noticed that you’re using something that doesn’t belong to you doesn’t make it fair.

By: Damon Kiesow

Damon Kiesow — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:44:36 +0000

Determining fair use for editorial purposes can be tough to decipher, but for advertising it is simple. If it is advertising – there is no fair use.

Calling it ‘native advertising’ does not change the fact it is commercial speech and you need to pay for or get approvals for every image used. Photo editors/rights management teams are kind of expensive, so that takes a lot of the shine off the ‘remix’ business model.

By: josh

josh — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 06:08:01 +0000

Buzzfeed should absolutely not be able to just use the photo if they can’t source it. Sorry guys.

By: witness protection

witness protection — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:41:03 +0000

“To some, it seems obvious that taking someone’s photo from another source and using it without permission is infringement. But what if that photo is a slightly modified version of a photo that has appeared elsewhere? Who owns the rights?”

A reproduction of an image must be 75% altered in order for the alteree to claim ownership and a new copyright. Which is why Perez Hilton got in trouble for drawing penises and not paying for the original image (after a few lawsuits, he is very good about paying his agencies now).

I’ve always been disturbed by the amount of copyrighted material on Buzzfeed. If they use a thumbnail image to link through to the original, driving traffic to the original site, it’s okay. (They do this a lot on the Food section, where they link through to the recipes on the original site.) But they lift whole articles and then put them under their own “Sponsored” content — making money off the theft of others’ work. And it doesn’t matter if Reddit is in the wrong on taking the content in the first place. For Buzzfeed to re-post stolen Reddit content is like selling stolen iPads out of the back of your car.

The use becomes clearer the closer you are (like me) to being someone who creates original content. This whole “it’s on the internet so it must be free” is just as skeevy as the musicians who were ripped off by record companies in the 60s.

It’s not that hard to be on the right-side of things. Most artists would be thrilled to have Buzzfeed or Reddit exposure — you just need to ask. Unfortunately, it’s not in the sites’ business model to do so.

By: everydaydreamholiday

everydaydreamholiday — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 05:02:56 +0000

Nice article Mathew – we took a closer look at our practices after reading into it more. Our perspective as a content publisher is here: http://everydaydreamholiday.com/2013/01/12/sharing-or-stealing-buzzfeed-photo-attribution-and-creative-commons/

By: druce

druce — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 01:53:07 +0000

The material was used in a commercial message for money. That doesn’t seem to qualify as fair use.

Buzzfeed didn’t really seem like they tried to determine who the creator was at all.

Doesn’t seem that hard to contact the poster and ask if they’re the author or know who is before selling their photo to Samsung.

By: Burton Hohman

Burton Hohman — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:17:43 +0000

What bothers me about something like this the movie and music industry get all up in arms if somebody remixes a clip or song and posts it on youtube, but large corporations don’t seem to see any problem with taking people’s photos and using them. Look at this buzzfeed incident or how instagram tried to change their tos. If those companies want to use our stuff for profit, why shouldn’t we be able to use theirs?

By: Liz Pullen

Liz Pullen — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:09:16 +0000

I’m surprised that Reddit users aren’t upset with Tumblr or Facebook’s Share function which serves to redistribute images to millions of people. I rarely see the photographers ever credited.