The TNT Mirror's resource reallocations

Mark Lyndersay
March 30 at 10:44pm
The TNT Mirror published this justification for photo theft in their Media Watch column here...

This is the comment I posted on that story, which is currently awaiting moderation. Let's see if they are really interested in alternative viewpoints on this matter.

Mr Cuffie et al...
At the risk of drinking bush tea for someone else's fever, this attitude to online content is offensive enough that it demands some comment.
Your essential argument in this non-existent debate is that because something is posted online, it's fair game for anyone interested in using it, even wearing the cloak of journalistic interests.
In this specific case, this is, at best, amoral thinking and at worst, simply stealing.

By your reasoning, the stories posted on this website, available without any restriction to the public, can be freely copied and used anywhere else in the public interest. This is, of course, patent BS. You wouldn't stand for it and I can't understand why you don't seem to think that someone posting images on Facebook should feel differently.
Mr Hagley [this is incorrect, I conflated two photographers named Jason] did not simply post the image you used, he embedded a highly visible watermark on the image, indicating clearly that he reserved his rights of reproduction. By all indications, you failed to contact him to ask his permission to use the image, deliberately cropped out his watermark and used the photo without reference to its source.

I put it to you that had this been done with one of your stories in another medium, you would not be pleased about it.
As long as we're quoting irrelevant international standards on this situation, here's another one. Damages, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, are multiplied significantly if watermarks are cropped out. Why? Because they indicate a deliberate intent to ignore copyright, and that's what you've done here.
So let's spell it out, since the angry threats of lawsuits don't seem to be bringing home to you exactly what you've done here.

You found a photo that wasn't yours that had a clear watermark on it. You chose to use the picture without contacting the copyright owner, even though he was a simple Facebook search away from the original image. You cropped his copyright information out and offered no indication as to source. You then proceed to jump on a journalistic high horse in defense of a brazen and deliberate theft of an image that was good enough to use, but not good enough, apparently, for you to respect the creator.
So are you thieves or is it that you simply don't care?

Facebook debate over photos | TnT Mirror – Get the real story
Media Watch was mildly amused by the chatter on Facebook among some photographers who were scandalised by the TnT Mirror’s publication on its front page of a photo, taken from MP Chandresh Sharma’s Facebook page, which showed him standing next to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar at a La Divina ...

Chad Lue Choy Great response Mark. Could not have said it better.
March 30 at 10:48pm

Kayode James The "mildly amused" comment is an invitation to get cuss. I'm glad you complied in your own civil fashion.
March 30 at 10:53pm

Kirk Padmore Clever Ideas Well said Mark!!!
March 30 at 10:55pm

James B. Solomon You took my very angry thoughts and put it succinctly... and still respectfully, even though their blatant theft is what it is... utterly disrespectful theft.
March 30 at 10:56pm

Clarence Rambharat Three points Mark- first note the line "suitably amended to take into consideration local mores and customs", an authority the writer of Media Watch took upon him/herself; second the British reference (in so far as it is relevant and it is not) deals with the privacy interests of the subject of photos and not the intellectual property in the photograph; and at a minimum use and attribution go together.
March 30 at 10:57pm

Sonya Sanchez Arias Wow! Based on the would seem that they are thieves that simply don't care.
March 30 at 11:01pm

Neil C L Pablo Hmmm what a shame.
March 30 at 11:15pm

Christian Hume Thank you Mark!!
March 31 at 12:03am

Mark Lyndersay ‎Jason X Photography might like to be tagged on this, I'm thinking.
March 31 at 12:08am

Christian Hume I'm sure he would....
March 31 at 12:12am

Marcia Braveboy Hm, interesting debate.
March 31 at 12:51am

Catherine Young Very interested to see how this goes. This particular problem has been around in T&T for quite some time, and I'm glad it's getting some visibility.
March 31 at 12:59am

Anthony Sladden I have tried to get copies of the copyright laws as it relates to photography, I have been to an office on Jernimham Av, and onother one down on South Quay and nobody has a clue what copyright is when it comes to photography. If anyone knows how I can obtain a copy of the copyright laws it would be greatly appreciated
March 31 at 1:00am

Marcia Braveboy See what you find here Anthony.
March 31 at 1:05am

Marcia Braveboy See FROM Pg. 9

“photographic work” is the recording of light or other radiation
on any medium on which an image is produced or from
which an image may be produced, irrespective of the
technique (chemical, electronic or other) by which such
recording is made; a still picture extracted from an
audio-visual work shall not be considered a “photographic
work” but a part of the audio-visual work concerned;
“producer” of an audio-visual work, a work of mas or a sound
recording, is the natural person or legal entity by whom the
arrangements necessary for the making of the audio-visual
work, work of mas or sound recording are undertaken;
“prospective owner” has the meaning assigned to it in the
definition of “future copyright or neighbouring rights” in
section 29(2);
“public display” is the showing of the original or a copy
of a work—

(a) directly;

(b) by means of a film, slide, television image or
otherwise on screen;

(c) by means of any other device or process; or

(d) in the case of an audio-visual work, the showing
of individual images nonsequentially,
March 31 at 1:09am

Anthony Sladden Thank you, I have had two publications in Trinidad use my images, in their magazine without permission, I loaned them CDs to view, and in their next issues I saw my images ,. Unfortunately I don't stay in Trinidad long enough to pursue anything legally. Unfourtunately I have that Trinis do not operate on a very ethical way.
March 31 at 1:16am

Marcia Braveboy You're welcome Anthony.
March 31 at 1:20am

Gary Jordan Great reply to this blatant disreguard for intellectual and copyright by the newspaper. This sort of nonesense needs to be addressed and I respect your efforts Mark on Championing it.
March 31 at 1:32am

Anthony Sladden Is there any small claims court in Trinidad, I have had problems with some organizations, and publishers in Toronto who thank they can ride roughshod over you, I have never actually reached the stage of going before a judge. But, I have been, but some of the people who have used my images without permission do not want that unwelcomed exposure. My standard fee for unauthorized one eight to half a page is fifteen hundred Canadian dollars. Covers three thousand plus depending on the publication publication
March 31 at 1:45am

Salim October my goodness, well written and such a professional response Mark Lyndersay
March 31 at 4:42am

Salim October dont know if this was covered but he also at this time, not sure if before, has this notice PLEASE DO NOT USE PHOTOS WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.
March 31 at 4:44am

Kerry Peters Very excellent response but the truly sad thing was the interpretation of the British code. Wow!
March 31 at 4:57am

Jason Nicholas S Hi all Here's what the TnT Mirror did >>>
Front page of the TnT Mirror dated 18th March, 2012 - Issue # 3,079. THEY EDITED...
See More
By: Jason Nicholas S
March 31 at 7:26am

Hilary McShine Very well said, Mark!!!
March 31 at 7:55am

Kimberly Leah Xiomara thanks mark..... well said... "disrespectful theft"
March 31 at 8:54am

Mark Lyndersay The Mirror has posted my comments on the story. Others are weighing in there.
March 31 at 12:50pm

Bridget van Dongen Well said Mark. The fact that they cropped out the watermark is very telling. They should be sued.
March 31 at 8:49pm

Mark Lyndersay ‎Salim October, thanks for the kind words, though speaking truth to power is one of the things I do for a living.
Just to clarify, the Mirror isn't being disrespectful referring to Jason Nicholas as Jason X, that's his nom de pix.
Also, lawsuits are pointless in situations like these. Even a few lawyer's consultations on how to proceed will often exceed any money you might reasonably expect to get in court.
The Mirror apparently settled with the photographer for twice the sum they usually pay, but in some US courts, the payment due to photographers has been settled at a multiplier of what the photographer usually charges, usually backed up by sample invoices.
The reasoning being that the situation is no longer one of a buyer and a seller, but of an infringer and a creator and such decisions logically favor the party which has been wronged.
March 31 at 9:31pm

Maxie Cuffie ‎Mark Lyndersay, you are drinking bush tea for someone else's fever. I have contacted Jason, made the necessary apologies and agreed on compensation. It is not our policy to steal photos. As James well knowns, we do attempt to contact persons before usiing their photos. Jason's photo was found on tbe Minister's Facebook page where his contact information was not visible.
March 31 at 10:47pm

Maxie Cuffie The photograph was cropped for content and our usage was fully compliant wjth the relevant Copright laws. I am also satisfied that it broke no ethical boundadies anx we referenced the Press Complaints Commission's policy in tbis regard.
March 31 at 10:51pm

Bridget van Dongen Hold on Mr Cuffy - the photo clearly was watermarked. A simple facebook search would have brought up his page. I'm glad you have made the necessary apologies and compensation has been agreed upon but at the same time, you definitely broke copyright laws by not acknowledging the photographer in any way in your paper. I don't know how you can say that you didn't. From the News watch article: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8(1)(a), (i) and (j), the following acts shall be permitted in respect of a work without the authorisation of the owner of copyright, subject to the obligation to indicate the source and the name of the author as far as practicable.” You had the name of the photographer on the photo.
March 31 at 11:20pm

Mark Lyndersay Hey Maxie Cuffie, nice to see you weighing in here.
This particular cup belongs to someone else, but it's tea I'm often forced to drink myself:
It's not that I think this particular infringement is particularly disagreeable or that the self-justification for careless acquisition is unusual.
These situations create an opportunity for more discussion about these matters and expand the dialogue on matters of copyright, which are rarely on the agenda outside of professional circles.
That's one of the reasons why I discourage venom and accusations in discussions about this sort of thing. A positive exchange is always more useful and it's great that you've settled matters with Jason Nicholas S
There's a world of difference between what one can do and what one should do. Would the Mirror have sought out Jason and referenced all these delightfully foreign references if he hadn't made a public stink about it? Unfortunately we'll never know that now.
March 31 at 11:38pm

Bridget van Dongen I know as a graphic designer having to source photography, it is incumbent on me to get permission, credit and pay the photographers. I remember how embarrassed I was when I used one of Mark Lyndersay's photos of Machel that was marked as supplied by his mother, and did not credit him for it. Certainly mistakes like that can happen but to turn around and try to justify it is what flabbergasts me.
March 31 at 11:45pm

Maxie Cuffie Mark Lyndersay, I like the debate but not the venom which is now the adopted posture for online debate. We genuinely try to contact copyright owners even when they don't watermark but there were extenuating circumstances in this case. This issue has been the subject of an on-going debate between Google and the World Association of Newspapers where there has been agreement although not resolution. It is a fact with whicb all online newspapers have to live, including the Mirror and I can trace our links all over the Internet. I remain guided by the Copyright Act which I think is fair, even to photograpbers.
March 31 at 11:56pm

Jason Nicholas S I settled for $300.00TT because I thought about the same thing you said Mark, "Even a few lawyer's consultations on how to proceed will often exceed any money you might reasonably expect to get in court." (I haven't actually received the money yet from Mr. Cuffie).
March 31 at 11:57pm

Maxie Cuffie And yes, once Jason contacted us we would have respected his work.
March 31 at 11:58pm

Bridget van Dongen I don't see why it was up to Jason to contact you when his watermark was clearly on the photo.
March 31 at 11:59pm

Maxie Cuffie Jason, I'll check with accounts and give you a call on Monday. Please feel free to send me a reminder.
April 1 at 12:00am

Mark Lyndersay Um, not wanting to twist your words here Maxie Cuffie, but if he hadn't contacted you, you wouldn't have respected his work? The copyright laws of Trinidad and Tobago pretty much demand that respect right up front, don't they?
April 1 at 12:01am

Jason Nicholas S This from someone else >>>
News Just In: TnT Mirror Swipes Parliament Photos
This caught my eye today at the office. In a move that is highly unethical by th...
See More
By: Kerwyn Wilson Photography
Photos: 3
April 1 at 12:11am

Jason Nicholas S These were my issues after seeing the Pic on the TnT Mirrors front page.

1. Not even a credit far more an attempt to seek my permission prior to publishing - I personally believe that the person who "found" the photograph was not truthful about being able to contact me. The Minister of Local Government and the Prime Minister was "tagged" in my original photograph. Upon finding the photograph, clicking on it would lead right back to my album and Facebook Profile where I could have been contacted by a simple comment on the photo. One can go to the Minister of Local Government Face Book Profile here >>> where, if you scroll down and find the picture yourself, click on it and it and you would notice that it would take you directly to my album and profile.

2. Removal of my Watermark "Jason X Photography".

3. Further editing by cropping the picture.

Now, the saga continues with an article stating they they were "mildly amused" about my disgusts mentioned above and what they did was in fact ethical and in keeping with the highest journalistic and legal practice.>>>

So Mr. Cuffie, myself and the people who support me believe in doing the right thing the first time. It's not wholly and solely about the Copyright Act and the Britain’s Press Complaints Commission. I do accept your apology and compensation but the cart went before the horse in this instance -

To further clarify the "cart before horse" situation I was asked if i would like a notice crediting me as the photographer, my response was no.

...........Now i have to remember to send a reminder (as stated above) to get my money.....
April 1 at 12:58am

Devi Chat Jason - the most significant aspect of this case IMO is the removal of the watermark.

That changes it from being simply "used without permission" (which can be argued to be negligence) to "deliberately concealing the true owner" (malicious intent).
April 1 at 1:13am

Clarence Rambharat Well.. in all of this I am happy to see Maxie Cuffie in the discussion.
April 1 at 4:35am

Judy Raymond The comments from the Press Complaints Council were taken from an adjudication on one particular case, not a policy.
April 1 at 8:29am

Sharmain Baboolal did all of this come about as they try to produce a newspaper on the cheap?
April 1 at 9:37am

Judy Raymond ‎$300 is *plenty* for a photo used in a newspaper!
April 1 at 10:13am

Niko Phôto Thank you Mark for drinking bush tea for all the photographers' rights who have been infringed upon by the media. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last ... but hopefully it is a step towards at very least a more ethical approach.
If $300 is a generous amount for a photo used in a newspaper, I am sure most photographers not "hungry" for a measly $100 ... but we just want the respect to be asked our permission to use our work and in some cases a simple credit. So 'media' ... just ASK and save the small change that you working so hard to avoid paying ... or else one day someone might really take you to the cleaners and all the $100s you save will pay for one person's rights.
April 1 at 10:44am

Mark Lyndersay Yes, Judy Raymond is absolutely correct. If you think reporters get paid poorly, try living in the freelance photographer's world.
That was the point I was trying to make when I noted that fees paid as damages in infringement cases tend to be calculated based on the photographer's track record of billings and not the infringer's pay scale.
In an infringement case, it's no longer a situation in which the infringer is making a payment based on their rates, but one in which the photographer is being paid, at his expected rate, for its use.
April 1 at 10:51am

Mark Lyndersay Hey Jason Nicholas S, that link you posted about the Office of Parliament issue isn't what it seems.
I didn't post here to specifically dump on the Mirror, and that referenced matter seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the role photographers play in Government employ and the way that the Gov't makes use of photos.
In short, I don't think Maxie Cuffie "swiped" those photos from Parliament in the context that they were posted.
April 1 at 1:03pm

Jason Nicholas S Ok.
April 1 at 8:22pm

Jaime Lee Loy Good response Mark. Even if their interpretation on the law was correct it would be feasible to say the law was BS. And yes, they could have avoided all of this with some simple professionalism in the first place.
April 2 at 5:57pm

Mark Lyndersay ‎Maxie Cuffie's Mirror seeks to have the last word on this discussion here...
My post though, so my last word. Sorry dude.
I know you come from an era when newspapers were the final authority and their statements carried great gravitas, but this here's the Internets and things work a bit differently here.

For one thing, this post and its responses were not, as you describe it, "pot shots."
They were responses to a situation that I certainly found insupportable and in the ensuing discussion, your arguments in favor of the action you took were less than persuasive. Here's an interesting thing though. The Mirror has used my photographs without permission before, including a self-portrait to accompany this week's post in response to this thread.

For one story on a Unit Trust shakeup, the paper took my images of some of the affected executives off the UTC website for their front page. Those images are licensed to the UTC for public relations purposes and it was the company's responsibility to object to the use of the portraits, not mine.

That seems to be the case with an ancillary story raised about Parliamentary photos shot by Kerwyn Wilson that were used by the Mirror in an earlier post in this thread.
So every use is not stealing, at least not from the photographer directly, but every use should be authorized or cleared for publication, if the images aren't clearly designated as being for press release or press consumption. Facebook and other online sources are not a press kit posted online for your use, though your coverage of Carnival seems to suggest otherwise.

I've re-read these posts and can find no trace of bitterness in the comments. I do see disappointment, some anger and a great deal of annoyance.
You may have intended no disrespect, but taking people's work, not intended for publication, without reference to their rights as authors under Trinidad and Tobago's copyright laws, is, by its very nature, disrespectful.

Your description of the age of user content creation and participation as "the paparazzi era" (that was actually the 40's and 50's) reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happening with new media.
All these photographs and photographers don't exist outside of traditional media in a relationship of exclusion. None of these photographers appear to crave publication in traditional press and are often annoyed when their photographs show up in such publications and broadcasts. This is a surprising development for old-school media practitioners used to the front page being a prize for photographers and it's a phenomenon that I sought to explore in a post on my photoblog here:

Surprisingly, even to me, and I've been looking at this situation for some time now, none of the best photographers to come along over the last seven years, the era of photographic plenty that you characterize as that of "paparazzi" is really an era of accelerated online sharing, discussion and engagement which has bypassed traditional media completely.

The 'potshots' as you describe them are a quite normal aspect of these engagements, discussions that go back and forth, sometimes become heated and demand, of journalists who choose to participate in this space, a willingness to shelve decades of authoritative pronouncement in favor of using their communications skills in an environment which gives equal power and force to all voices.
It's the difference between an arena and a podium and it demands fundamental changes in the way we think about journalism.

If you choose to dip into the pool where all these photos are to be found, it might be useful to understand that nobody's grateful for your presence or attention, you earn your space and place and respect of its denizens by accepting the rules of this particular road, regardless of protests of the multitude of traditional press pronouncements on the matter on which you have chosen to rely. Wrapping yourself in such alien armor only makes you chum for hungry digital teeth.
April 6 at 10:45pm

Jaime Lee Loy Well said Mark. It's also a shame all this has to be said in the first place. Noted, there was a lack of professionalism and blatant disrespect in the beginning. Second chance: now's the time to act like mature adults or rather, a sensible and progressive organization, and reasonably understand that your actions will provoke the 'venom' you say you don't like. After all, others did not 'like' your approach to the whole matter of intellectual property and just plain old courtesy anyway. But no, instead, behave like children - respond with condescension and defenses that are less viable and more ridiculous, holding onto what ever little you think you can to save your already tarnished image in this context. It says alot about a person or organization - the way they respond to being wrong or taking accountability. Give up on the lame excuses and just say okay we were wrong, we apologize and give the photographer the credit. Its not like he is aksing for tons of money, he is asking for some due respect and rightful credit. Bottom line, be adults and be responsible. Stop behaving like little children by resorting to half truth fibbing and finger pointing when you know you've done something wrong.
April 7 at 1:43am

Maxie Cuffie ‎Mark Lyndersay, I think being called a thief is disrespectful and a 'pot shot' but let's not quibble over that. I can give as good as I can take, as you well know. As someone who has done considerable research on new and old media I thank you for your exposition but don't feel offended by the fact that I disagree with much of what you assert. The Copyright laws of Trinidad and Tobago Chap. 82:80 govern the issue of copyright and photography. The laws are easily available online and I thank Marcia Braveboy for adding them to the discussion.

The laws state quite clearly that newspapers are allowed to use photographs without the permission of the copyright holder. It suggests that where the copyright holder asserts his copyright he should be contacted 'as far as is practicable'. In a fast-paced news environment with late-breaking news stories this is not always 'practicable'. We did not require your permission or that of the UTC to use the photographs of its executives in our publication. The photographs, like the other information there, were placed by the UTC for public information and consumption, our use was consistent with that.

To suggest that before using a photograph "every use should be authorized or cleared for publication" is not only contrary to the law but a clear restriction on the freedom of the press. All any organisation, including the Office of the Prime Minister and GISL would need to do to frustrate news publication would be deny authorisation for use of a photograph. I intend to observe no such restriction. In the issue of the Parliament photos, we always credit Parliament for the photos we use. We neglected to do so one occasion, as far as I am aware, and that was through an oversight which was immediately corrected.

Unfortunately Parliament not only provides captions but also the format in which they would prefer their credits to be used. The credits do not include the name of the photographer but reserve the rights to the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago. If Kerwyn Wilson has an issue with credits he should take it up with the Parliament which employs him, not with the Mirror. The point is being missed in this debate that the Mirror did not take Jason's photograph from his Facebook page but from the Facebook page of a Minister of Government, MP Chandresh Sharma. There were no copyright restrictions or contact information on the MP's page although there was a watermark on the photo. It is possible to copy a photo without going to the original so that I am comfortable that we were never aware of either his contact details or his copyright.

The photo did carry a watermark which was removed and it is for this reason that we apologised and paid compensation although we were under no legal obligation to do so. Our use of photographs is consistent with the laws of Trinidad and Tobago and the UK's Press Complaints Commission which makes policy through its rulings. I challenge anyone to show otherwise.
April 7 at 4:02pm

Maxie Cuffie ‎Mark Lyndersay, btw, the reference to the 'papparazzi era' was simply to the age of intrusive photography without respect to privacy rights. It is a relatively recent phenomenon and not something that goes back to the 40's and 50's. That's just for clarification and has nothing to do with the issues under discussion.
April 7 at 4:04pm

Mark Lyndersay Hey Maxie Cuffie. I didn't call you or the TNT Mirror thieves.
I posed a question which you seem to have taken as an answer.
What would you call taking something that belongs to someone else without asking for it? Resource reallocation?
I suspect that you may have misread my note which referenced the UTC images. I noted the Mirror's use of the images as an example of a situation in which taking a photo from a website was contextually understandable. I also cited the Parliament example as another instance of the same situation.

I'm quite sure you understand my notes on this matter and intend to ignore pretty much everything I've articulated on the matter. Your strategy for image acquisition suggests that you find pictures posted online to be a useful resource and that you intend to make use of them whenever their content matches news value that you attach to them.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "intrusive photography without respect to privacy rights." Very few photos on Facebook can accurately be described that way and I'd like to suggest that the intrusion here was on the Mirror's part, not the photographer's. Perhaps we should call it "paparazzi image acquisition."

The TNT Mirror isn't the first publication to use online galleries as a stock photography resource and I'm sure it won't be the last.
BTW, the photo of Chandresh Sharma wasn't in one of the Minister's galleries, it was an image in Jason Nicholas S' galleries which had been tagged as including the Minister. It would have showed up on his page, but it wasn't posted by him.
April 7 at 4:21pm

Ian Reid Ummm. . . still doesn't make it right. . . there is right and there is wrong, the excuse of "time contraints" is utter bull, I work in advertising, and our deadlines are JUST as tight, we ALWAYS try to find out who's photo, how much we have to pay. You could have used a STOCK photo from files. There is NO excuse. Just say sorry and end this thread. Thanks. :)
April 7 at 8:05pm

Marcia Braveboy Actually Ian, the same law that applies to public shots also applies to photographers who do not carefully copyright their work.

If a photographer takes your picture while you're in a public space and decides to place it into his picture g...

Legal Pitfalls in Taking or Using Photographs of Copyright Material, Trademarks and People
Photographers and users of photographs face certain risks when taking and publis...
See More
April 7 at 8:42pm

Mark Lyndersay ‎Marcia Braveboy, under Trinidad and Tobago law, images are copyrighted to the author on creation. This is quite unlike the United States, which allows for some protections without registration, but only invokes the full force of law after images have been registered.

It's interesting that you should mention the laws governing photographs of persons taken in a public place. Most laws do allow for fairly unfettered use of such images outside of advertising use, but very few photographers will be able to last in the business if they don't play fair with public expectations for fair use.

In essence, that's what we've been trying to explain to Maxie Cuffie throughout this discussion. Fair use should be a general expectation on all sides and among all parties or the Internet collapses when businesses strip mine it opportunistically. There's a reason that such use of web resources is described as "scraping."
April 7 at 10:44pm

Marcia Braveboy ‎Mark Lyndersay wrote:

"It's interesting that you should mention the laws governing photographs of persons taken in a public place. Most laws do allow for fairly unfettered use of such images outside of advertising use, but very few photographers will be able to last in the business if they don't play fair with public expectations for fair use."


Phew! I am happy to hear that, because I remember an agency taking a shot of me in public and the picture was abused on another forum and I was mad and asked them to take it down from their webpage to which they refused, saying they had every right according to law. STEUPS! I still vex oui..but I just pot it down to a case of ethics, morals and a blatant lack of consideration for an unsuspecting member of the public. I even offered another pic in return form them to take that particular down but it was in vain.
April 7 at 10:55pm

Maxie Cuffie Ian Reid's response is not only "bull" it's ignorant. Unlike advertisers, newspapers are under no legal or ethical obligation to seek permission from the copyright owner. The law recognizes the importance of freedom of the press and, in keeping with the Constitution gives us certain safeguards which I for one, do not intend to compromise. As for Mark Lyndersay's 'fair use' doctrine, I don't know whose policy that is.

There is a a 'commons' philosophy underpinning the Internet on which the whole 'net neutrality' argument is based. Simply put, the Internet began as a free collaboration and should remain such. Everything posted is for our common use and enjoyment. It is why hackers target those exploiting the Internet. This is a simplification but I believe that the media's use of photographs or any other material should only be circumscribed by the Constitution and the laws of Tinidad and Tobago.
April 7 at 11:08pm

Marcia Braveboy Both you and Mark are right Maxi, now the both of you please go to bed like some well behaved children and remember to take a pictures of yourselves while you sleep and post it here for public consumption and enjoyment....hahahahaha who vex..vex lol.
April 7 at 11:13pm

Mark Lyndersay It's surprising that Maxie Cuffie can cite the philosophy of the commons without understanding that he is contributing to the widely understood tragedy of the commons. If you graze all the turf, then everyone loses in the economy of the commons.
If you make money through the use of my photographs and I don't, you are grazing on grass that wasn't offered to you as part of the commons agreement.
Your enjoyment is defined as publication in your newspaper, which is a commercial enterprise, offered for the sale and not a commons at all. My enjoyment in posting my work and, presumably, that of Jason Nicholas S was his publication online, were everyone who was interested could find and, as you put it, enjoy it freely and without limitation.
Sunday at 12:03am

Jason Nicholas S Exactly Mark.
Sunday at 12:16am

Mark Lyndersay ‎*where everyone who was interested*
Sunday at 12:18am

Salim October I think creative commons has been interpreted as "common and free for all use. You made the point well Mark. It is troubling that commercial entities engage in little to no negotiation when it comes to getting advertising space in their issues but all of a sudden expect a bligh when it comes to images.
I believe that it has been common practice to use images in this manner in the past because the policing and access to various forms of media that is a public good was not as easy to access now.
Word is spreading, photographers are talking and various reverse searches are working. Thank got for Tineye and Google image search I have uncovered many of my images illegally used online and dealt with them all. Of course it is only so much violations you can find but its good to shake up the perpetrators from time to time.
Sunday at 12:26am

Maxie Cuffie ‎Mark Lyndersay, it is no longer possible to control grazing in the Commons. We are both big losers. I have no control over Google or any aggregator taking my content and making it available online. I see Mirror stories aggregated on all kinds of blogs and websites for regional news. They're simply following the model established by Google and the Huffington Post. Google makes a profit from this by data mining and selling advertising.

The Mirror's use of a photo is no different form that of Google which takes an image which it does not own and makes ti available to its audience while earning revenue through advertising.Not even WAN, the World Association of Newspapers, has been able to stop Google. We need to recognise that there are tremendous benefits to using the Commons and there are risks, as well, and do our best to ensure these do not drive us out of business.

We are in a new era with new challenges and the laws and assumptions of the past have been overtaken by technological change. EVen so, I believe newspapers and the news media have a Constitutional dispensation because of the role we play in the preservation of democracy. We provide a 'public good' and our copyright exception is simply a way of subsidising that public good. I respect the work of photographers and your role in elevating it, which is why I never quibbled in giving Jason Nicholas S his apology or his compensation, but I cannot do anything which undermines the media's role in being able to gather and report information.

You are right, we consider any publicly available image fair game and we do scrape the Internet for images, but we do so within the law and we respect all assertions of copyright.
Sunday at 6:57am

Ian Reid Maxie. Close this thread. You are trolling.
Sunday at 8:37am

Gareth Chan Sing I had decided to look up the law that was quoted in allowing the paper to use the photo. What I found very interesting is that the full law was not quoted especially this part...

" (a) the reproduction in a newspaper or periodical,
the broadcasting or other communication to the
public of an article published in a newspaper or
periodical on current economic, political or
religious topics or a broadcast work of the same
character; this permission shall not apply where
the owner of copyright has reserved the right to
authorise reproduction, broadcasting or other
communication to the public on the copies
themselves, or in a prominent way in connection
with broadcasting or other communication to
the public of the work;"

It specifically states that permission shall not apply when the owner has reserved right of reproduction which was certainly done.
Sunday at 9:48am
blog comments powered by Disqus