Confused about link etiquette? Check this handy primer.
Feel free to read his response here, he still doesn’t get it.
Hotlinking is annoying, not illegal. We agree.
Where we differ, and you can feel free to chime in on this as comments are open (but moderated for spam,) is over the use of an image that I created in parody for an earlier entry. When I exercised my rights and advised dvorak.org they were infringing, did they take down the image? No, they deleted my objection, downloaded the image (appropriated it) and altered it to remove source reference I inserted. I objected again, the objection was deleted and finally the image was removed. If that’s not theft, what do you call it? Willful borrowing?
You can argue the first instance was simply lazy work. The second action, however, was taken after dvorak.org was alerted to the fact they were infringing. What do you think? Chime in. Am I being unreasonable about this? Read my entry about it and read John’s response, I’m seriously interested to understand what the community thinks about this? Should a widely read, professional journalist platform be able to appropriate someone else’s work without permission and/or attribution?
I’m not a lawyer, but the issue seems clear to me. In the blogosphere, cite your references and provide attribution if you’re using someone else’s stuff. And if they’ve said don’t use it, don’t use it. Comments are open (though moderated for spam.)
Update: 22:00 I’ve exchanged mail and comments with the folks for dvorak.org, this matter is closed from my perspective. It was a mistake which has been acknowledged and we’ll move on. However, the meta-discussion is interesting and thought provoking. I appreciate the effort put forth to uplevel the discussion and turn it into something positive and a learning experience. As a commenter already pointed out, I have made mistakes too (and work to correct them.) Commenting still enabled, but now stepping away from the keyboard for an extended time so if you submit, it’s just in moderation and I’ll approve when I’m back in the saddle again.
« The Inexplicable, explained
» $130M market cap for Calpine
Innovation
Dvorak answers
12.19.07 | 12 Comments
12 Comments
« The Inexplicable, explained
» $130M market cap for Calpine
Musings from the Coast
comments
recent
- The Art of Being Cheap in Business
- The REAL Fiscal Cliff
- Plan for 2013
- Goodbye Gracie
- Our First Holiday Season as a Retailer
Categories
- Business (252)
- Coastal Stuff (124)
- Commentary (200)
- Energy (256)
- Humor (314)
- Innovation (277)
- Media (144)
- Oddyssea (52)
- Politics (245)
- Religion (80)
- Sports (170)
- Ohio State Football (136)
- Technology & Science (162)
- Travel (106)
Links
- Buckeye View
- Coastsider
- Freedom From Religion Foundation
- Half Moon Bay Buoy
- Half Moon Bay Review
- Information Arbitrage
- Loud Thoughts
- Oddyssea
- Stephen Years dot Com
Hey, this is Steve Newlin over at Dvorak’s blog. I’m the one who wrote the so called response, so I guess I’m the one who didn’t get it.
My response was purely on the issue of whether hotlinking, or linking in general, is either stealing or infringing. What happened to you, how you were treated, etc, were not covered by me because such concerns do not really interest me enough to write about them. Accordingly, what I wrote really isn’t a full response of your entire experience. If you were wronged in other ways, don’t fault my writing for not bringing it up. (However, I think I gave you a little clue in my article, 8th paragraph, about my feelings as to what actually happened to you!)
[…] Update: Harding has posted a response to this here. Because the comments are closed, I wanted to give him a chance to have his opinions heard over at […]
Thanks Steve for back linking from the original entry on dvorak.org.
This isn’t intended to be a referendum on hot linking, that’s a red herring. What’s missing here is appropriate stewardship of these shared resources. I tend to agree about share and share alike, I wouldn’t have even known you used the image if it hadn’t been hot linked. However, it’s pretty well known and understood that if you’re going to use someone else’s work, you at least give credit and perhaps ask permission.
All that’s required of you is to say you guys made a mistake, I’ll let it go. But you want to defend your actions and make this some “big bad dark spectre” of the end of the internet. That’s horse hockey and you know it.
Man up, say you made a mistake and that you guys will give attribution in the future. How hard is that?
“All that’s required of you is to say you guys made a mistake”
We should probably be having this conversation via email. But, we’re not. So let’s move on. If you want me to say I’m sorry, I’ll say it. I’m sorry. It doesn’t really mean anything because I have no control over what the contributing editor did and John’s blog in general. I’m less than a peon, I’m a contributing editor. 😉
In reality I’m just a lawyer who has been mulling over the whole hotlinking thing for a while so this gave me the perfect time to set it to words. I realize you didn’t intend it to be a referendum on hotlinking, but you did provide me the perfect opportunity to make it into one. Thanks!
Peace. Thank you. Finished, finito, done.
And, it is an interesting topic.
Wow, I really wanted to comment on the Dvorak blog but they shut the comments which is total crap considering the title of the post is an actual question.
Hot linking does suck. I take images for my blog all the time but I upload them to my server only consuming my bandwidth. I also look for stuff on Flickr with Creative Commons License. Hot linking though, is just unforgivable.
Here is what’s really amusing:
You may have never read the Dvorak blog before, but I’ve been visiting for a couple years. There is a theme that runs through many of their posts, and that is; Most laws are dumb, and people should use a little common sense, morality, and decency to settle situations.
Now that someone has pointed out that what they’re doing is “indecent” and rude by Interweb standards, what is their reaction? They run off to the law. They hide behind it. They write an entire blog post to explain how legally they aren’t doing anything wrong.
Thanks for the comments Sean and Seth, I appreciate your participation and your perspective.
“Wow, I really wanted to comment on the Dvorak blog but they shut the comments which is total crap”
John has opened up the comments, so go back and have at it.
“They write an entire blog post to explain how legally they aren’t doing anything wrong.”
Let me get this straight, someone is accused of stealing and they are NOT supposed to use the law to prove their innocence?! They’re just supposed to submit to the accusation?! Wow.
And as I’ve already pointed out above, I did not write the article to show or prove fault, I used this merely to explore the issue of the legality of linking.
You’re doing the same thing. Or is this a “do as I say, not as I do” sort of deal?
The image your post at http://montaraventures.com/energy/2007/05/01/englands-wave-hub-gets-43m/ is hotlinked from http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/assets/images/story/2007/4/30/1332_OceanFarm_USE.jpg
without attribution.
The picture in your post at http://montaraventures.com/energy/2007/09/07/constellations-publicity-stunt/
taken from http://www.nevadarenewables.org/?section=geothermal&subsection=projects&id=93
cropped and again not attribution.
Being a bit hypocritical aren’t we? Nice.
Well one thing is for certain, traffic to this blog has increased! So who looses out?
“Calls them as I sees them” – that’s a heck of a handle.
On instance #1, Wave Hub. Count A of HotLinking, Guilty. Hoisted on my own petard. Ouch! It was a mistake and it’s now corrected. On Count B of no Attribution, Not Guilty. There are multiple references and links back to the source material where the image is located. To make things less fuzzy, I’ve added a label. And, if REA has an issue with this and asks me to change/modify/delete the reference(s) I will do so. Thanks for calling the error to my attention so it could be fixed.
On instance #2, Soda Lake Geothermal Plant image, I think you’re mistaken. This is one of a set of photos provided to me by a colleague (of many different geothermal plants in particular.) I have permission to use this photo and am using it in a manner consistent with the wishes of the creator. This person may have also supplied the image in question to other sources, I don’t know. I believe I’m clean on this one.
But back to the core issue, notice, I researched your complaints, acknowledged and fixed them, and will strive not to make the same mistake twice.