Darlings, we have found a complete, unoriginal simpleton on Flickr. It is one thing to poke fun at the absurd and we have no problems with that at all but be original, darling, make your own pictures to prove your point.
This person claims "Yes, I am posting pictures that I didn't take, but I'm just doing it to point out the incredibly ridiculous shit I see in SL and on the SL fash feed."
But, darling, that is a direct violation of the Community Guideline for Flickr.
Don’t upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photos, video and/or stuff you've collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be terminated at any time.
His profile claims he is covered by the community guideline citing:
"If you see photos or videos that you’ve created in another member’s photostream, don't panic. This is probably just a misunderstanding and not malicious. A good first step is to contact them and politely ask them to remove it. If that doesn't work, please file a Notice of Infringement with the Yahoo! Copyright Team who will take it from there."
However he must be an idiot for not realizing this is meant for those who unknowingly violate someone else's copyright or intellectual property rights and must have missed that work malicious in there. Sweetheart, you can claim all you want that images are not copyrighted but the Terms of Service also covers other people's photos, video and/or stuff. Stuff us a very board term that covers anything that you did not make yourself. With the daily amount of people reporting your account to Yahoo, your ride into fame will be short lived.
I challenge the real avatar behind About Worst Crap from SL & Fash Feed to be a "man" like you claim to be and put out your avatar name so those people you are stealing from can have a nice chat with you. See, darlings, only cowards hide behind the mask of their stupidity. You can always find me easy enough through my profile. Send me a message and we can talk about violating intellectual property because your friend Zoe did not give you very good advice.
We all know the real reason you hide behind a fake name is so that you do not find your bum banned from locations all across the grid. I have to wonder about the people replying to your ignorance. People like Ryker Beck, Vixie Rayna, Annette Voight, Sonjasi Rau, Creamy Cooljoke, Chalice Carling, Bex Hathaway, ColeMarie, Caliah Lyon, and, the most active one, Elysium Eilde must realize that this type of thing will damage their reputations and possibly their movement in Second Life. These are the very people who support skin creator's intellectual rights when their skins are stolen and here they are supporting a person who steal another's intellectual property. I dare anyone who had their pictures stolen or anyone who finds the whole thing distasteful to ban these individuals from your land.
Wait, let me return to Elysium Eilde. Why do you ask? Looking at her responses and her comments I believe that she is either the Flickr holder or a very good friend of this individual perhaps her SL partner, Jackson Vantelli. Perhaps, only she really knows. Notice her quotes in defense of mocking a freebie skin:
"as you may notice from the name of this stream, this is the worst stuff from SL and the fashion feed, this photo was on the CURRENT fashion planet feed... THAT is why the image was chosen. No one is waging a negative campaign against anyone in particular, it's a campaign against all crap.
This feed is one person's opinion people, you don't have to like it, but you sure as hell have to allow people to comment honestly if they want to."
or her own profile in SL which reads: I say what other people won't.
Eylsium & Company, by all means, wage a war on crap but do it with your own pictures and your own screenshots. Show some originality instead of stealing someone else's pictures. If would take you all of 5 minutes to log in, find that ad, and take a screenshot or, all of 15 minutes, to get the freebie, wear it, and really show what you do not like about it.
I leave you with this thought. Mocking people is great fun but do it legally folks or you will find yourself losing in the end. Also, show your true name.
Update: I asked a commenter their opinion of the situation:
"I don't support this person, but it doesn't mean I can't comment on what's going on. You won't find anything on my comments implying that I think anything else, just that I found that particular caption I posted on amusing. Frankly, that's my comment - there should be a formal statement released on the blogs of the people involved, period."
The problem is that this opens the victim for more harassment. I have had some nice chats in SL with some of the victims in this and they all have the information on reporting the images for take down.
-Elle Maxim(ElleM Magic inSL, formerly Xevv Boram inSL)
Related blogs:
SLsecret week 14 - Secret #4
43 comments:
lol, you think it could be me, that's funny. Listen, when I have something to say, I've never been one to hide behind anonymity.
It's interesting that you call me "most active" because my activity is limited mostly to one image where I have been attempting to explain about copyright. Also, in reviewing the stream right now, there are many people who have commented on many more images than I have.
For the record, use of this kind is not stealing, it is covered under Fair Use "...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting..." www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
if you want to think it's me, go ahead, it's amusing, but don't bring my partner into this, he couldn't care less about this crap.
-Ely
The use of these pictures do not fall under Fair Use and violate the community standards for Flickr. You can keep deluding yourselves.
"Don’t upload anything that isn't yours."
I have to say
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
I think there are some people who need to find better shit to blog about
I am blogging about people being unoriginal in their taunting basically and the theft of images. If you look through out blog you will see we don't care if you mock just be original and use your own pictures. Is it really that hard to log in and take a few pictures of the products you wish to mock? Not really. So be original to point out things you find ugly, "crappy", chav, and the like and take your own photos to prove your point. Do not support theft.
Ely, darling, you misunderstand what most active means. You seem to think it is the number of pictures you commented on but this is not what we mean. We mean your conviction in the odd defense of theft that seems to have outed you as the stream owner. No other person on that stream has done this. Only you. You are the only person to stand there with your fist shaking and crying out to the world that they can do what they want with clearly no clue about copyright laws.
I'm sorry, did my link to the US Copyright Office web site not work? Or can you not read?
and yeah, I do shake my fist at matters concerning freedom to express ideas...mine AND other's.
-Ely
I guess you missed this one that I got off of your stream:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
I guess you really need to read all the parts before declaring. I believe I covered this earlier in my first reply that this type of action is NOT covered under Fair Use.
Clearly you did not actually go to the section that covers fair use because you would have read this:
"The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. "
In other words, you really need permission because it if the copyright holder feels you are are not using this for "fair use" then you are not.
As for the 4 factors, considering that you are "featuring" businesses with the stolen images and you are using the images as a whole and not much else, it is safe to say that you do not meet #3 & #4.
"3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"
"4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
I do think when you leave a vague offline IM you should explain exactly what you were talking about and which blog you write for.
I had to do a lot of sniffing about to find out who you were and what you meant, then it turned out to be a total waste of time, because all you were talking about was this nonsense. I thought it was something SERIOUS!
Sniffing around? So you looked at my profile and saw the link to my blog. Great work there, Poirot.
If you feel that copyright infringement and the theft of intellectual property is nonsense then you wont mind when someone takes your pictures. Oh wait, that is right. You are the same girl who justified someone giving out a stolen Naughty Design skin as a freebie because "at least they aren't selling it and making a profit."
http://slfreestyle.blogspot.com/2007/11/dawnshop-male-and-female-starter.html
Actually no elle, whatever avatar you contacted me on had no info about you or your blog.
Also, yes my photographs have been used without my permission, I've got better things to worry about to be quite honest.
I did say that a long time ago when I first started the blog, I was new to it all - we all make mistakes, yes even you sweetheart. I've seen your early posts.
Thanks for your interest in my blog though elle, I won't be visiting yours again as quite frankly it's boring darling.
ciao
*kisses on both cheeks*
I guess the thing I find kind of lame is.. you rather thoroughly "out" who I guess you deem as recognizable names associated with this flickr page, but when you are directly quoting one of their personal opinions you refer to them simply as "commenter".
Love it or hate it, let free speech reign. And yes, I support yours and anybody else's right to bitch about it too.
P.S. lay off the Eildes!
Dahlia, at the time this blog was published those listed were the only people who had commented on the pictures so there was no "deeming" involved. Everyone who had something to comment in support of the theft in some way was mentioned. We believe in equality among the commenters.
Darling, going back to add those who came after publishing would have been a tad overboard. Unless you were one of those people and felt left out after finding this blog?
I went back to look at the names because you said they were "recognizable" and I only knew of 4 of the 10 before I saw their comments on the Flickr stream. For some of them, I still do not know. I learned that your friend Ely fancies herself a photographer which makes her whole stance ironic. Perhaps one day she will be on the other end of this content theft situation and finally understand the implications.
If someone posts a photo of mine for the purposes of commentary, and not to pass it off as their own, or to profit from it, and they acknowledged me as the creator, I have no problem with that. In fact I HAVE found images of mine used on blogs and web sites without my permission. Here's an example:
http://www.tightwaist.de/gallery/flickr/2583354308.php?page=9
There isn't even any commentary or anything, hell, it's not even an SL site. It happens to link back to my flickr and gives me more exposure so it's great with me, but they never got in touch to ask permission.
Also, to assume that Dahlia is my friend just because she seems to support my position is another example of you speaking without actually knowing what you are talking about. Dahlia and I are acquaintances at most, we have probably spoken a half dozen times (I like her, just don't know her that well *waves to Dahlia*).
More importantly though, you ignored the actual point of her comment, which was to say that you used names for the people you are against, but someone supporting your position is just called "commentator".
Oh, lastly, as far as understanding the implications.... I am not just some SL photoshop hack who thinks having a computer makes me an artist. I have an M.A. in graphic design, have worked in the desgin industry professionally for over 10 years, and have taught a bit about intellectual property. Get a grip.
-Ely
I wasn't aware that those were the only commenters at the time of posting and I certainly wasn't suggesting going back and adding ALL of the names. I would have prefered you didn't use any at all.
I for one never commented as you suggested, but if I had I'd be quite ok with being spared the honour of being named in this blog post.
Anyway, it doesn't matter much seeing as the flickr account has been closed making all of this a rather moot point.
...but speaking of intellectual property. I really wish Swirly would trademark the use of "darling(s)"
;)
Oh I see, Darling, the commenter on the follow-up statement is someone from that list. I thought that was clear. My apologies if it was not. I randomly selected two names from that list and contacted them to make a statement regarding content theft, their comments, and the flickr. It is clear that jealously might ensure for those I did not "deem as recognizable" from this random process.
I really wish Swirly would trademark the use of "darling(s)"
Sweetie, Miss Cyclone cannot trademark what she does not own:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105929/quotes
Unless you are implying that Miss Cyclone is our dear Miss Lumley or Miss Saunders?
Anyway, it doesn't matter much seeing as the flickr account has been closed making all of this a rather moot point.
My dear Dahlia, despite the closure, you came to this blog to reply in comments over 12 hours after the stream was gone from flickr so clearly it mattered to you on some level.
On a side note, you can claim anything about your fleshy life, sweetie, but your knowledge of copyright law was proven to be lacking. This is the internet we can claim to be what we wish. I could really be a therapist and Bianca a consultant. I could really be a Linden Lab employee and Bianca one of our advertisers. I could be a member of Parlimant and Bianca the CEO of Tesco. I could really be Patsy and Bianca is Eddy. The internet is an empowering place where we can be anything we wish in our own minds.
Ely, let me remind you of yesterday's conversation:
For someone who was "done" you have a lot more to say.
From the time you told me "im done" yesterday you have followed up being "done" with 14 more lines of chat and 4 paragraphs. This is truly the actions of a person who is "done" dealing with this issue.
So let me say once more:
"And again ... I thought you were done?"
You are totally right Elle, I did try to be done, but it's hard to be "done" when someone else spews a lot of unsubstantiated bullshit about you.
I am wondering why you chose to contact some of the commentators but not others? That seems like very biased "reporting" to me. If you would have contacted me directly in a non-confrontational manner, I would have been happy to explain my comments and my position regarding freedom of expression.
Oh, and because you obviously couldn't figure it out on your own, the witty comment about trademarking the word "darlings" was a gentle way of saying "ya sound ridiculous and condescending every time you use that word, dear."
-Ely
Not done still? 3 more paragraphs. You are the one who is continuing this by coming back over and over.
There you go again confusing bloggers with reporters. If you would like me to be a reporter then send me my press pass so I can go backstage at the exclusive event, Dear.
Bianca and I agreed that calling people Dear, Darling, Sweetie, Honey and the like is much better than the words we would like to use. Condescending tends to be the point, my dear.
Webster says Done is to bring to an end.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-Inigo Montoya, 1987
I'm not having trouble UNDERSTANDING the word "done", I'm having trouble committing to it, because you keep spewing such garbage. I thought I explained why I kept replying? *scratches her head*
Oh, and your explanation of your usage of sweetie, darling, etc pretty much just stated you'd prefer to use profanity when referring to me, very nice.
Darling, who said anything about profanity? There are plenty of other words to use that do not fall into the profanity class.
I think that you are getting pleasure out of sparring and this is why you continued this debate both in SL and on the blog. I cannot think of any other reason why you wish to beat this dead horse into the ground so badly.
This issue is over, sweetie. We won. You lost.
http://gofugyoursl.blogspot.com/2008/11/ugly-little-flickr-update.html
"Oh, and your explanation of your usage of sweetie, darling, etc pretty much just stated you'd prefer to use profanity when referring to me, very nice."
Oh, sweetie, aren't you just the cutest thing! You think we're upset by you? That's so adorable!
You imply that we talk about you. Don't you realize that you just aren't that important to us? You keep coming back, going on and on and on... it's downright precious! Do it some more, please, I'm finding this too much fun!
Bianca, have you heard the news?
We have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in Literature.
Oh my GOODNESS, you must be joking! This is what, our third time being nominated for our hard-hitting investigative reporting?
Miss Walters rang and wants an interview.
Oh, I am so excited! Darling, we absolutely MUST go shopping for this!
I'm finding it entertaining too, and if you didn't want to talk about me, you wouldn't have singled me out in the blog post as being ringleader, even though there was nothing to back that up.
Oh, and I like how you turned this into an Us vs Them issue when all i was arguing for was the rights of ALL of us to say what we think (and provide samples of what we are referring to). I'm debating right and wrong, you are attacking.
Not sure where winning and loosing plays into this... i though we were all just expressing our opinions. Ah, you are referring to the stream being removed, well, it wasn't my stream. And no one has taken away my rights to free speech yet, so I didn't loose a thing.
Oh, and the whole condescending thing? Swirly does it well, but you guys? lol, you just sound silly.
Bianca, have you noticed when all else fails people resort SLebrity name dropping? Not one, but two people dropped Swirly's name. She must rattled because she said "loosing".
Us vs Them.
Supporters of Intellectual Property and Copyright(Us) vs Content Thieves and their Ilk(Them)
I find it most amusing that for the second time in 2 days I get to say this:
Trying to insult us for giving our honest opinions of situations and fashion really does not bother us at all. We really are not in this to please you.
Now, go take your little alt and run along, Dearie.
But dearest, there wasn't a question of freedom. There was a question of copyright infringement, as well as basic courtesy. Clearly Flickr agreed with us.
Do keep responding, pumpkin, you're so very entertaining.
I have, indeed. Such funny little people, trying so hard to make us sad. I'd be hurt if they weren't so cute! It makes me want to ruffle their hair and pinch their cheeks, the little scamps!
ahhh, finally nothing worth responding too, lol. so long now.
But you still responded. How strange. Is English your first language? You certainly use it strangely.
"Me fail Enlgish? That's unpossible."
-Ralph Wiggum, 1990(Season 2, Episode 5)
She really has no idea what the word done means.
Personally, I thought "Worst Crap" was pretty funny. I also think that when you express yourself on a public forum like the Fashion Feed, be it ads or your personal musings on a blog, or even comments, you open yourself up to all sorts of potential criticism and/or mockery. That's just how it is.
If "Worst Crap" did anything wrong, it was not providing links back to the original blogs, which I think was more out of sloppiness or laziness, than maliciousness. He probably should have posted SLURLS too. Ridicule all you like, just give proper credit.
Actually, a better medium for this kind of commentary would be a regular blog, with linked photos and trackbacks. Hopefully, "Worst Crap" will come back in that form. It was funny as shit, and god knows, some criticism is sorely needed on the Feed.
I am absolutely stunned at some of you. After speaking to several of the creators of items that were "mocked" Some of the pics posted to that Flickr were ALTERED to make them look worse and to induce ridicule. The full names of their businesses were used in many. A lot of the items "mocked" were freebies and as far as the use of the word "mock" in this comment... I could use another word. It WASNT FUNNY. It was cruel and fucking unecessary and anyone that had a good laugh over it obviously has never been publicly riduculed. I cried for those people. Do none of you have feelings...AT ALL? Do you not see the difference between something like this piece of narrow tripe and real journalistic criticism? Do you honestly think allowing people to skewer a designer en masse in comments is constructive? I'm flabberagsted honestly.
Ok first I happen to love what goes on in “SL Fashion Police” and “What the Fug”. It’s funny stuff. Taking a candid snap of a blingtard out in public, while keeping their actual identity a secret, no problem at all. There are some other blogs, one in particular, that rub me the wrong way in what they do and how they do it. But at least they… Aspire? Pretend? To keep everything anonymous and purport to be an open forum where anyone can post a “secret”
However “Worst Crap” was different, very different. They used images they had no right to use, without permission, left the brand names visible, and often manipulated the images to make them more in line with their criticisms. This was not fun, fluffy, funny, “needed criticism” of the fashion feed. It was a mean spirited flickr with an agenda. Because ½ of the stuff I saw before it was finally taken down was perfectly reasonable stuff, just not someone’s taste. And MOST of what I see on the feed isn’t my taste, and probably isn’t yours either, but that’s no reason to publically slam a new designer.
Now to address all the “all in good fun”, “didn’t intend to violate copyright”, or “not malicious” comments I’ll first quote directly from the “Worst Crap” flickr’s profile.
"Yes, I am posting pictures that I didn't take, but I'm just doing it to point out the incredibly ridiculous shit I see in SL and on the SL fash feed. (NOTE: I am not passing off these images as mine, even if I edit them.) Leave me a flickrmail, requesting your COPYRIGHTED image be removed and it will be within 7 days. (NOTE: your image must be copyrighted within the United States for your complaint to be valid.) If you ask nicely, I will remove it, BUT BEING A DICK WILL JUST DIG YOUR GRAVE DEEPER."
Ok first he/she is fully admitting to taking images without permission, and editing them to whatever ends. Second these person/persons are totally clueless to the international nature of copyrights (“your image must be copyrighted within the United States for your complaint to be valid” is a total joke), that copyrights are automatic, and that by their behavior they are the ones in violation. Finally, if all this “If you ask nicely, I will remove it, BUT BEING A DICK WILL JUST DIG YOUR GRAVE DEEPER” nonsense isn’t mean spirited and malicious I don’t know what is.
Frankly something like a “Hot or Not” for the fashion feed could be fun, if it was done right. However I don’t think that would be enough for some people. I’m sure this hateful crap will come back in one form or another. If you love it that’s your deal, you’re not my cross to bear. For the people I do know that found this to be amusing, I have 2 words. “Epic Fail”
Ivey & Roblem, it is refreshing to see there are people out there with an understanding of the real issue at hand.
Annyka, your idea may have merit except for 1 major problem. Copyright. Even with trackbacks and credit links most hosts like wordpress and blogspot will support the copyright holder if they do not wish their image to be used on that blog. If they get enough complaints that blog will be removed.
As we have said, if you want to do a critique of something, take your own pictures to support your statements. With your own visuals you can really focus on the details and not leave yourself open for copyright infringement.
Just because you have access to something does not mean you have the right to use it. Take your skins for example, if someone was to get a full perm copy of one and go off selling it, that is a violation of your copyright. Their argument of having found it in some business in a box kit is not a valid defense. They still need to take it down because you did not authorize them to sell your work. This is no different.
@Elle, your comparison to someone reselling my skins is an apples to oranges comparison and doesnt apply. "Worst Crap" was not stealing content, he was quoting it. He didn't credit sources as he should have, and its obvious from his stated policy that he really didnt fully understand his own rights, but the quoting itself was not wrong.
The whole issue of blog quoting is still a very gray area, as the A.P.'s recent and widely criticised policy towards quoting their news reports illustrates: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/business/media/16ap.html?_r=1&oref=slogin . “The principal question is whether the excerpt is a substitute for the story, or some established adaptation of the story,” said Timothy Wu, a professor at the Columbia Law School. Mr. Wu said that the case is not clear-cut, but he believes that The A.P. is likely to lose a court case to assert a claim on that issue."
In the case of "Worst Crap", I think a very strong case CAN be made for "fair use ......for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
From http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: ...USE IN A PARODY OF SOME OF THE CONTENT OF THE WORK PARODIED"
That means if you are parodying a picture, you can show the picture you are parodying.
The "Worst Crap" posts were not parodying the products, they were parodying the Advertisements as they were seen on the Fashion Feed. As such, its entirely fair game to quote them for purposes of criticism. It wouldn't make sense to get the original items and reshoot them, because they weren't making fun of the items themselves, just the ads.
Whether or not you think its unfair or cruel or just plain mean, mockery IS a valid form of criticism and it has a long history of being protected under fair use doctrine.
Annyka, it is not oranges when the issue is the same. Copyright. The law has not changed so you cannot base it on a court case that does not have judgment. We are talking the present not the future.
If you wish to talk the future and believe it is covered under "fair use" then you are also left with the violation of Flickr's community standards that states:
Don’t upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photos, video and/or stuff you've collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be terminated at any time.
So either by the letter of the law for copyright or by the community standards spelled out by Flickr themselves, the stream was in violation.
So from what I am reading, you condone the behavior that was on that stream. How was is a parody of an ad when a tasteful photo of 2 models displaying lingerie was used to call them whores and hookers? How was it tasteful to repeatedly single out the same designer for a majority of the stream? How can you support IP rights and support this at the same time?
It is hypocritical.
Obviously I do condone it, since I said in my last post that mockery is a valid form of criticism, and in the one before that, that when you expose yourself in a public venue, you open yourself to public criticism. Criticism and parody are very important elements of our public discourse, which is why they are protected under Fair Use. And it IS fair use, in exactly the same way as when you scrawled a message on Worst Crap's Flickr page and posted it to SLsecrets.
I see that in your latest post you're trying to walk the walk and show criticism "done right". Hey, that's great of you, but there would be nothing legally or morally wrong in you posting examples of the originals so that people know what your talking about and can see the comparison. That's classic Fair Use for the purpose of criticism. In your attempt to take the high road, your commentary suffers just a bit, which is exactly the reason Fair Use exists.
It might all seem trivial and petty when we're talking about Second Life fashion, but what about when the context is not so trivial? Like when you want to criticise political advertising, or newspaper coverage?
Its admirable that you want to defend people who are getting picked on, but don't use Copyright law as a hammer to silence public criticism.
Actually, I should clarify my condonement. I DON'T condone posting the pics on Flickr without proper linkage. A blog with linked pictures would've been better.
And I also don't condone doing it anonymously. Mockery is fine, just have the guts to do it under your own identity and deal with the consequences of it, or don't do it at all.
But I do condone their right to make fun of someone's work using examples of that work.
Okay, folks, this is getting silly because now I am repeating myself. As I said in the earlier comment:
"The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. "
In other words, you really need permission because it if the copyright holder feels you are are not using this for "fair use" then you are not.
As for the 4 factors, considering that you are "featuring" businesses with the stolen images and you are using the images as a whole and not much else, it is safe to say that you do not meet #3 & #4.
"3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"
"4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
We are turning the comments off on this blog to end the circular argument that this has become. Honestly, do we have to keep repeating ourselves. The horse is dead. Stop beating it.
Post a Comment