April 18, 2007
Photo of the Day: April 18, 2007
Finally, a couple of reminders. First, although we are, as always, extremely grateful to those who choose to tag their photos with "DCist", we'd be even more grateful if contributors limited themselves to a few photos per day. The rule, to whatever extent there is one, is 3 or 4, but if you've got a few more more compelling images we'd certainly like to see those, too. However, if you've got a 120-photo set of pictures of rocks that you think are kind of interesting, adding "DCist" to the batch tags is something to avoid. One or two of those rock-shots is sufficient -- you can rest assured that if it piques our interest we'll be checking out the rest of the recent entries in your photostream. Adding too many photos clutters things up and makes it easy to overlook other worthy photographers.
Second, one or two photographers have been adding borders to their photos and text asserting a copyright. While we certainly want to respect your copyright, we can't crowdsource formatting, padding and layout. So fair warning: we take your tagging a photo with DCist as permission to use it; when necessary, we're also going to take it as permission to crop the photo. That'll include those copyright notices. If you're uncomfortable with this, please get in touch with one of us to talk about it, and refrain from tagging items for our feed until we've worked the issue out. And of course, if this makes any of our photographers uncomfortable, we'd like to discuss it with you in comments.
Third, don't forget the email address for mobile photos! Your VGA camphone shot may not make it onto the wall at the next DCist Exposed, but it could still show us something interesting about D.C. So add the email to your phonebook: hotel03doors (at) photos.flickr.com.
Thanks, as always.
| 
Is the 'photo of the day' only chosen from those that are tagged with 'dcist,' or do you guys also look in the DCist Photo Pool? As always, I've been adding the 'dcist' tag to my photos but they haven't been showing up among the 'public photos tagged with dcist' recently for some reason. However my photos are showing up in the DCist Photo Pool just fine.
Just a general comment that it seems a bit messy to have both the DCist Photo Pool and the 'photos tagged with dcist.'
PS... If it were me choosing photos for the site, I'd just use the 'DCist Photo Pool' as it's much easier to police/limit number of photos posted, as is already being done with the 3 photos per day limit.
I totally agree with Jim/iceman882.
We do use the photo pool quite often; however, it's important (if you want your photo to ever be on the site anyway) to tag it "dcist," as well - and also tag it with what ever is in the photo ("mailbox" "adams morgan" "circulator") because that's how we search for pictures for other posts, by searching "dcist" and "whatever we're looking for."
"Mom, do you ever have that...not so fresh feeling?"
" "Mom, do you ever have that...not so fresh feeling?" "
Ha ha ha!
That is hilarious.
By the way - I forgot to mention this - but this photo reminded me:
The photo editor where I work thinks that DCist needs a photo editor.
Fade-on: Are they volunteering, then?
Not to piss in your cheerios or anything DCist, but...
You might just forego using the photo rather than cropping copyright info. Cropping copyright info is (likely) a violation of 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1202, thanks to your friend and mine, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
17 U.S.C. Sec. 1202(b):
(b) Removal or Alteration of Copyright Management Information.— No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law—
(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information,
...
(3) distribute, import for distribution, or
publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law,
...
A recent case came down and decided that when the AP did this to a photograph (McClatchey v. Associated Press, W.D. Pa., No. 3:05-cv-145, 3/9/07), they violated Sec. 1202.
Just sayin...
the key part of 17 U.S.C. Sec 102(b) quoted is the "without the authority of the copyright owner."
DCist is saying that if you want to have your photo posted you must consent to this alteration or removal
Rlickr users can control their own licensing on the site. You can assign all sorts of Creative Commons and other licensing, which is really what I would think dictates what can be done with the photos. DCist doesn't own the tag "DCist", so I can't imagine they're allowed to ignore copyright on anything tagged "DCist", right? Or is "DCist" trademarked? Attorneys, there are, like, 8 million of you in this town. Lend a hand here.
"Or is 'DCist' trademarked?"
Look at the top of the page. There appears to be a little "TM" next to "DCist".
Seriously, all the whinging here is pretty annoying. I take photos and occasionally I tag them dcist. I also, by default, use the Creative Commons non-commercial license. When I tag something dcist, it's with the understanding that even though dcist is technically a commercial entity, they can use my photos if they want (since they've stated umpteen times that's what tagging it with dcist means). If you have your way, dcist wouldn't be able to use my photos unless I changed the CC designation.
I LIKE the system as it currently is, because I only have to go through one step: add a tag. It takes two seconds, and I don't have to think about it again. I don't have to send it to a group, I don't have to mess with my default license settings, I just add a tag. Why do people insist on trying to make things such a pain?
"DCist doesn't own the tag "DCist", so I can't imagine they're allowed to ignore copyright on anything tagged "DCist", right? Or is "DCist" trademarked?"
Whether or not DCist is trademarked is irrelevant. Copyright and trademark law are two completely different animals. Only copyright is at issue here.
Personally, I think copyright management information on photographs makes the picture look assy, so I don't include it. As for whether DCist's announcement qualifies as some sort of implied agreement by photogs to waive their 1202 rights, is beyond me. I simply raised the original point because I came across the relevant case.