Why BuzzFeed Should Pay My Invoice For Copyright Infringement

http://revdancatt.com/2013/09/10/10-good-reason-buzzfeed-is-going-to-pay-my-fucking-invoice-for-copyright-theft/

by mopoke • 13 years ago

236 149 13 years ago

chasing4• 13 years ago

Good! I find it depressing how sites like that sponge value off of actual content creators.

iamshs2• 13 years ago

It is very interesting business idea. No original research/thought/idea/journalism of their own. Scout common websites (reddit on top), find tidbits, use other people's work (their idea, photos etc.) and post lists. Get your blogger to dilute the content to pander to the most of web so that the virality factor increases, and the author should use "interesting" language. This formula gets you pageviews, and you are on your way to explosive growth.

sharkweek• 13 years ago

OK let me start by saying... I really despise buzzfeed -- I think it's a waste of space on the web and notorious for stealing content and just re-flavoring it. I have created a little self-righteous boycott of the site where I refuse to click on anything from their domain. A man has got to have a code...

HOWEVER -- I think it would be REALLY fun to write for them -- I think the challenge of trying to figure out what's hot on the internet and what has people's attention and then trying to get as much traffic as possible would be a ridiculously fun daily challenge.

Would I ever actually consider doing it? Not a chance in hell

busterarm• 13 years ago

Get your blogger to dilute the content to pander to the most of web so that the virality factor increases, and the author should use "interesting" language. This formula gets you pageviews, and you are on your way to explosive growth.

It's a long-established business model that works. Just look at food grain.

rabino6• 13 years ago

You say "sponge value" I say "make visible". Content that no one can see has no value as content. Not defending this particular site, I think it's pretty awful. But some content creators should keep a feet on the ground too.

chasing4• 13 years ago

This guy should "keep a feet on the ground" about someone copying his work without his permission, profiting off it, and making it more difficult for him to use his own work down the line? I think he should be litigiously pissed, which he appears to be.

twilightfog• 13 years ago

As you mention in your article, copyright infringement is not theft. You have a legitimate claim against BuzzFeed, but don't start using the terminology of MPAA/RIAA , unless you want to be hated as much as they are.

chasing4• 13 years ago

Eh, I think we understand what "theft" means in this context. It's "theft" more in the "theft of service" or "theft of value" sense: Buzzfeed has taken something that would otherwise cost money to use and has used it without payment ("theft of service"). And has potentially sapped value from it by making it tougher for the author to use as he wants (like in a book -- "theft of value").

"Theft" works, here.

westicle3• 13 years ago

The problem with doing that is it condones language-creep for rhetorical reasons.

Theft has a meaning which involves "taking with an intent to deprive the owner of their rightful possession". Sure I understand you when you misuse the word, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

My response to this is to say the OP is using extortion to squeeze money out of Buzzfeed with the threat of expensive lawsuits.

That makes him sound like a real bastard doesn't it? Because it isn't really extortion, it is a legitimate attempt to settle a legal dispute. My answer is... let's use words as accurately as we can, rather than twisting them to make our point.

greenyoda• 13 years ago

MPAA/RIAA aren't hated for abusing terminology. They're hated for extorting exorbitant payments from people (some of whom don't even own computers, let alone download copyrighted material) by abusing legal process (threatening people with lawsuits that are probably groundless, but which the defendants can't afford to pay a lawyer to defend). I doubt that the author of this article could ever deserve that amount of hatred.

benologist5• 13 years ago

Yeah right. They're hated because they look at the people ripping off their stuff and sites like ThePirateBay profiteering on their content and try to stomp on that sandcastle.

jlgreco6• 13 years ago

MPAA/RIAA aren't hated for abusing terminology.

Perhaps they aren't hated for it, but they sure are ridiculed for it. "You wouldn't steal a car"->"You wouldn't download a car" anyone?

sologoub• 13 years ago

Isn't that a little extreme? Don't see how a person protecting the claims on the photo of his/her own child that is being exploited for commercial gain by someone not authorized by the creator to do so is even in the same context as MPAA/RIAA stuff...

alexqgb2• 13 years ago

It's theft of money. You do something that incurs a debt, but instead of paying that debt you simply keep the money in you pocket - money which is, by right, no longer yours. It's like bouncing a check. Generally speaking, that's chalked up as theft.

By focusing on the infinitely reproducible media (which cannot, strictly speaking, be stolen) the RIAA/MPAA made themselves look like idiots. But just because they failed to correctly identify what was being stolen does not mean that no theft was taking place. Focus on the money not changing hands (which obviously can't be duplicated) and the picture becomes a lot clearer.

Edit: Downvotes? I guess the truth stings, especially when the logic is airtight.

westicle3• 13 years ago

It really isn't.

1. Defaulting on a contract is, generally speaking, a civil matter and has nothing to do with theft.

2. There is no contract here, implied or explicit.

3. Buzzfeed haven't physically taken anything from the OP intending to permanently deprive him of it.

You seem to have received a few downvotes unfortunately, but I assume that is because your post is mainly bad metaphors supporting a faulty argument.

Edit: line breaks.

tzs• 13 years ago

No reasonable person is going to hate him for using ordinary colloquial English. In ordinary English, we can "steal" many things besides tangible property.

If your friend convinces your girlfriend to leave you for him, it is common to say he "stole" her from you.

A sports team that wins from behind at the last minute against a supposedly better team is often said to have "stolen" the game.

If a restaurant owner paid a waiter at another restaurant to spy on the kitchen to figure out a sauce recipe, and then put that sauce on his menu, many would say the recipe was "stolen" [1].

Falling in love is often described as having your heart "stolen".

If someone bugs your office and hears you practicing your pitch for a startup incubator, and then they apply and pitch your idea before you, using the points from your pitch, most would say he "stole" your idea and your pitch.

[1] This may not be such a good example, because the recipe could be a trade secret, and "theft" might then be legally correct usage instead of just colloquial usage since misappropriating trade secrets is actually called "theft of trade secrets" in some jurisdictions. For instance, see 18 USC 1832, "Theft of Trade Secrets" [2].

[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1832

smoyer4• 13 years ago

Well Reverend ... I think your claim has merit but I'd be interested in knowing what denomination ordained you with language like that. I'd recommend you avoid curse-words like that in your court filing and in the event you talk with officials involved in your case.

lightyrs4• 13 years ago

Where is it written that a Reverend shall not use such language?

vacri2• 13 years ago

Religious arguments frequently don't work like that. Where is it written, for example, that Catholics must not use condoms?

farresito• 13 years ago

It's just not polite. It's a nice post that could have been better had he used a nicer language.

smoyer4• 13 years ago

This one took me a while ;)

1) Koran - [4:148] GOD does not like the utterance of bad language, unless one is treated with gross injustice. GOD is Hearer, Knower.

2) Talmud - [Ketubot 8b] Even a heavenly decree for seventy years of good can be reversed if one perverts his mouth with improper speech.

3) Bible - [Ephesians 5:4] Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting – all of which are out of character – but rather thanksgiving. 5:5 For you can be confident of this one thing: 8 that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

4) A gentleman has no skill in trifles, but has strength for big task: the vulgar are skilled in trifles, but have no strength for big tasks. - Confucius, Analects, c.400 b.c.

5) Buddism - "Right Speech" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_speech#Right_speech

Note that I'm not sure where to look for other religions of the world.

grecy2• 13 years ago

what denomination ordained you with language like that.

Huh?

How about I grew up on the other side of the world, in a completely different culture, where we don't care for words like 'denomination' and 'ordained'.

Welcome to the internet, which as you don't seem to understand, is global.

smoyer4• 13 years ago

I never assumed you were from the US, though I'll admit I'm not as well versed in the operation of denominations, sects, religions, cults as I could be. Since your post was in English, I did assume it was a language you spoke and that at a minimum you'd have access to a dictionary that contained the words 'denomination' and 'ordained'.

So while I was curious before, now I just think you're a jerk, and I'm rereading your post in a different light (the jerk that's always got a chip on his shoulder light). Have a blessed day, night, evening, morning or whatever it is where ever you are.

* Also note that I didn't comment on your use of the swear words ... it's pretty common and I can filter it out and/or understand the exclamatory nature of the use.

wonderzombie• 13 years ago

Wait, how do you know any denomination did ordain him with that language? Or, wait, would you have preferred German?

anu_gupta• 13 years ago

Um, you do realise that Dan Catt isn't really a priest or a minister, don't you?

smoyer4• 13 years ago

Is this him?

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=739426...

lightyrs4• 13 years ago

I feel your pain. On the plus side, you take great photos and now I'm aware of your work (I know, I know — doesn't do much to help).

sethbannon• 13 years ago

From the article: "On Slate Jonah Peretti goes on to say ”would love if every image contained some secret metadata and a way to license that image. But the practical reality is that it is pretty challenging“."

Now there's an interesting startup idea.

minimaxir2• 13 years ago

It already exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography#Digital

Unfortunately, it's easy to thwart. (just transform the image slightly)

deletes2• 13 years ago

I saw i paper a long time ago of a stenography quite resistant to transformations so the basic information was still extractable from the picture. Still i think that a photograph of the monitor would remove it.

EDIT: Even a photo filter might not succeed if it did a homogenous effect across the pixels.

I have to find that algorithm someday.

maurits• 13 years ago

Not at all. Enough methods, such as spread spectrum watermarking, survive a multitude of digital deformations and 'analog' attacks like printing and physically deforming. Action from 1.30 and German, but the demo is pretty clear. [1]

[1] http://www.3sat.de/mediathek/index.php?display=1&mode=play&o...

anigbrowl7• 13 years ago

That doesn't make it any easier to license, does it?

evan_• 13 years ago

Digimarc did this years ago but the problem has always been enforcement, not detection. As noted in the article, BuzzFeed knew where the image came from and could have figured out a way to license it pretty easily- but they didn't want to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digimarc

krapp• 13 years ago

It would be just as doomed as any other DRM scheme. You can't stop anyone from copying an image, removing any metadata that might be there, or even if they're clever, from cloning out a watermark.

porsupah3• 13 years ago

Reading the original quote, and assuming good faith, they're wishing for some system that would permit them to establish an image's owner.

If you don't take steps to strip out typical metadata, such is indeed already present, in EXIF and IPTC fields.

benologist5• 13 years ago

Exploiting other people's content is fundamentally baked into the business models of these guys and their "I-can't-believe-it's-not-plagiarism" cousins.

rorrr22• 13 years ago

You can just image search your photos every X months.

I agree, it could be a startup.

dmourati3• 13 years ago

http://www.tineye.com/

NelsonMinar• 13 years ago

EXIF

acdha4• 13 years ago

This already exists:

http://www.photometadata.org/meta-resources-field-guide-to-m...

The problem is that the people you most want to follow this are the least likely to check IPTC metadata first.

Terretta• 13 years ago

Type:

    jhead -purejpg in.jpg out.jpg

And no pesky EXIF or IPTC to worry about. Hence digimark and others that put the info in the image.

anigbrowl7• 13 years ago

You're missing the point. IDing the copyright owner is the easy part. Licensing the picture is the hard part - you have to write an email to the person and there's all this tedious back-and-forth whereas what the buyer wants is a one-click button like on Amazon.

Although the page you link to is a great resource, it's a sad fact that there's no metadata for 'Cost of 3-month nonexclusive license: $60 per million impressions. Remit-to: my_account@paymentprocessor.com'.

All sorts of restrictions on usage and what-all else, but no fields for price or payment method...the only two things that a potential buyer actually needs to transact business.

/facepalm

lyndonh• 13 years ago

IPTC http://www.iptc.org/cms/site/index.html?channel=CH0089

chrismarlow9• 13 years ago

Until I take a screenshot of the image and then use that. Printers create a light band of yellow on every print that helps identify the printer it came from (counterfeiting with a store bought printer is stupid), maybe something along those lines would work?

chasing4• 13 years ago

Haha. What he meant was:

"I'd love it if it remained 'pretty challenging' to identify who owned what on the web, because our whole business model would crater if we had to pay for the content we rip off."

ajays• 13 years ago

Every photo on Flickr has a copyright tag attached to it. At least on Flickr it's not challenging at all.

joshwa• 13 years ago

There's an industry effort to set up a universal licensing language and registry:

http://www.useplus.com/aboutplus/system.asp

https://www.plusregistry.org/

Though I can't say it's gained much traction.

larrys• 13 years ago

"As the kids grow up I’ve been collection various “Parent Hacks” were I’ve discovered useful ways of doing things, with the aim of one day producing a “10 Neat Things I Learnt While Being A Parent“. Now one of those things has been splashed all over the internet, which kind of devalues the usefulness of the list I was planning."

The above is the thing I find most amazing. If you are compiling a list so that you can one day produce "10 neat things I learned" etc. then the last thing you should be doing is putting that info anywhere on the internet. The saying that comes to mind is "possession is 9/10th of the law".

By posting it online, multiple small parties will potentially take it, spread it around, and you will never have enough legal resources to police it. Effectively it is gone forever.

FireBeyond• 13 years ago

The saying that comes to mind is "possession is 9/10th of the law".

The saying was never really that - only through bastardization and a gradual veering away. In fact, it was that "possession is nine /points/ of the law".

hartator• 13 years ago

Am I the only one who think the OP may have overreacted?

venomsnake4• 13 years ago

I don't think he overreacted.

1st - the law is obviously on his side. 2nd - he is the little guy in the case which for me matters 3rd - he is not looking at extreme damages but is making a small claim. 4th - it seems to me that he is mostly annoyed for not being credited properly and being just dismissed/made fool of by the company statements.

And lets be honest - whatever a person views should be for non commercial infringement (mine are extremely lax) and sampling/transformation (the author should be entitled to part of the earnings, but should not have the ability to stop the work from being created or distributed) if you make money out of someone's IP he is in his right to say Fuck you, pay me! for some part of that amount.

rabino6• 13 years ago

No, you're not the only one.

I totally get him, but I think the way in he expressed his belief came up as just whiny.

Also I believe the problem is with copyright laws and not with BuzzFeed. They are not selling that image, they are just illustrating their content and the same article without his image would have exactly the same value.

But beyond all, what pisses me off the most is the blue background on those link, good lord!

venomsnake4• 13 years ago

I have tried reading Cracked articles without the images to save traffic (they pay and attribute every image). It was not the same - the experience was degraded for me. Images do provide lots of value.

chakalakasp6• 13 years ago

I am not selling your code, I am just using your code verbatim without your permission to make money and compete with you.

treysome• 13 years ago

He really just sounds like a butt hurt copyright troll.

Dylan168076• 13 years ago

I don't think you understand what the term 'copyright troll' means.

dmourati3• 13 years ago

This happened to a bunch of flickr photographers and me for a Toyota advertising campaign. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42743425/toyota-and-s...

When Toyota's ad agency Saatchi was confronted about the misuse, they offered a flat fee of $500 (if I recall correctly ) for each photo. Several of the photographers took the deal. A group of around 10 of us hired a lawyer and settled for much more (withholding amount was part of the deal) per infringement.

mikeash• 13 years ago

Wow, $500 is an amazingly insulting offer. Statutory damages for willful infringement are $150,000!

sgfc• 13 years ago

That is the maximum for the willful infringement of an image that is registered with the copyright office [1] and awards are highly vaiable. [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright...

[2] http://www.ipinbrief.com/whyitsdifficultpredictstatutorydama...

freework• 13 years ago

Someone needs to create a new internet where everything that makes it way onto it is automatically Creative Commons "by Attribution". If you can read it, you can use it (as long as you give credit).

chakalakasp6• 13 years ago

This would not work, as it would be difficult to impossible to distinguish legit content from content uploaded by liars, thus breaking the trust model you are trying to create. Here, I uploaded the entire Harry Potter series via ebook, it must be Creative Commons; right?

austenallred2• 13 years ago

BuzzFeed bothers me as much as the next person, but how mad can you really be at BuzzFeed for linking back to the wrong page, according to how you see it, that still contains the original picture and is publicly viewable?

dmazin• 13 years ago

Well, that's why the author said it's why they're not _pleased_ with the way it was used - because they linked to it in the manner least beneficial to the creator.

porsupah3• 13 years ago

One thought that comes to mind is in the line "So all those 4 million plus views who may click through, will they count as “Views” on my Flickr page? No."

Bear that in mind - if this is accurate (and the guy once worked on Flickr), then linking to the download page avoids bumping the photo's view count up, which might indicate to the photographer that the photo's been featured on a highly trafficked page.

austenallred2• 13 years ago

That sounds like a Flickr problem more than a BuzzFeed problem.

trafficlight• 13 years ago

The point is that they linked to the source, which did not specify that it was licensed under Creative Commons, and offered a convenient way to contact the photographer.

mnutt• 13 years ago

It'd be more nitpicky if the image were Creative Commons-licensed in the first place, but it wasn't. Buzzfeed linking back to the original is just pretending like it's CC and attribution is all that is required. (assuming they didn't just make a mistake)

Linking to the wrong page sounds like they were probably on that page to download the image, and when they went to get the attribution they just happened to have that tab open. Most likely laziness, not malice.

snowwrestler6• 13 years ago

Linking back to a web page (any page) is not a get-out-of-jail card for copyright infringement.

sengstrom• 13 years ago

Now in Bulgarian! http://agronet.bg/agro-news/interesni-novini/874-2009-02-09-... Tineye seems to be out of date, but google image search comes through with a wealth of copies out there.

loceng• 13 years ago

Good luck.

aidanbrandt• 13 years ago

This is good to see. Too often the scum at Buzzfeed get away with blatant infringements.

o0-0o• 13 years ago

Congrats, buzzfeed! You just made my hosts file.

exratione2• 13 years ago

And this is an example of one of the many, many reasons why intellectual property in the age of the leviathan state is a terrible idea, terribly executed.

As a practical matter you can't own public, unencrypted arrangements of bits. All attempts to enforce ownership of public, unencrypted arrangements of bits are forms of rent-seeking or forms of begging or, at the pleasant best, forms of politely asking other people to go along with your view of the world for a while.

mangoman• 13 years ago

What? Not everything on the Internet is public domain. Just because I put a photo on the internet that's not encrypted doesn't make it fair game to go sell my photo.

Maybe I just didn't understand what you were trying to say...

logic• 13 years ago

His position, I'm guessing, is that when a good has no natural scarcity (pictures and music in digital form, for example, or compiled code), society should not be creating an artificial scarcity in its stead (ie. compelling others not to reproduce it through force of law). He views the idea of this compelled scarcity to be, basically, rent-seeking behavior codified into law.

I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect the "you can't own" portion of his statement was a point of possession and direct control, not necessarily law.

exratione, please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your position here at all, and I'll correct my post. (I'm intentionally leaving out my opinion, just trying to clarify yours. :))

hippich• 13 years ago

I believe he is talking about common sense vs. you talking about law.

gnaritas3• 13 years ago

Just because I put a photo on the internet that's not encrypted doesn't make it fair game to go sell my photo.

But it should. Copying is not theft, and shouldn't be treated as such by law, even though it is now. IP is just wrong, we just haven't adjusted to that truth yet; we will eventually.

forrestthewoods• 13 years ago

I could not possibly disagree with that viewpoint more. I'm just going to paste my favorite statement from the internet loved Judge Posner.

"A distinguishing characteristic of intellectual property is its "public good" aspect. While the cost of creating a work subject to copyright protection—for example, a book, movie, song, ballet, lithograph, map, business directory, or computer software program—is often high, the cost of reproducing the work, whether by the creator or by those to whom he has made it available, is often low. And once copies are available to others, it is often inexpensive for these users to make additional copies. If the copies made by the creator of the work are priced at or close to marginal cost, others may be discouraged from making copies, but the creator’s total revenues may not be sufficient to cover the cost of creating the work. Copyright protection—the right of the copyright’s owner to prevent others from making copies—trades off the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work in the first place. Striking the correct balance between access and incentives is the central problem in copyright law. For copyright law to promote economic efficiency, its principal legal doctrines must, at least approximately, maximize the benefits from creating additional works minus both the losses from limiting access and the costs of administering copyright protection."

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html

phaemon• 13 years ago

That quote doesn't support your viewpoint. There's nothing in that quote that I would say is wrong, and I would happily get rid of copyright entirely.

mgraczyk• 13 years ago

To put your "arrangement of bits" trivialization into a more realistic perspective: A 3x2 true color bitmap with just 6 pixels requires 144 bits to store. There are thus 2^144 such possible images.

Lets pretend that every computer connected to the internet today starts randomly generating images. Lets optimistically say they can generate 1 million per second each, and optimistically assume there are 3 billion such computers. For any particular image as described above, these computers have an expected time to generate the image of around 2^24 years. That's almost the age of the universe so far. Increase the image size to 3x3 and those computers will effectively never generate the image (expected time something like 2^75 times the age of the universe).

Those bits in an image aren't arbitrary. Do not trivialize the importance of digital content by equating a picture to an "arrangement of bits." Even a seemingly very small arrangement of bits is extremely special.

indrax• 13 years ago

I don't think that the non- arbitrariness of content changes the assertion - that attempting to own content is rent seeking or begging.

gnaritas3• 13 years ago

The uniqueness of an image is meaningless, it doesn't in any way stop it from being a simple arrangement of easily copied bits and absent such scarcity, the notion of property is meaningless. Property only makes sense when something is scarce.

tristosam• 13 years ago

Keep me updated. Really fascinated by your quest to get back the $75 they probably owe you.

My god it must be nice to have something like this actually be a problem in your life and make you mad.

interlopers• 13 years ago

* $500 to $5,000

hojoff792• 13 years ago

This is worth 500 to 5000 in the same way that the Winklevoss twins should own half of facebook

porsupah3• 13 years ago

It doesn't have to be this way, does it?

Yes, if BuffPo were to agree some payment for photo or writing reuse, they'd have much greater outgoings. However, they'd also then become legitimate channels for syndication, rather than incidental leeches.

I do profess some grim amusement in noticing that serial infringers - the Daily Mail comes prominently to mind - are never punished with anything greater than a nominal fee for whatever work they've lifted. Given these are outfits that are entirely based around profit (rather than simply linking to them in a personal journal, for example, with no money involved), surely the consequences for copyright infringement ought to be amplified, rather than diminished into inconsequentiality?

Imagine a BuzzFeed that shared the ad revenue with the creators of the photos involved. It wouldn't lead to anyone's early retirement, I'm sure, but we have the means to make such happen, very easily. Shouldn't such sites be working toward helping creators be rewarded for what fuels those very sites?

chakalakasp6• 13 years ago

In general there are many companies out there who create entire biz models on ripping off photographer's photos and compiling them into lists that sit side saddle to paid ads. I have lots of personal experience with this, and if a photographer registers his or her copyright, such companies are very much liable for compensating the artist. These companies know this. Most photographers don't notice the infringements or if they do haven't registered their images. If more photographers registered, the pool of stolen images would be full of many more legal torpedoes, so to speak, and the companies who are less risk averse would spend the 30 minutes it would take to brainstorm a system for getting images legitimately. (Hint: Cracked.com has accounts with Getty and Corbis. It's not that hard.)

fourstar• 13 years ago

I'm running into a similar problem with a trademark I hold for my brand (that I created and am developing). People have fast-followed with different (similar) Twitter accounts, but are calling themselves my trademark (thus diluting the brand). The problem is, I reached out to Twitter and they said that these accounts weren't in violation. I spoke to a lawyer who referred me to someone else. Should I pursue it further or just be flattered that they are promoting the name? The problem if I do that is that then everyone thinks it'll be okay, so the trademark is essentially useless. Any ideas? By the way, some of these accounts have > 400k followers where I only about about 5k.

gallerytungsten• 13 years ago

This guy has a great claim to some payment, anywhere from $500 to $5,000 (or whatever he can settle for). The usage without permission is not in doubt. The case for payment for this type of usage is well-established. The only question is how much. Buzzfeed is in the wrong and they should pay up, pronto.

Natsu• 13 years ago

He mentioned that many of his other photos are CC licensed and this is one of the exceptions. Isn't there any way they could have seen the CC licenses on his other photos and mistaken this photo for one of the CC licensed photo?

Thereasione• 13 years ago

BuzzFeed is notorious for STEALING content from other websites. Using pictures without permission isn't the only bad thing they are doing. They even copy/paste chunks of text verbatim into lists without attribution (For example "13 Things You Probably Didn't Know About the Movie 'Clueless" is comprised almost solely of sentences copied from the IMDB trivia page for Clueless, with no sign that they are anything but his own words.). Also their lists are rehashed from other blogs.

http://gawker.com/5922038/remix-everything-buzzfeed-and-the-...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2013/03/buzzfeeds-ha...

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/06/...

hojoff792• 13 years ago

What was the invoice amount for? You list all those reasons why "it's not worth a lot" is not a good argument...so what are you arguing it is worth? I have to say, your "I was going to use it" argument sounds a lot like "I had that idea first" argument for start ups. In the end, buzz feed can just execute with that photo better, your idea (no offense) was never going to touch 4.2MM views.

Definitely not saying you necessarily deserve nothing, but what amount did you put in your invoice? Want to know what you think the value is

mtgentry• 13 years ago

I asked Jonah about this very thing a year ago. His response was lacking IMO:

http://cdixon.org/2012/07/24/buzzfeeds-strategy/comment-page...

nicholassmith• 13 years ago

As an amateur photographer I've actually been in the same boat, but with an unnamed newspaper in the UK, it's an interesting process. It's also ridiculously common for media companies to use photography without licensing it properly, and whilst I've heard the argument of "don't post it if you don't want it using" it just doesn't work. The world would be a poorer place if creatives felt that they had to sequester their work away to maintain their own rights of control over their product.

Plus most of the time if you approach a photographer first you're going to get a much better deal than when you've decided that licensing it properly wasn't important.

Why BuzzFeed Should Pay My Invoice For Copyright Infringement

Related Stories