Brian from Snapped Shot runs a blog where he highlights the propaganda and hijinks that AP is up to on an almost daily basis.
Now, Snappped Shot is having to shut down, because AP is giving Brian crap about using their images. In my opinion, this is no simple intellectual property dispute. Let's face it, people all over the world use AP's images, but no one else gets hassled. So, why are they hassling Brian? Because he makes clear that AP is up to no good. That they appear to be running interference for terrorists. That they seem to be actively engaged in the propaganda of terrorists.
Fuck AP. Read this:
We have been informed that the Associated Press takes issue with our use of their images on this website, and until I'm able to resolve this matter with them amicably, I'm going to have to take the site offline.
Please feel free to e-mail me if you know more about this kinda thing. I'm posting a copy of the AP's letter below, for full disclosure.
BackgroundSnapped Shot is a site that deals with the criticism of photojournalism. The industry is inaccurate in its reporting, it falls for terrorist propaganda too easily, and in general, the photos that you see presented as "news" on a daily basis are nothing more than fluff. This site has, from the beginning, intended to correct that by presenting specific instances of bias or inaccuracy along with commentary as to why said photographs are inaccurate. I have never drawn a profit from this website, and have never received compensation for any of the "copyrighted" works that are owned by the AP. Furthermore, I have always been careful to give full credit to the wire photographers who have taken the pictures, and have even interacted cordially with a handful of them.
What The?
So why is the AP seeking action against me? I am not making any money off of their work. I am not a mainstream "news" site ala Yahoo, Google, or Breitbart. So what's the deal? Is the Associated Press uncomfortable with the content of this website? Have I struck a nerve too close to home? No idea, but if you're a lawyer that deals in intellectual property, I'm ready to become your new best friend...
As an aside, I'm somewhat befuddled on this point, and hope that some of you can help clarify this for me. How in the world can one provide analysis, commentary, and criticism on news photographs, if they are forbidden from actually showing said photograph? Did the Associated Press crack down on people who clipped newspapers out and shared them with their co-workers? Did they crack down on the thousands of fax-lists that powered New York through the 80's? And is this even relevant? I'd love to hear what you think.
I hope to continue with this blog, even though it's pretty clear that the form of it will change. I just need to make sure that everything's squared away with the current situation first. Please do stay tuned--I'll be posting updates here as I have them.
I guess he'll have to do stick drawings.
Look at that, Pastorius. Why is the missile going up the
3 comments:
AP's photos are lifted by many (possibly thousands of) blogs . . .the only blogger served with notice to desist is the one who criticises AP's lack of professionalism.
Unless EVERY blogger that has used AP's photos are formally limited or restricted from use I don't see this actually working.
How can AP prevail if copyright law is not applied equally across the board?
Pastorius, there is one way to battle this. 10, 20, 30 or more blogs simultaneously publishing SnappedShot's work. May be that's the way, what say you? And by the way, that would be correct not only for SnappedShot, but for every blogger targeted by MSM or any other establishment.
That sounds like a very good idea, Vadim.
Post a Comment