“Trumangate” has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

A little tip for those of you who plan on having content you post on the web appropriated by a large corporation: It expedites processes enormously to get The Washington Post -- aka The Watergatinator -- somehow involved.

Since Dog Photo Kerfuffle 2007 began I've been approached by several news outlets, but apparently The Washington Post has some special superpowers that strike terror into the hearts of other media corps. They contacted me earlier this week and I finally spoke with a Post reporter yesterday (I was on vacation, dudes. PRIORITIES!), who also reached out and touched people over at FOX to get their side of the story.

The upshot? I'm now in talks with FOX over this whole debacle, trying to work something out that doesn't involve lawyers and/or undue bloodshed. So far, my demands are as follows:

• $200,000 in unmarked twenty-dollar bills
• A guest spot on The O'Reilly Factor, during which the host is required to refer to me only as “The All-Being, Master Of Time, Space, and Dimension”
• A swank private jet stocked to the gills with Cristal and Jello Pudding Pops (don't ask)
• A kilo of pure, unadulterated cocaine
• A slot in the upcoming American Idol competition
• A lock of Rupert Murdoch's silken, shimmering hair, tied with a pink bow

I'm still waiting to hear back. Fingers crossed!

Oh I kid! Actually, here's what I sent to them:

Hi [name of FOX person],

[Name of Reporter] from the Washington Post suggested I get in touch with you w/r/t an image of mine that was used during a FOX NFL broadcast a couple weeks ago -- I'm guessing she fully briefed you at this point?

I'd of course be happy to answer any questions you might have about the issue, but to be clear: I'm not litigious, and this is not about wanting to “sue FOX for all their worth” or something. Basically I'd just like some kind of acknowledgment that a mistake was made and that my photo was used without permission, and then whatever the appropriate monetary compensation is for use of similar images during an NFL broadcast on FOX. That's it, honestly.

The larger issue for me is about making sure people -- private individuals as well as corporations -- understand that images put on the web or on the photo sharing site flickr aren't necessarily “fair game” and that laws regarding copyright and ownership still apply on the web.

Thanks for your attention regarding this matter.

Best,
Tracey Gaughran-Perez
sweetney.com

I'm thinking perhaps I should've closed with “Cordially” as opposed to the more intimate “Best”, but otherwise I'm pretty confident that email says all that I needed to say. Ultimately, I hope the precedent set here will help clarify what seems to be an undue amount of confusion out there (or at least among Sweetney commenters) about the significance, meaning, and viability of “copyright” and “all rights reserved” on the web regarding content. And then I hope to be able to perform the “I Told You So Nah-Nanny-Nah-Nah” dance and thumb my nose at all the belligerent nay-sayers. Because yes, I'm twelve years old.

Not surprisingly, the blame for all of this is being placed on “a low-level production assistant who was tasked with finding holiday images at the last minute. Apparently, no one asked where he got the images” (so said the Post reporter who put me in touch with FOX higher-ups). Will someone please inform the production assistants of the world that flickr isn't a stock photo site? Can we all get clear on that, make it part of PA-101: Day One training or something? Just a thought.

I'll keep you all posted on things as they develop.

Comments

[aimee]

Personally I think your first set of demands is more appropriate, especially considering this is FOX you are dealing with! :) Good luck!

[BaltimoreGal]

I think you are being quite reasonable and hope this gets worked out ASAP. Also, please let us know when the WAPO article comes out!

[Kelly]

I hope the PA didn't get shit on, but seriously if said PA is in the media biz, why doesn't he/she know about istockphoto or getty images? Like, DUHHHH!

[Mrs. Davis]

Awesome that the WaPo is on this! And your message to FOX sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I love how they blame the PAs for stuff like this, as if they work completely unsupervised or without any training. Grrr.

[Amanda]

Your requests are definitely reasonable. I, too, think that big corporations need to understand that they can't take copyrighted images/material from the web without permission. They should have, in the least, contacted you for permission and gave you credit. Good luck and I hope everything goes well.

[Maria]

Handling like a true professional. Good for you.

I'm missing Truman, so I'm going to leave it at that.

[jen]

How can you have a list of demands that so clearly disregards the FOX ties to/power over Kiefer Sutherland? I mean, really, Jack Bauer 24/7? Come on!

[dana]

Good for you. I'm getting pretty tired of companies using the lowly assistant/intern/etc. excuse. It's about cheapness and laziness rather than a lack of knowledge on their part. I'm glad you didn't drop the issue and let this set a dangerous precedence.

[Big Mama]

I would so hold out for a lock of Rupert Murdoch's hair tied in a pink bow.

[emily]

"Dog Photo Kerfluffle of 2007"
love it...especially the "Kerfluffle" part.

[dana]

Good for you. I'm getting pretty tired of companies using the lowly assistant/intern/etc. excuse. It's about cheapness and laziness rather than a lack of knowledge on their part. I'm glad you didn't drop the issue and let this set a dangerous precedence.

[dana]

Good for you. I'm getting pretty tired of companies using the lowly assistant/intern/etc. excuse. It's about cheapness and laziness rather than a lack of knowledge on their part. I'm glad you didn't drop the issue and let this set a dangerous precedence.

[Deb on the Rocks]

But if you do get the coke, give me a ring. I have a special recipe.

[AKPiper]

You were much more gracious than I would've been in the same situation. But then, no one really steals photos of poodles...

Fox should provide basic training to ALL employees on intellectual property law and what IS and IS NOT acceptable. Because, ultimately, their content is their responsibility.

[Assertagirl]

Hey, that's terrific, very diplomatic, and will surely bring good karma your way.

[laura]

If you end up on American Idol, I swear to God that I'll vote for you.

I'd also like to see you--or better yet, Truman--as a character on The Simpsons. Any chance?

[Heather B.]

Dude, you're famous.

[Elizabeth]

Oh yeah, you should have held out for a guest spot on The Simpsons, or Family Guy.

American Idol starts Jan. 15th! Will we be MamaPopChatting it?

[Elizabeth]

Sorry, that was a bit abrupt. I also meant to say that I'm glad this is getting handled and that you aren't getting the run around. And, Happy New Year :)

[All Adither]

Any graphic designer worth a hoot knows that about flickr. Hello Getty? Corbis? There are even a few (scant) other stock agencies out there.

[sweetney]

yeah i guess you guys are right. if given the choice, i'd definitely go with a guest spot on The Simpsons over a kilo of coke.

or so i claim. publicly.

[Chase]

If nothing else, the lesson learned here should be that everyone should have a DVR.

Now, excuse me while I go teach this lesson to my fiance because, yeah, we don't even have CABLE, let alone a picture-stealing-cable-network-recording device thing.

Thanks, Truman.

[rachel]

I doubt the PA thing is really an "excuse" so much as an actual explanation. No one with any power culls images from the web for ads. Which doesn't mean the PA shouldn't know better or that it isn't still wrong, but it's a tough position to be in, I imagine. As a college teacher, I and most of my colleagues probably violate copyrights all the time. Sometimes you don't figure out the essay you want to teach until a class discussion begs it, and by then there isn't time to get it uploaded to the library systems e-reserves page, so you copy and distribute to 20 students. Ease of access to the web-based ereserve system is not always equal, and sometimes i copy a piece for someone having trouble accessing it. Violation! The scale is different, and I am not a mega-media outlet, but I could be taken as a representative of my big University in the same way a PA is a representative for Fox.

I don't say any of this to excuse the violation, or to downplay your rights in the situation. I just wanted to point out other iterations of t his sort of thing, and to wonder if people have the same instinct to condemn the violator.

[Suebob]

I would ask to speak to the low level person. I would LOVE to get their side of the story.

[sweetney]

rachel - hear you. actually i don't blame the PA, i blame the people who didn't train that person to do their job properly.

also, i think there is indeed a qualitative difference between an individual's use of images from the web and a major corporation broadcasting them to millions.

had fox approached me ahead of time and asked to use the photo with proper attribution/credit, i indeed may have said yes. the violation comes when a corporation does not ask, does not credit, does not compensate. THAT is what i'm fighting against here, yanno?

[rachel]

I am picking up what you're throwing down, Tracy. I am. I am struck by the interesting inverse of this situation and the *hypothetical* one that involves my copying and dstributing copyrighted material to my students. In your case, an individual (you) was wronged by a corporation (Fox). In my case and individual (me) violates the rights of a corporation (Random House).
Obviously, this isn't the only difference. Fox uses your property for marketing purposes; I sue Random House's property for educational purposes. But, I still do not follow the parameters, in theory, set up to define "educational distribution" (less than 5 copies, behind password protected university firewalls, etc). I'm creditting the publishers, in the sense that I include the publication info in my handout, and there never would have been money changing hands, even if I did it correctly - I just would have managed to get the order up into an ereserves system (although even that is liminal these days and there is talk of not being able to put anything up for reserve if it is more than 10 pages long).

In both cases, the object in question (photo, essay) are already in the realm of public consumption. In both cases, there are rules about how those objects can be appropriated and disseminated by other agents. In both cases, those rules are violated.

Here's a question: let's say I am teaching a class on blogging, domestic narratives, the professionalization of motherhood, some such )I'm not). If I printed out pages from your blog and distributed them to my students without contacting you to ask if you minded having your content be the content of some of my classes, would that be a violation?

[Dana]

Rachel - wouldn't it depend on whether or not you were using those works commercially?

I'm a firm believer in that rights' sharing is at the sole discretion of the owner - having had my own trademark infringed upon numerous times, currently by a company who should know better.

[Suzy Q]

Dude. You totally should have held out for TWO kilos of coke. You know how fast one can go.

[Lorelei]

That photoshopper should be sacked and never allowed to photoshop again. Any of us given the power of photoshop should honor copyright-- or else lose all future rights to ever play with photoshop again.

[dutch]

that intern really gets around.

[wednesday]

I really hope you retire rich from this. You should. Intern? Bwaaahahaha, yeah right. You should be able to set your own price for the use of that photo.

[Ken]

Having had my parts of blog stolen word-for-word, I totally sympathize with you. I'm glad the Post picked up the story and ran with it. You deserve something from Fox.

More power to you!

[Christopher Byrne]

Good for you! I have posted this as part of a commentary over at http://sportsontheair.blogspot.com/2008/01/commentary-fox-sports-employee-put.html :
"In January of 2007, through a posting on a colleague's blog, I found out that InfoWorld Magazine had published one of my copyrighted photographs from Flickr. They had never come to me for permission, and did not credit me for the photograph. Calls and emails to the publisher were not returned and I was unable to pursue the matter further. Complicating the matter was the fact the IBM had given them the photograph. Unfortunately, I did not have the Washington Post going to bat for me...

Fox Sports is saying that it was because of the errant actions of a production associate that this happened. Unfortunately, the employee made the mistake as an employee of the company. Now I am not a lawyer, but I think it is safe to say that they would lose the case if it went to court. The important issue is that the actions of one employee can put an entire company at potential legal, financial and/or public relations risk. With younger workers who think that everything on the Internet is fair game including photos, music and other content, companies have the be even more vigilant so this type of "mistake" does not happen again. for a national network like Fox, it is hard to hide the offense when it is broadcast across the country."

[sterrapin]

Very best of luck to you in your dealings with Fox. You are approaching it the right way, and I hope it works out in your favor.

Thoroughly enjoy your writing.

[Matt]

Hey -- loved the Steve Martin reference in the post. You should check out "Born Standing Up."

[Trena]

I thankfully stumbled across your page today. I just started blogging and never thought of issues like this. Thank you for being so open about your situation. It looks like we all need to add legal clauses to our personal websites.

[James]

I feel your pain (or felt it I guess) when something similar happened to me while stationed overseas. Fantastic news to hear about the WoPo picking it up, maybe SOMEONE out there will become a little wiser for it. And I hope you at least get your Jell-o Pudding Pops out of the whole thing.

[Rob]

The Washington Post article came out today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010804626_2.html

[sindex]

Good to see that things are moving along. I wish you continued luck, success, and exposure while this gets worked out. Oh, and a fat check from Fox wouldn't hurt either I'm sure.

[sweetney]

Matt: you have just won the coveted Sweetney Commenter Of The Day award for recognizing that Steve Martin quote. Gold star on your chart! Good job, homeboy! heh.

[trin]

I have, way too often, hear the clueless intern excuse as well as the "automated software searching for tags" excuse.

Both excuses are LAME. Even if there was an intern who found the photo, someone putting it up should have said "Where did this come from?" and had clear permission to use it at hand BEFORE USING IT.

Unless maybe "interns" are doing all the actual work while anyone with any responsibility or power is just sitting around shooting rubber bands at each other.

More likely, someone who certainly knew better (as surely a Photo Assistant WOULD) went ahead and snatched the photo thinking "What's the chances of the photographer seeing it?" or "What can they do, we're a big powerful network and it's just some Joe on the internet..."

[Rich]

I'm a production supervisor for a Fox affiliate so I can tell you that this stuff happens all the time on the local level. That it happened on The Network level is very surprising. Now, I know you guys don't want to blame the lowly PA BUT YOU SHOULD! That Gomer didn't get to her/his position without training (unless it was an intern) and I'd bet my last complimentary Simpson's key chain that she/he knew EXACTLY what she/he was doing and just rolled the dice. Of course, I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't hold The Networks feet to the fire...