“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.