Message
Funny photos of the worst park jobs
How Not To Park Your Car
wgnradio.com - 6 weeks ago - 323 views
2
16 Comments What's your take? (Comments are listed by rating.)↓
Reactions on the web
Latest tweets linking to this story (Share url: http://windycitizen.com/wd6F)
Latest tweets linking to this story (Share url: http://windycitizen.com/wd6F)
Invite your friends
Top Comedy Stories This Week
Comments
The most dramatic shot in the bunch was taken by Andrew Huff (me3dia on here)
You know what's particularly funny? That was the first photo I uploaded that to flickr, back in 2004 -- and it wasn't taken by me. It was emailed to Gapers Block by a reader. Somehow it suddenly popped back up recently in somebody's "bad parking" gallery, and now it's being passed around again. Funny how the Internet works.
The old hits just keep on coming....five years later.
The photo Brad posted is pretty funny, but most of them are mundane, and some I don't even see the problem. Several are in handicapped spots and look like the driver angled slightly to make room for his/her wheelchair. The cop in the emergency zone - isn't that what emergency zones are for? And the German car with two wheels on the curb - that's how they park. Odd to us, no doubt, but in addition to speaking a foreign language, they have different traffic laws. Shocking, I know. Next you'll be telling me women sit down to pee.
I'm not sure how many of you know this, but the Tribune's gallery is actually causing a bit of controversy from Flickr users, who published these photos under Creative Commons licenses. You can see more details here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pokeweed/galleries/72157622311178079/#comme...
The important tidbit is this:
"Many of these pictures carry a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license. Does Tribune's use of your photos qualify as a commercial use?"
According to William Hartnett, who's been tweeting about this, at least four photos in the gallery have non-commercial use CC licenses attached to them.
http://twitter.com/wmhartnett
So, a few points.
1.) Is this a commercial use of these Flickr users' photos by the Tribune? I'd say so. That violates CC license the users chose and Flickr's terms of use.
2.) Why is the Tribune bothering with these photo galleries? It's obviously being done to juice up pageviews, but in ten click thrus in the gallery, I saw 4 ads for teeth whitener (the other six had car-related or finance-related ads). Junk pageviews, junk ads, junk content. It's also worth noting that not all of these are from Chicago.
What qualifies as "commercial use"? Does that means running ads around the photos? Re-selling the photos?
I'm not too surprised by this, the local TV outlets do this on their web sites, CBS2 in particular. On story pages they surround the text with teasers for galleries of "hot jewish celebrities" and "fun" stuff like that.
Yes, now this is interesting. The Trib, of course, has stories lifted every day, though not necessarily by the same people who posted these photos.
Doesn't the agreement define commercial use? Hard to imagine that the publicly-traded Trib could do anything non-commercial. They exist for commerce.
What sort of story lifting are you referring to?
I agree with point #2. Hard to see it not being commercial.
Story-lifting: Pick pretty much any big story from day to day, grab a section out of the text, and drop that into Google. You can usually find some loon who copied the entire story into their blog. Every major paper has this happen all the time, these days.
Gotcha. Yep, it's pretty common. There are legions of automated content scrapers out there. The latest thing I've noticed is how many of them are then posting that scraped content out to Twitter, clogging that up with garbage as well.
hehe - it just occurred to me - I don't include this site! Or Google News, or similar aggregators. Such sites provide useful editorial direction that some people (like me) find useful, and others are free to ignore. As long as it's only snippets, and links to the rest at the source, I believe it's legal and even helpful to the publisher. When the aggregator copies all or most of the article (or photo), there's no reason to go to the original publisher, which where they have a reasonable right to bitch.
No worries. There's a reason we cap descriptions to 500 characters! Our goal is to point people to useful stuff and host conversation about it, not to serve the stuff itself, which others are much better equipped for.
I'd say reselling the photos would be commercial use. So would using them in an advertisement. As far as another news property using them to sell ads against, that too would be a commercial use.
I don't think this falls under fair use.
Here's a section of the license that seems relevant:
Section 4.b.:
"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."
Your cousin Bob can use it on his non-profit blog, but the Trib appears pretty well out of the equation. The Trib also appears not to be following the requirements to display attribution and licensing issues.
Link to full license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/legalcode
from the Flickr comments, it appears the story's been chopped down from 58 photos to 19. I wonder how much longer it is for the world in general at this rate...
Lol - Fail!
Post new comment