Mess and Noise is a content thief
By chance I discovered one of my images being used without my consent on a Mess and Noise forum (update: as of 27 December 2009 this forum topic has been removed). It had been taken from my review of Court Jester cafe in Brunswick. I posted a comment in the forum asking for it to be removed or for the source it was taken from (if not my site) could be identified.
The person who posted it responded by indicating that the trail led to a Gumtree advertisement for warehouse space to rent in the building housing Court Jester. I emailed both Mess and Noise and Gumtree explaining that the image was used without my permission in violation of my creative commons license and I wanted it removed.
Gumtree removed the offending ad but Mess and Noise never responded. Publishers cannot know if content uploaded to their sites is in breach of copyright, but once they are informed that it is, they have a legal, ethical and professional obligation to respect the rights of the copyright holder and to fix the problem. In failing to respond to my email and by refusing to address my legitimate complaint Mess and Noise have demonstrated a fundamental lack of professional ethics.
Similar or related posts
|
|
|
|
Other posts you may find relevant and interesting
- another Melbourne content thief, 14 July 2009
- another content theft public relations failure case study, 20 June 2009
- I fought Formula 1 Management and I won, 27 April 2009
- is The Punch breaching copyright?, 3 June 2009
- lunch at Court Jester cafe in Brunswick, 1 September 2009
December 27th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
That all seems rather harmless though – it’s not as if it’s a particularly good snap from your little Casio that someone has claimed as their own amazing photograph. Also, it seems that Mess and Noise have removed the forum, so your accusation of “fundamental lack of professional ethics” seems a little unfounded – especially considering an immediate turnaround is unlikely in the holiday season. Did you post the name of the joint in Mess and Noise? :)
You know that your publication of laneway murals and street art, if commissioned, is also a copyright infringement?
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
December 27th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Your subjective opinion of the quality of my photo is irrelevant. The quality of my photo is irrelevant in terms of the breach of copyright. I gave Mess and Noise weeks to remove the photo after my email request before I published this story, so their indifference is their problem.
Naming and shaming has thus far resulted in 100% compliance from offending publishers, so it is an extremely effective mechanism for me to achieve my desired outcome.
I believe your opinion about my photographs of artworks in public space is wrong. There is no legal restriction on taking photographs in public spaces, so taking photos of street art from public space has no copyright implications and does not infringe on the copyright of the work. Failing to attribute works when it is possible to do so would be unprofessional. Making money from photographs of street art may be infringing copyright depending on the circumstances.
Like or Dislike:
0 
9
December 27th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
um its a public forum, a post from a user, not the site. Your title that mess and noise is a content theif is misleading and bordering on defamatiom
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
December 27th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Wrong. Once they were informed they were hosting infringing content they had a legal responsibility to remove it. Their failure to do so between 9 December and 27 December, when they were knowingly hosting infringing content, demonstrates an acceptance of the situation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
7
December 27th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Good on you, Brian.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
December 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
As if you would write such a post and not know what you are talking about.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
December 27th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I do my best to research the law applying to these circumstances, and have never received an informed opinion to the contrary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
December 27th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
You fairly precious arnt you? This is at least the 5th post on this topic.
Its not like you have invented a motor that runs on water and someone has stolen your blueprints.
Get over your self and get back to what people come to your site for, local news. Not your incessant repetitive whining.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
December 27th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
If by ‘precious’ you mean informed, professional and ethical, then yes. I have worked in publishing for over 15 years and copyright management is a part of my daily routine. Complaining about my adherence to the rules and regulations of my trade only demonstrates your ignorance. Feel free not to read me if you don’t like what I write, but you don’t get to dictate what I discuss.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
December 28th, 2009 at 2:38 am
I admire your work, and your passion, but I would expect the general interpretation of the Copyright Act may not accommodate you for taking photographs of street art; whilst being a “public space” the artwork is still copyright.
Perhaps an easy interpretation to digest is the Copyright Council’s publication for photographers, available at http://www.copyright.org.au/g011.pdf , which states that “You will generally need permission to photograph other public art, such as murals.”
Whilst, as the publication clearly points out, there haven’t been any court cases on the matter I feel that pointing out such interpretations of the Copyright Act might aid you. Cheer up, you don’t need to be such a stickler for the rules all the time.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
December 28th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I have never suggested that there is no copyright in works of street art.
The Copyright Council’s information sheets are generally helpful, but this is one of the areas where, as you acknowledge, the act has not been interpreted by a court. The idea that any person, such as a tourist wandering city laneways, would have to find who held copyright in a piece of possibly anonymous, probably illegal street art before photographing it is absurd. I would expect a court, should it ever consider this issue, to take these circumstances into account.
My non commercial use of photographs of street art in public spaces would be covered by fair dealings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
December 28th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I agree with Daniel on this one.
Mess & Noise is probably a labour of love for its creators, much like Fitzroyalty seems to be for you.
Did you email them or just post a comment in the forum? I wouldn’t necessarily expect them to check/moderate the forum the entire time.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
December 28th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I posted in the forum and emailed them the same day, got no response, then emailed them again after two weeks, which again got no response. I ran the story about a week after that. I think I gave them more than sufficient time to respond. Mess and Noise run advertising so they are a commercial site, not a hobby.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
December 29th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I have nothing to do with Mess & Noise, but just because they run advertising doesn’t mean they’re not a labour of love.
They may just run advertising to cover costs.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
December 29th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Yes, but income means some attempt at least at a business plan, which to me makes it more than a hobby.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
January 4th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Your petty “content thief” whinges just lost you another reader.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
January 4th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Ciao!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1