The Roanoke Tea Party and ‘property rights’ UPDATED
Graphic created by Dan
Here’s a fun little exercise for Monday morning. First, click here. It’s my Sept. 27 column on independent Senate candidate Brandon Bell. You’ll see a picture I shot of Bell, on Sept. 23, there too.
Now, click here. (You can also see the screen capture after the jump). That’s the Roanoke Tea Party web site. Does anything look familiar? Update: The Tea Party removed my picture.
You bet it does. That’s the picture I shot of Brandon Bell. Same woman in the background and everything. Since Thursday, it’s been featured on the Roanoke Tea Party’s website, in an article in which they lambast Bell as “antithetical to the principle of property rights” because of his support of a restaurant smoking ban.
Perhaps I should be flattered that those champions of property rights, The Roanoke Tea Party, are so enamored of my talents that they’re presenting my work as their own.
Screen capture from the Roanoke Tea Party's web site Sunday
On the other hand, it’s kind of hard to miss the irony. Because photos (and words) are a type of property, too. They’re intellectual property. And nobody from the Tea Party asked me if they could use my work.
So Sunday I sent an email to Tea Party President Chip Tarbutton and his sidekick Greg Aldridge asking what their group’s views are on intellectual property rights.
So far, there’s been no answer. I’ll update this post if I get one or if/when they take the picture down.
Note: A typo in the quote above from the Tea Party’s site has been corrected.
October 3, 2011 - 6:00 AM
That’s probably the only way ‘intellectual’ and ‘Tea Party’ will ever appear in the same sentence.
they are apparently hot-linking the photo directly from your blog:
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/files/2011/09/BrandonBell.jpg
It would be sorta funny if you changed that file named BrandonBell.jpg to something else in line with the affront you are experiencing.
Did you teach them the word “antithetical”?
Can’t blame them for jacking your “intellectual property”…doesn’t appear they generate a lot of their own.
nailed em!
More evidence of the intelligence and hypocrisy of the Tea Party.
#2 Excellent idea! Dan, you could link to the Morans photo or something like that.
@2 – That’s a hilious idea…or even switch out the photo…haha
Rules apply to everybody else .. don’t you get it they are special because they are patriots
“Did you teach them the word “antithetical”?
Actually, Kristen, that was my mistake. It’s corrected.
The tea party people are not “patriots”. In order to be a patriot in modern America you have to believe in forcing others to pay high taxes so that you can get free goodies from the government.
The Tea Party folks are just selfish for believing in self reliance, thrift and an aversion to the suffocating nanny state.
terps,
If they believe in self-reliance, why don’t they shoot their own picture of Brandon Bell, rather than lifting mine?
Typical GOP & Tea bags. They want their rights when they want them, even at the expense of everyone else’s rights.
Christ. Who the hell cares if they used an uncopyrighted pic? You people gripe about the silliest things, yet ignore issues like, say, this country’s economy going to hell while Idiot Boy spends, spends, spends.
Terps, why do so many of them cash social security checks every month?
Using something that was copyrighted that belongs to another is akin to stealing, seems like there was a Commandment against that ……
Wow, I clicked the links Dan suggested and ended up getting a super-size slurpee cup full of Tea Party this morning. I usually try to ignore the fact that so much ridiculousness exists…but once on their website couldn’t help clicking around. Came across this post, which is particularly interesting for its comments on the worth of having the Tea Party hold another debate for candidates. They basically come right out and say that Ralph Smith is afraid of debating Brandon Bell here:
http://www.roanoketeaparty.com/2011/09/an-open-letter-to-gop-faithful-on-george-allen-and-upcoming-events/
Hmmm, I wonder how a right winger would feel if the ACLU or the SPLC appropriated his or her photo for their website. I’m sure suze would welcome it.
Your picture has been replaced now, I believe.
Aaaaaaaaaaand, I just saw your update. Nevermind
Using something that was copyrighted that belongs to another is akin to stealing, seems like there was a Commandment against that
Dan’s picture was copyrighted?
Wait… so they “hot-linked” the photo. The “hot-link” contained the location (and the owner) of the intellectual property??
Dan, you better run that by your lawyer before you go around throwing accusations. Must have been a slow Sunday night for writing a colu.. err.. blog post.
Protecting your intellectual propery is just as important as uyour physical property. Did you ask them to take it down Dan? Why has no one asked Dan if he had asked them to remove it?
Dan
They must have felt compelled to “lift” your picture because no other photographer could do a better job of catching the unique curvature of both of Bell’s chins.
John
Yep, they do. And they pay into social security, also. They would much rather invest that money on their own, but the guvmunt won’t let them.
Michelle Obama: My Husband Deserves Re-election Because He Grew Up Poor!
He was so poor he had to get a used social security number from a dead guy in Connecticut.
He was so poor he had to use a Koran instead of a Bible.
He was so poor he had to attend college on a Fulbright Scholarship only granted to foreign citizens.
He was so poor he could only find a Wookie to marry him.
He was so poor he couldn’t pay attention – to the American people.
@#15
Not to mention using the Lord’s name in vain….(post #13)
.
.
.
.
Ayn Rand has argued that the protection of intellectual property is essentially a moral issue. To her violation of intellectual property was no different morally than violating any other property rights and was therefore an immoral act. — Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Chapter 11 “Patents and Copyrights”
It is estimated that intellectual property theft costs domestic companies between $200 billion and $250 billion a year in lost revenues and has resulted in the loss of 750,000 jobs in the United States. — Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Customs, FBI National Intellectual Property Rights Center Holds Industry Outreach Conference, Press Release, (2002).
Copyright protects original literary and artistic expression that is fixed in a tangible form. It exists automatically when an original work entitled to copyright protection is created. Under basic copyright law, a work is “created” when it is fixed in a tangible medium of expression for the first time. [emphasis added]– U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics (2006), available at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf.
IOW, one does NOT have to register or mark something as copyrighted. It is entitled to copyright protection from the moment it is created. Formal copyrighting does help established that one is the creator. However, other evidence (such as Dan presented) is all that is needed to establish copyright protection has been violated.
The Roanoke Times holds the copyright on all my columns and the work I do for this blog.
I’m not sure what “hot-linked” means. You could not click on the picture to this blog. It wouldn’t take you anywhere.
In any event, MMM, the RTP removed the my picture from their site, which was the right thing to do.
#21 Did they ask permission? I’m no lawyer, but seems to me that part is either legally necessary or at the very least ethically right.
And I see they removed it. Wonder why, MMM?
They didn’t seek permission from me. And my understanding is they did not seek permission from Roanoke.com
GaryM, your stuff remains lame.
“The tea party people are not “patriots”.”
Well, that’s true.
Okay, I don’t agree with everything the Tea Party says. But having read through the back-and-forth between Brandon Bell and Greg Aldridge that appeared below the photo, I have to say that Greg has a valid point and that Brandon Bell refused to engage him on that point directly.
Between that, and not being a supporter of the whole smoking ban issue, I confess I am not as enamored of Brandon Bell as Dan seems to be.
Anytime a photographer shoots an image it is immediately protected under copyright law. If you wish to file a formal complaintor infringement lawsuit then that photograph must be registered first. Anytime pen hits paper or the shutter opens and closes its already protected under law.
Other than that, with the advent of the internet and even more recently photos being posted online by everyone – picture swiping happens probably 1000′s of times a day. It’s all about whether to victim has the time or money to go after the offender, if they even catch them doing so.
I clicked on the link that John suggested.
I particularly liked the part where the writer likens a Republican who votes for George Allen with an abused wife who continues to take beatings from her husband.
What an unusual analogy.
@#29
I confess I could be wrong, but I think it means they just right clicked on your photo, copied the image location, then pasted that into the HTML code for their site. Their site displays the photo by linking to whatever location the photo was saved to in cyberspace when you uploaded it to your blog. Easy enough to do, but still doesn’t negate the need for permission to do so.
#25 Look, Gary M’s back with either some looniness or some bad jokes, not sure which.
Did you come back, Gary M, to correct your bad information about congressional retirements and other matters from the earlier thread? No, of course not.
I think David earlier alluded to the fact that the pic on their website was not copied from your website, placed on their web server or web hosting company’s server, and then placed on their website. Instead they put a link to the RT page where you placed the picture.. David included the link in his comment above.
MMM,
It’s the image that’s intellectual property, and it was my image, which they used on their site. There was no link from their site to this blog. And now, good for them, they have taken it down. Apparently they believe in intellectual property rights, even if they weren’t practicing them before I raised the question.
Are you seriously arguing that they did nothing wrong in using the image?
I never said they did nothing wrong… just that they legally didn’t do anything wrong.
If they had also made sure anyone that anyone who inspected that image would know that it came from Dan Casey at the RT blog, would you have been okay with that?
EW Jackson would probably be more popular if his first name weren’t Ewwwwww.
FWIIW, they didn’t come up with most of the artwork on their website. I have seen that American Flag w/ the “Patriot” holding the donkey and elephant by the collars before. it’s all over a ton of sites, and emails.
Jackson is just a younger version of Alan Keyes. That dude could give one hell of a political speech. But beyond that, he was an empty suit.
I wonder if there’s some mothership of astroturf Tea Partydom that has made images, etc. available for Tea Party sites. Sponsored by the Crook Bros., er, I meant Koch.
I know what you mean, Scott. I’ve seen that flag on the top left of their webpage somewhere before as well…
@44
You beat me to it.
Re: #34
“If you wish to file a formal complaintor infringement lawsuit then that photograph must be registered first.
———-
Citation for this statement, please.
INAL, however from what I have read one can bring action-at-law without registration.
See:
“The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial.” — http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
“In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration.” — http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
All of which is academic in this case, as Dan’s work is formally copyrighted by by his employer.
IMHO, CASE CLOSED — legally, ethically, morally.
———————
Re: #34
“Anytime pen hits paper or the shutter opens and closes its already protected under law.”
———
How do you reconcile this statement with your previous statement.
———————
IMHO, all the above not notwithstanding, the real stitch is the lack of knowledge of the rightwingers posting here as to what one of their mavens (Ann Rand) had to say on the subject.
I don’t know, gdad? Maybe they were put off by the shabby quality of said photograph?
I don’t think hot-linking something makes it obvious who the rightful owner of the photo is….it’s not the same as actually giving credit.
Don’t know Dave that’s what I was taught at a state university and have used in my industry for 11 years. This is the 1st one that came up on google, it is what it is. But is pretty much what i was taught.
http://knol.google.com/k/how-to-copyright-photography#
Get over it… or have the RT sue for infringement.
26 Yep, but she’s excused because she’s a good conservative Christian. Different rules, you know.
Dan, did you ever ask them to take it down?
i’ll clarify: the page source code used as the image reference the url I listed; perhaps hot-linked was an inappropriate choice of words, but I think you get my jist.
Re: #50
As I said INAL.
However, quotes from your site:
“However, you must register your copyright if you want to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against someone who steals your pictures.”
and
“If you ever need to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement, it will help your case if you advertise that you have a registered copyright on the photograph.
———-
Quote # 1 does not say “must have been registered” or “must have been registered prior to it having been stolen.”
Quote # 2 “it will help your case” also sagest no requirement.
However, as I said above INAL.
OTOH, a quick search revealed:
http://tinyurl.com/6l6qyrg
**
Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
Circular 92
SNIP
§ 411. Registration and civil infringement actions11
….
(b),no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.”
SNIP
**
Which again suggests to me that registration can be done as a first step in the action-at-law post theft of intellectual property.
Any attorneys-at-law on board who actually know?
Woops!
I didn’t close the BOLD out properly, again.
I intended it to end at, “it will help your case.
#48 Well, MMM, given the general shabbiness of their website (appearance AND content), I don’t think a low-quality photo would bother them any.
Then even a low-quality photograph (if one had been available) WOULD have been an improvement.
So, I assume Dan from your failure to answer that was a no. You did not ask them to remove it. Instead, you chose to sensationalize what is a really uninteresting and most likely innocent mistake. Is there really nothing inportant going on to talk about or are you just unable to recognize what is and is not important?
The TPs should be happy for the free publicity Trevor…it’s the only time anyone bothers to look at their website.
Trevor,
I didn’t ask the Tea Party to remove it. That doesn’t mean they didn’t get such as request, however. (I don’t know whether they did or not). Keep in mind that I’m not the owner of the copyright – The Roanoke Times is.
I alerted the newspaper that it was happening.
And then I did a blog post about it. Thank you for reading that post, and contributing to the discussion about it.
I’m pleased the Tea Party came to their senses — on this matter — and took the pic down.