If you're using the internet for exposure, don't complain when you receive it!

Photographer Lane Hartwell was angered when one of her copyrighted images was being used in a youtube video. The video was made by a choral group from San Francisco, and they removed the video after she complained. The video had been viewed hundreds of thousands of times before it was pulled. Some would consider this amazing exposure, but Lane was not amused. Hartwell considers the use of her image as stealing and was quoted "I'm not a charity.... This is my living." She wants payment for all use of her images. The choral group believed using the image would be within fair use provisions, since the video was a parody. She also decided to make her Flickr account private to stop further abuse of her copyrighted images. She had over 5,000 images that were previously available publicly.

Honestly, I feel as though this photographer needs to brush it off and realize that storing images publicly, whether copyrighted or not, will inevitably lead to some "abuse". She had 5,000 images on Flickr, how is she suppose to track everyone of them on the internet? Will she take legal action every online site or blog that has "stolen" her images? I can understand that professional photography is her career, and she spends a lot of time and money. Photographers need lights, cameras, other equipment, studios, etc. However, photography is a form of expression and most artists are happy that the internet allows for exposure on a much bigger scale. She could have asked for a watermark or copyright on the image shown in the youtube video. That would have been free publicity to thousands of people. Instead, she wanted monetary compensation. This video also verges on fair use, so she seems pretty greedy wanting profit from someone else's work. I'm sure the news coverage she is now getting for copyright violation will only continue to alienate most of our generation. Young adults today see the internet is a sharing space where ideas, pictures, and videos can circulate freely and publicly. Even though it may not be the case, or legal in some situations, that is their mind set. Angering your viewers is not a good idea when you rely on the internet for your career.

Retrieved from Wired.com on December 18th, 2007
Why Lane Hartwell Popped the 'Bubble' Video by Lewis Wallace

Blockbuster is Counting on Jackass 2.5

Blockbuster will be featuring the second sequel to Jackass The Movie, Jackass 2.5, on their website. The streaming video will be free to users for a certain period of time. Viacom, the owner's of the MTV movie, decided to forgo a theatrical release. This is probably due to the fact that the first sequel was in theaters only about a year ago, and they didn't expect as much in box office sales. The first two Jackasses did well at theaters, but bootlegging has now become an issue in the movie industry. Jackass 2.5 avoids the problem of piracy by allowing viewers to watch it for free. So how are the two compnaies making a profit? Viacom's sold the rights of Jackass 2.5 to Blockbuster for $2 milllion, and Blockbuster is relying on advertising to gain it back and then some.

I think Viacom and Blockbuster have came up with an excellent idea. Many of Jackass's fans are into the web and user-generated content. Allowing users to stream the movie for free reduces piracy, and really gives a boost to advertisers who want to reach the specific target market of teenage boys. Expect to see plenty of advertisements for energy drinks, video games, etc. This is also the first time in history a movie will be premiered online. It's really an exciting concept and I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Will more movies premiere online? Chances are, long big budget studio movies will not be moving online anytime soon. However, this could be a huge benefit to smaller, indie flicks.

Article retrieved on December 14th, 2007 at wsj.com

Viacom Looks for a Web Kick by Sarah McBride

To many, Facebook has crossed the line...again

Facebook was met with heavy criticism when they added Beacon to their social networking site. Beacon is a program that tracks consumer purchases from affiliated e-tailers and automatically posts them on Facebook for "friends" to see. Users were very upset and felt that their privacy rights were violated. Facebook was incredibly slow responding to the complaints, taking an entire month to address the problem. Facebook's solution? Each time users purchased items on a Beacon advertiser's site, they were given the option to stop the notification. That's right...every purchase. Those who feel the implement of Beacon should be opt-in, feel as though their solution is not sufficient. Even more disturbing, researcher discovered Facebook was tracking its users after they had logged out. After all the criticisms and accusations, Facebook has finally made Beacon an opt-in option for users. Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg has apologized for the issue, and reminds users that the free site is supported by advertising.

It's easy to see why so many users were outraged. Would you want your online purchases displayed for everyone you know to see? I highly doubt it. Even with the most innocent of purchases, such as a text book, a person can feel violated. Then again, Beacon could be a powerful marketing tool. It is similar to an online RFID, the problem is the public announcement of the purchases. As a Facebook addict myself, I really would not want all my purchases broadcast for everyone to see. I mean what do college kids buy online?? Books, clothing, undergarments, electronics, music, movies...etc. All of these are items that, to a degree, define your personality. Facebook already lets you post your interests, activities, and favorite books, movies, and quotes online. That's enough personal expression for me. On the opposite side of the argument, Facebook is a free site, and has the largest number of registered users among college-focused sites. This means if you see someone in a class, you can almost bet they are on Facebook. Facebook's other strength is in it's simple web design, that isn't convoluted with advertisements like myspace or other social networking sites. Overall I believe that Facebook has the right to conduct its website however it wishes, as long as users are notified of changes in the site, but they have to remember the mindsets of the people who use Facebook. It is a cultural icon for my generation, and it's users believe in privacy, freedom of speech, and integrity. For example, there have been many groups of thousands of users threatening to leave Facebook if Zuckerberg sold it to a company like Microsoft. Users respect Zuckerberg for refusing to do so, and hold him as an inspirational
peer. A multi-millionaire peer, that is.

"Facebook CEO Apologizes, Lets Users Turn Off Beacon" was written by Betsy Schiffman and is available at Wired.com
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/news/2007/12/facebook_apology

Google Experiments with Personalized Search Results

Google has created a new tool that allows users to rank, reorder, add and remove their search results. The new option will be visible on Google's search results page with icons that carry out ranking and reordering commands. When users search again, the results will be the same as the search they previously edited. This option, however, does not rank everyone's search results on accumulated user edits. It is only recorded for the individual user. The article then states that this tool probably won't be added to Google searching anytime soon, or maybe ever. I think that this is a very interesting idea. When I am researching for a project, sometimes its hard to remember the sites I have previously visited. I could easily bookmark them, but it's annoying when you have 15 bookmarked pages and have to sort through them. This tool would eliminate the need for bookmarking an unnecessary amount of website pages. However, I think that a ranking based on accumulated results from users would be really helpful as well. Unfortunately, Google will probably never add a total user ranking because they have algorithm-based searching.

The author of this article is Scott Gilbertson, posted on Wired.com November 29th, 2007.

http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/11/google-experime.html