Has Michael Moore fallen off the edge?

[yosemite]

@Starving Artist

Admittedly, I am ignorant of the bandwidth aspects of web sites. Why is that Moore would be behaving responsibly by requesting the picture be copied rather than linked to. Is it to reduce bandwidth usage on the site Moore got it from?

Yes, it’s for bandwidth reduction. I believe I’ve started rants about bandwidth theft and hotlinking—hotlinking is a big “no no.”

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@This Year's Model

That’s a valid point of view, and one you share with Ray Bradbury.

The author of I Sing the Body Electric, Something Wicked This Way Comes, and Golden Apples of the Sun. Quite a way with words that man has.

[Frank]

@yosemite

Yes, it’s for bandwidth reduction. I believe I’ve started rants about bandwidth theft and hotlinking—hotlinking is a big “no no.”

Yes, yes you have. Starving Artist, if you browse through the threads started by yosemite, you’ll find all kinds of discussion on that. Lots of noise in those threads, but still very informative.

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@Punoqllads

Originally Posted by Biffy the Elephant Shrew
Has Michael Moore fallen off the edge?

I’ll take “Rhetorical Questions” for 200, Alex.

That’s the OP’s question, not mine.

[Frank]

@Biffy the Elephant Shrew

The author of I Sing the Body Electric, Something Wicked This Way Comes, and Golden Apples of the Sun. Quite a way with words that man has.

I did say that I don’t think it unethical, but yes, Bradbury doesn’t have a lot of wriggle room.

[Starving_Artist]

Please pardon the slight hijack here, but why would Moore’s site not just post the picture without linking to the other site? Then whatever bandwidth usuage was going on would be between him and the viewer. Could it be that Moore is simply trying to hold down bandwidth usage on his own site? And if so, wouldn’t this negate the premise that by requesting the image be copied he was acting responsibly?

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@yosemite

Now, just so it’s clear again, I suspect that the original artist (and we don’t know who he is, though sure, it might be this Ruderman guy) is delighted that Moore, etc., are distributing his work. I suspect that he’s given permission in some form. It’s all probably quite all right. But as far as I can see, none of us really know for sure.

I agree with pretty much everything in this post. And that’s why it’s so funny to see people taking the default position that the unscrupulous Moore has ripped off some poor, deserving artist. For all we know for sure, Moore (or whoever actually designs his website) may have express permission from the original artist to display the graphic.

BTW, I’ll bet a nickel that the original artist didn’t draw the map of North America from scratch, but “borrowed” it from some other source.

[yosemite]

@Starving Artist

Please pardon the slight hijack here, but why would Moore’s site not just post the picture without linking to the other site? Then whatever bandwidth usuage was going on would be between him and the viewer. Could it be that Moore is simply trying to hold down bandwidth usage on his own site? And if so, wouldn’t this negate the premise that by requesting the image be copied he was acting responsibly?

Moore does (as far as I know) put the graphic on his own server. That way he’s paying for all the bandwidth. If he were to link (as in “hotlink”—imbed the graphic from the other guy’s site so it shows up on Moore’s site), then he’d be a jerk. That’s sucking the other guy’s bandwidth, and it’s doubtful that the other guy has that much bandwidth allowance in the first place.

But Moore (or whoever does web design) didn’t do that as far as I know, since I’m sure he’s got plenty of money and more than enough funds to afford all the bandwidth thrown at his site. Also, if he were to “hotlink” to that other guy’s site, the guy could, if he were of a mood, replace the graphic with another one with the same filename (this replacement graphic could say something like “Michael Moore is a big poopyhead”) or, more likely the other guy’s bandwidth allowance would crap out, and the graphic wouldn’t show up at all on Moore’s site.

@Biffy the Elephant Shrew

I agree with pretty much everything in this post. And that’s why it’s so funny to see people taking the default position that the unscrupulous Moore has ripped off some poor, deserving artist.

Yeah, odds are good that the artist is delighted by all the attention this graphic is getting. Odds are that this distribution of the graphic is exactly what the artist wants. Odds are.

But it wouldn’t be the first time that someone swiped a graphic and spread it around, and other people—in their zeal to share the graphic—starting publishing it without doublechecking to make sure it was really legally okay to do so. There was an incident a while back (sorry, no cite) of some of the big online sites (CNN?) hotlinking to some guy’s photo or graphics. The guy replaced the stolen graphics with embarassing pictures. I, myself, have had graphics hotlinked and stolen by sites that were just a little too big and a little too sophisticated (or so it seemed to me) to be so foolish, but yet they did steal my work. Sometimes, people do really stupid things.

But in Moore’s case (and just so it’s clear, I’m not really a big fan of his), I think it’s unlikely that the graphic was flat-out stolen. And even if the webmaster was foolish enough to swipe it, they probably did it without Moore’s consent or knowledge.

BTW, I’ll bet a nickel that the original artist didn’t draw the map of North America from scratch, but “borrowed” it from some other source.

Very likely. In my opinion, it will be very hard for the original artist (who designed the map that was “borrowed”) to prove that their map was the one used, since North America graphics are in abundance.

[yosemite]

In case my ramblings about hotlinking (it’s a hotbutton issue for me, can you tell?) are still unclear, here’s a page that explains a little more about it.

[Homebrew]

@yosemite

Are you trying to say that unless the artist tries really hard to prevent theft or plagarism, that somehow it’s like they’re giving “permission” for people to steal or use the work? That doesn’t wash.

Well not exactly. But kinda. I think if someone doesn’t go to the effort to protect their copyright or at least establish when they created it, then it’s hard to later come back later and claim their rights. It’s much easier with non digital works. You can mail yourself a copy of a poem and establish the date with the stamp cancellation. You can send your manuscript to the copyright office. But with a purely digital work, proving who owns the copyright is much more difficult. However, that can be overcome fairly easy by printing out a copy of a company logo or other website art and registering it, just as you would an old-fashioned hand-drawn one, to protect it. If you don’t bother to do this, then you’re setting yourself up for trouble.

How so? If the graphic is watermarked, all one has to do is take a screen shot of the graphic and the watermark is gone.

If we’re talking about thumbnails of larger images, then you can make the watermark part of the image, not the “watermark” in the photoshop file. You can also make the copyright notice an integral or embedded part of the image so that removing it will ruin the usefullness of the image. Be creative.

[Starving_Artist]

yosemite, thank you. I appreciate it.

[Liberal]

@Yosemite

But in Moore’s case (and just so it’s clear, I’m not really a big fan of his), I think it’s unlikely that the graphic was flat-out stolen. And even if the webmaster was foolish enough to swipe it, they probably did it without Moore’s consent or knowledge.

I acquiesce to your proven expertise in these matters. Based on the information you have provided, “stolen” was too strong a term for me to use.

[caphis]

@Liberal

I acquiesce to your proven expertise in these matters. Based on the information you have provided, “stolen” was too strong a term for me to use.

Then what would be a more appropriate word?

[yosemite]

@Homebrew

Well not exactly. But kinda. I think if someone doesn’t go to the effort to protect their copyright or at least establish when they created it, then it’s hard to later come back later and claim their rights.

It may be hard to come back and claim their rights (as in prove it 100%) but it doesn’t mean that others can take the work and be morally (or legally) right in doing so.

It’s much easier with non digital works. You can mail yourself a copy of a poem and establish the date with the stamp cancellation.

I think that some people have debunked that, but that’s a matter for another thread.

You can send your manuscript to the copyright office. But with a purely digital work, proving who owns the copyright is much more difficult.

Now, this is just my hunch, but I think if one artist can show a large, high-res file of the graphic, with all the Photoshop layers (if they used Photoshop, which is often the case) and all the other people who claim that they own the graphic cannot provide such source files (all they have is their claim that they made it), that the one with the source file would have more of a case. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know this for sure, but it makes sense to me. Also, there are some Photoshop geeks (I’m not that sophisticated) who can tell when a graphic has been tampered or is the genuine article. So, I think a source file (depending in its quality and other circumstances) might very well be a big help in establishing proof of ownership.

However, that can be overcome fairly easy by printing out a copy of a company logo or other website art and registering it, just as you would an old-fashioned hand-drawn one, to protect it. If you don’t bother to do this, then you’re setting yourself up for trouble.

You might be setting yourself up for trouble, but it still doesn’t mean that those who take graphics without permission are morally or legally correct in doing so. That’s a big point. When someone swipes a graphic without doublechecking to make sure it’s okay, they run the risk of the original artist having pretty iron-clad proof that they own rights to the work. I don’t think there’s anything in copyright law that indicates that “if nobody is protesting the use of this graphic after XXX days/months/years, it’s okay to use and morally (and legally) you are in the clear.”

If we’re talking about thumbnails of larger images, then you can make the watermark part of the image, not the “watermark” in the photoshop file. You can also make the copyright notice an integral or embedded part of the image so that removing it will ruin the usefullness of the image. Be creative.

This is all fine advice, but it still doesn’t absolve people who take work and republish it. An artist can publish a non-watermarked, non-signed graphic up on their site, with no copyright notice (as in “© yosemite 2004”), but it doesn’t mean that the work is in public domain, or that anyone has permission to republish it without permission. The artist is not obligated to work really hard to protect their work from thieves. It’s a good idea if they at least try, but they’re not obligated to do so. All other people are, however, obligated to confirm that they have permission to republish.

So, no manner of “Well, they didn’t try hard enough to protect it” is going to change things. If someone doesn’t own it and they don’t have permission to use it, they have no business using it anyway.

Of course, there is always the issue of “Fair Use,” which might apply in this case some of the time. I know that some news stations have shown the graphic (in a news story about Moore) and as far as I can tell, that’s fair use. But I don’t think Fair Use applies to all use of this graphic, and if people swiped it without permission, they’re on shaky legal ground, I think.

@Liberal

I acquiesce to your proven expertise in these matters. Based on the information you have provided, “stolen” was too strong a term for me to use.

Thanks! But, just so it’s clear, as far as I can tell we just don’t know what has gone on. I doubt that Moore “stole” it, but if he knew that he didn’t have permission and he okayed the publishing of the graphic anyway, then “stealing” is as good a word as any. But we just don’t know.

[roger_thornhill]

@Starving Artist

What? No more romantic images of him in his garret with his paint-stained smock, his tumber of port, his Gitanes?

You really don’t get it, do you, Starvers? It’s “tumbler” - with a “b”.

Sheesh.

And the images I have of you are most certainly not of a romantic bent.

Okay, I’m off to start another Mick Moore thread…

[roger_thornhill]

@roger thornhill

You really don’t get it, do you, Starvers? It’s “tumbler” - with a “b”.

Or with an “l” even.

See what you done to me. You and Michael Moore.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

Sorry, couldn’t post this earlier.

On 10/13/04, I saw Matt Stone and Trey Parker, of South Park fame, on Conan’s show, and they were talking about how they felt mistreated in Bowling for Columbine. Remember the guns/slaves/injuns animation?

Here’s the gist (sorry again, don’t have time to transcribe):

Conan: I’m wearing a gun right now. It’s just accepted.

Trey: Yeah exactly. We strongly believe in guns. So then he [Moore] kind of did it anyway. So then later when he did Fahrenheit 911, people were like, well, Michael Moore kind of lies and manipulates to make people think certain things. We’re, like, personal victims of that. So we basically decided to make him into a puppet and blow him up.

Matt: I mean, he didn’t explicitly say, “Matt and Trey did this animation.” But he made it look like it. And that’s what he does in his movies. He uses two images together and creates meaning where there isn’t one.

Trey: And he’s fat.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

So Parker and Stone admit that Moore did not make any dishonest claims about the animation in the movie. Your point in this regard remains unsupported.

[Starving_Artist]

@roger thornhill

Or with an “l” even.

See what you done to me. You and Michael Moore.

HAHAHAHAHAHA…

Poor roger, having a bad night of it are we? (Or day, or morning…or whatever the hell it is over there.)

But to clear up a couple of points:

a) Yes, it is tumbler with an “l,” and a “b” even…but you’ll be happy to know that I learned from you that it apparently isn’t “tumblersfull,” it’s tumblers full. (Assuming you are correct, that is. )

b)Surely, being a Brit and all, and therefore a member of the country that originated the language that we finally straightened out for you called “English,” you must realize that words can have different meanings. This from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1ro·man·tic
Pronunciation: rO-'man-tik, r&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: French romantique, from obsolete romant romance, from Old French romans
1 : consisting of or resembling a romance
2 : having no basis in fact : IMAGINARY
3 : impractical in conception or plan : VISIONARY
4 a : marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized

Bolding mine.

Oh, and by the way…since we’re talking spelling (and now by extension, grammar), it’s “what you’ve done to me.”

:: snark ::

Regards to you, my (hopefully not erstwhile) friend. Remember, contrary to popular opinion, even artists can be conservative. Who else would paint things that you could recognize, eh?

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

by Diogenes the Cynic

So Parker and Stone admit that Moore did not make any dishonest claims about the animation in the movie. Your point in this regard remains unsupported.

You, uh, might have me confused with someone else. Where’d I say that?