-
1
04/06/10 | Report as spam
You called that one right!
I eat my carrots. I never smoked. I exercise every day. I never binge drank. I sit up straight and I found someone nice. And I've lived the benefits of all of that, both physically and financially. By most standards, that makes me an adult.
But now that we're moving closer to a true socialized system, everyone else's health actually now becomes everyone else's business.
If I am going to be made to pay for your health care, your health becomes my business. A few minutes of sampling some of the more progressive blogs quickly exposes the fascist fantasies of the wanna-be health nazis.
So look out progressives, because you're going to what you've been asking for and more. Big mother is not just going to be in everyone else's business, but will serve to convert us to a nation of perpetual infants, just like she has done to most of socialized Europe.
-
2
04/06/10 | Report as spam
JohnMcGrew@...
There you go again. Whatever one can say about Europe's current
problems, the fact that people have health care available to them isn't
on the list.
Ooooooh, Europe, scary. Scary Europe.
Not scared. Not scared of Europe, not scared of Canada, not scared of
Japan. I'm simply not scared any more.
Your "Europe scary" argument is starting to remind me of the problem of
the monsters in Monsters Inc. You know the solution to that? Laugh is
10 times more powerful than scare.
-
3
04/06/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Please remove my illustration (Big Mother) from your site immediately. You do not have permission to steal my work to illustrate your article. It makes it very difficult to make a living and charge others for my work when others, like you, use my work for free. This image was purchased and used by another company for a separate article and I own the copyright. I can't believe that you didn't even have the courtesy to ask for permission. Shame on you CBS!
Chris Buzelli
-
4
04/06/10 | Report as spam
Don't be surprised, buzelli
Progressives have absolutely no compulsion against the free acquisition
of other people's property for their own use, especially when it's in
the name of the "greater good".
And Dana, Europe's greatest problem is that socialism has destroyed
their will to be great. They've only been able to spend the last half-
century gazing at their own navel because they ceded the role of
superpower to the US. No it looks like the US is about to do the same.
I wonder who is going to take our former role as "superpower"?
-
5
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs by neutering the individua
Dana, the thing about being and adult with a mother is that it is no longer necessary to run to her for advice nor her to you to offer it every time you need to do something. It is the responsibility of the adult to think and act for themselves and if your mother did her job there is not the need for her to remind you. Perhaps those victimized by ?liberated? mothers who did not what to be shackled with the traditional motherly duties of cooking a proper meal while being too aloof or too afraid to allow their children to grow up with the skills necessary to become independent adults seems to have created a nation of people unable to cope for themselves.
Being free, mature and responsible has its price, it called taking ownership and being accountable for your actions and not the actions of others. If we acted more like adults instead of mothered children we would be far more productive and our government less intrusive. How do you think immigrants who arrived without extended families or their mothers mothering them succeeded in the U.S. or Canada?
The Canadian health care system which you have chosen to ignore is a great example of what the U.S system could have chosen to follow. There is a good mix of freedom, personal accountability and collective societal assistance. Then again the people and not the drug companies created that system with the (private) Bank of Canada required to fund it interest free. If there was greater economies of scale and scope the great Canada system could have (one of) the best health care systems in the world. This could have been achieved if the U.S adopted that model. Win win for both.
-
6
04/07/10 | Report as spam
buzelli
The picture has been removed. However, I want you and every artist to
know the following:
1. It's easy to watermark any Web illustration if you don't want it
copied. You leave it in the clear, you're giving permission.
2. I made a thumbnail. I didn't "steal" the picture. I linked to the
original, gave you credit, and tried to bring you business.
3. I will also remove all references to you from the story, quid pro
quo.
This idea that one must gain permission before doing what comes
naturally on the Web has to end. You have the tools to stop it. Use
them.
-
7
04/07/10 | Report as spam
mario@...
I have written about th4e Canadian system before and will again.
The current reforms aim to bring data and human connections to bear on
topics that are personal and intimate, like our habits. Even adults
with mothers have relationships with them, and those mothers don't just
ignore our bad habits.
At least mine doesn't.
-
8
04/07/10 | Report as spam
re: Buzellli
Dear Dana,
1. Thanks for the info on the watermarks. However, how does a watermark stop the user from using the image? That little symbol and info doesn't solve that problem at all. Just because my images appear on the internet, does not mean that you can use them for your own use (with or without watermark). However, I'm curious about your thoughts. Why would a watermark stop you from using someone's property without permission?
2. Call it what you want. When someone takes my property (images) without my permission, I call it stealing. And just because you gave the artist credit doesn't give you permission to use their image for your use. I get to choose where my images are used. What if I disagreed with your article? If so, I wouldn't want my image associated with your opinion. Also, thanks for your gesture of "bringing me business" but you used my image for free. I don't need anymore "free" business.
I illustrate for a living. Clients pay me for exclusive use of my paintings. Using my image for free dilutes the exclusive use and so dilutes the fee. People and companies like you are making it difficult for illustrators/artists to earn a living wage from their profession. I hope you can understand this. It seems that journalists and illustrators are in a very similar industry and are going through a very similar economic situation.
Chris Buzelli
-
9
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Leo Espinosa
I agree with Chris Buzelli.
We (illustrators) make a living from selling our images and print is no longer the main buyer for our work. The fact that the web makes it easy to just take them and re-use them without permission or compensation doesn't make it right.
Respectfully,
Leo Espinosa
-
10
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Copyright Infringement IS breaking the law
What a condescending and ill informed response to Chris Buzelli's request to removing his image from your web article. He could have gone to a lawyer first and have ensnared CBS and you in a copyright infringement case but instead just asked. Your response bemoans the law and the inconvenience of having to comply with it.
Content is valuable and for someone who for the most part makes a living selling the content he provides, you offer a myopic view of the necessity to protect one's content.
Tim O'Brien
Vice-President
The Society of Illustrators, NYC
-
11
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
What Tim O'Brien has written is dead on. (Full disclosure- I also serve on Board at the Society of Illustrators)
The vast universe of the internet makes lifting content incredibly easy. Sometimes it is done in ignorance, sometimes with good intentions, but your response indicates a certain callousness that I'm certain you would be hard pressed to accept were it to happen to you.
BTW, there are plenty of ways to remove watermarks. My techie master friends seem to know them all. Watermarks mean nothing to someone whose intent is to lift content without compensation. You're also lucky the publication for which the illustration first appeared didn't see the image first. They don't really cotton to reuse without reprint fees.
Victor Juhasz
-
12
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
"I made a thumbnail. I didn't "steal" the picture. I linked to the
original, gave you credit, and tried to bring you business."
Posting the image on your site, without permission from the copyright holder, is theft. US Copyright law clearly defines it as such. "Credit" and a link are meaningless without pre-negotiated payment for the license, and the penalties for that infringement are significant. The burden of the law doesn't rest with the copyright holder, but with the person seeking to use what they didn't create themselves.
"This idea that one must gain permission before doing what comes naturally on the Web has to end."
It's not clear to me how you pay your bills, Dana, but I suspect ZDNet and SmartPlanet aren't paying you for your writing or you'd have a different perspective on the value of intellectual property. It's a wonderful world you live in, where everything is free for the taking and all that's required is a pat on the back as you walk out the door with the goods. Try it next time you're at a restaurant or department store and let us know how it works out.
-
13
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
if yuo walked into my un locked home and walked off with my TV, it is theft.
copyright law doesn't entitle you to help yourself to any image on the assunption that it's free to use unless you are told otherwise. It doesn't even have to be defended.
good thing your opinion to the contrary really dooesn't coubt for muceh
Bruce Jensen
-
14
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
posted in haste, and I filled it with poor spelling and grammar, but I'm really apalled at your standards of fair use Dana.
-
15
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Dana, I can imagine that as a blogger you feel you don't have the time to negotiate image rights with an actual person.
I would recommend in the future using sites such as gettyimages.com or istockphoto.com to quickly and legally acquire images for use on your blog.
-
16
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
From the Terms of Service for this site:
You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, or in any way exploit any of the materials or content on our sites in whole or in part. If you would like to request permission to use any of the content on our sites, please review our copyright notice page.
Funny you can't show other people the same courtesy you expect of them.
-
17
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Hi Dana,
As far as getting permission to use illustrations with your
articles, why do you even need illustrations in the first place? If
you feel that without the images your articles would not make you as
much money, that should immediately clue you in to the value of said
images.
As far as whether a 200 pixel reproduction of a larger piece is
concerned, the question is not whether you can call it "art", but
whether you're profiting off of someone else's work. My stance is
that if you need to include even "thumbnails" of a person's work in
your articles to make money, then you are in fact profiting off of
this person's work. Without permission. In violation of U.S.
copyright law.
An artist like Chris Buzelli does not need you to "publicize" them.
You don't come across as somebody with strong ties to the art
community or as someone with any kind of sway with those who
actually purchase art. If you would like to try and spin it that you
were attempting to do poor Chris Buzelli a favor, that's completely
up to you.
You need to recognize that you can't legally pluck copyrighted
images from wherever you please. Some alternative sites have been
suggested, and that's a start. But the real issue is your
understanding of the law when it comes to an individual's legally
protected work.
Jack Kendree
-
18
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Dana--I guess my biggest question to you is with all this time that you spend on
the Internet--why didn't you just put Chris's name into google, you would have
found him very easily and been able to ask for his permission.
Dana--here is something you should know about the law-- the moment an artist
creates ANYTHING visual?paintings, drawings, photographs, sculptures, etc?the
only person who is allowed to copy that art is the artist themselves. If anyone else
uses their art without the artist's written permission, the artist has the right to take
them to court and sue for damages.
As the Director of the Society of Illustrators, I am quite passionate about the illegal
use of art. Your response is immature and as a respected journalist for so many
years you should know better.
Anelle Miller
Director, Society of Illustrators
-
19
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
"Big Mother" points out that he is paid to write, not illustrate, his articles, but that without the illustrations he uses he would likely not be able to make any money. Here is a disconnect- he acknowledges that the illustrations add tangible monetary value to his writing, but he doesn't feel that he should be obligated to pay for them, or even to ask permission.
Another disconnect is that he is using the art in a way that the artist has no control over- which is one of the reasons we have a copyright law. Chris work is (was) being used to support an idea that neither Chris or the original client may support. It could be an health care rant, cigarette advertisement, or any other use- the copyright holder has the right to determine HOW the image is used.
Somehow this author understands that HIS work has monetary value as intellectual property, but thinks that other people's work is there for him to use as he sees fit- without paying or asking.
-
20
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
I work for the marketing department of printing company. We see hundreds and thousands of impressive photos, illustrations and pieces of artwork come off our press. We don't just have access to thumbnails but hi-res files that we could use to print posters and whatever else we could dream up.
However...
If our creative team wants to use an image for one of our own promotions, we contact the owner of the image and not only ask for permission, but often trade printing credit for a written and signed release. On our promotional piece, we then clearly state their name and website address. That's how WE give an artist credit and hopefully drive some business their way.
Also, typically, we can get the whole deal squared away in 24-48 hours. If we're in a rush and luck is on our side, it can be done in 2-4 hours. Deadlines are no excuse.
-
21
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Chris Buzelli is a world famous artist, the last thing he needs is your ignorant, arrogant "link". You're very lucky he doesn't sue you, because you indeed are breaking the law by stealing his image.
-
22
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Dana,
The only the thing worse than taking someone else's work
without permission in order to make yours look better, is to
then act like you've done them a favor.
By your reasoning, I could copy/paste all of your articles to my
website in order to accompany my art and it would be
legitimate because I re-hosted it.
I'll also be certain to attach your work to objectionable material
that not everyone agrees with.
Your words:
"I get paid for what I write, not for the illustrations
accompanying them. If I had to get permission for every
illustration I used I wouldn't have time to get any illustrations
on my articles and would likely not make any money."
If everyone took all the art they wanted without requesting
permission, the ARTISTS wouldn't make any money either.
Further more, you make the Artist look bad because the client
that DID pay for this illustration now wonders why they even
bothered.
A Writer that blatantly disregards copyright...
amazing.
-Dan Dos Santos
www.dandossantos.com
-
23
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
"The picture has been removed. However, I want you and every artist to
know the following:
1. It's easy to watermark any Web illustration if you don't want it
copied. You leave it in the clear, you're giving permission.
2. I made a thumbnail. I didn't "steal" the picture. I linked to the
original, gave you credit, and tried to bring you business.
3. I will also remove all references to you from the story, quid pro
quo.
This idea that one must gain permission before doing what comes
naturally on the Web has to end. You have the tools to stop it. Use
them."
Unbelievable. Dana, you need to consult your legal department and learn some facts, buddy.
Or maybe you'll be too late.
-
24
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
New levels of egotistical disregard for others and there work
going on here. Amazing considering your own source of income.
Dominick Saponaro
swashbucklestudio.com
-
25
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Wheres Dana?
-
26
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Dana,
I see that you've not yet responded to the avalanche of
informed and passionate comments about your beliefs on
intellectual property.
I can only assume that this delay means that your next
response will be more carefully and intelligently thought out
before you post it.
To me, your gravest error, among many, was in your contempt.
If your comments were an attempt to wake illustrators up to
the reality that anyone can easy appropriate their images,
you're too late. We've already learned that for anyone who
wants to ignore the value of another's intellectual property,
yourself included, it's quite easy to break the law.
-
27
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
How would you like it if we took your text and used it without your permission to go along with our images?
I bet not to well. But that is essentially what you are claiming you have the right to do do with our work. And instead of graciously apologizing you are further branding yourself as a jerk by blaming us for you stealing the work in the first place.
Just because alot of people do something does not make it legal!
-
28
04/07/10 | Report as spam
From a Writer's Perspective
Most of the commenters I've seen here have been artists and illustrators. Allow me to add the voice of a published writer to list of appalled readers.
I once had a story "appropriated" and published on a site that I found objectionable. The thief gave many of the same arguments that you did: it's on the Internet, and I should just deal with the fact that it is now public property. Not to mention, the thief had made minor changes to my story (thus making it hers, she said) and linked to me as the "inspiration," so I should be grateful.
Hardly. Nor would you be if some unknown hack who considered himself (or herself) a writer stole your work. We have copyright law because artists (both visual and written) have a right to profit from their work.
Above all, just because theft is easy doesn't make it right. Show a little integrity.
-
29
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
we have a response! check it out
http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/keeping-your-images-off-smartplanet-or-anywhere-else/3684/?tag=content;col1
too bad he didn't have the balls to post it anywhere on this blog we would expect to actually find it.
-
30
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Dana, just look for creative commons licensed images.
-
31
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
This level of stupidity, callousness, ignorance of the law, and sheer unprofessionalism goes beyond the wildest fantasies of self-referential egotism. I hope someone does in fact sue the next time this happens.
To blog it up (and not remark on the fact until @zelee noted it) just digs his hole even deeper.
Rename it "Stupid Planet" if they keep this jerk on the job.
-
32
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Look for images marked "creative commons"
use sites that OFFER stock photography/images.
In the real world I lost the ability to sell some of my
photos (which cost me something to produce since one of my
subjects are the cats I've trained to follow cues so I can photograph them.) especially can't sell "exclusive rights" because someone copied them off MY website, for a blog.
IMHO if I can't sell my work, and someone else gets PAID for using it. (even if paid for the Tshirt and not specifically the graphic) It IS stealing.
-
33
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
"Progressives have absolutely no compulsion against the free acquisition
of other people's property for their own use, especially when it's in
the name of the "greater good"."
I could use a new car. Guess I'll just head on down to the local car lot and take one. If the dealership has a problem with it, I'll just tell 'em, "Hey, don't worry...I'll tell everyone where I got it. I'm doing you a favour, jerks!"
Besides, they shouldn't be surprised...I'M A PROGRESSIVE.
- Scott Chantler
-
34
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Dana Blankenhorn
Hi Dana. I just punched your mom in the face. What? She's got the
tools to defend herself! If she didn't want to get punched in the
face she could have made a plaster of paris helmet (dumbass).
-
35
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Hi Dana. I've taken the liberty of posting your article on my
website. It's a good article, and I'm enjoying getting the advertising
revenue from it. Don't worry?I linked to your site, so I'm helping
you promote yourself! You're welcome!
-
36
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Interesting
He has a twitter account. it is
@danablankenhorn where he professes to have apologized publically and privately, although still blathering on about educating on copyright, however he tagged @bucelli instead of @buzelli
Accident or intentional. You be the Judge. Either way he is still guilty of copyright infringement. And to have the audacity to try to "educate" in such a condecending manner is reprehensible.
-
37
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Don't hold your breath expecting Dana to come back here to defend himself.
His usual MO is to just move on once his ideas & arguments have been exposed as fraudulent and indefensible. If he's unsuccessful in changing the subject ("This idea that one must gain permission before doing what comes naturally on the Web has to end. You have the tools to stop it. Use them") the most you can hope to expect is something along the lines of accusing you of being a mindless Bush-twin neocon and unworthy of further attention.
-
38
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
I'm an illustrator as well, and ? at the risk of seeming to pile
on ? must stand with my fellow illustrators and voice my
concern regarding your contempt for (or lack of understanding
of) intellectual property rights and your arrogant,
condescending response to Chris. There's little I can say that
hasn't already been said regarding the fact that this is copyright
infringement, plain and simple. The fact that you can?t
understand or admit that boggles the mind.
Do you honestly think it?s OK to go to an illustrator?s website
and take an image without asking? Do you really believe that
unilaterally setting your own terms of ?payment? ? a credit
line ? constitutes a valid business contract and absolves you of
any wrongdoing?
Unfortunately for us illustrators, petty thieves are a dime a
dozen on the internet. What sets you apart, in light of your
apparent stature as a respectable writer who should know
better, is your abject lack of contrition, unbridled arrogance
and need to blame the artist for not protecting his work, which,
as you surely well know, is essentially unprotectable online.
As someone who earns a living as an illustrator, the culture of
online theft is bad enough, but when it comes from
professionals and and/or is combined with attitudes like yours,
it scares me.
I sincerely hope you've given this some thought and will
contemplate writing an article on "Rethinking Online Theft." It
might do us all some good.
Michael Gibbs
-
39
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
[Let me try that again, without smart quotes or em-
dashes]
I'm an illustrator as well, and -- at the risk of seeming to pile
on -- must stand with my fellow illustrators and voice my
concern regarding your contempt for (or lack of understanding
of) intellectual property rights and your arrogant,
condescending response to Chris. There's little I can say that
hasn't already been said regarding the fact that this is copyright
infringement, plain and simple. The fact that you can't
understand or admit that boggles the mind.
Do you honestly think it's OK to go to an illustrator's website
and take an image without asking? Do you really believe that
unilaterally setting your own terms of "payment" -- a credit
line -- constitutes a valid business contract and absolves you
of any wrongdoing?
Unfortunately for us illustrators, petty thieves are a dime a
dozen on the internet. What sets you apart, in light of your
apparent stature as a respectable writer who should know
better, is your abject lack of contrition, unbridled arrogance
and need to blame the artist for not protecting his work, which,
as you surely well know, is essentially unprotectable online.
As someone who earns a living as an illustrator, the culture of
online theft is bad enough, but when it comes from
professionals and and/or is combined with attitudes like yours,
it scares me.
I sincerely hope you've given this some thought and will
contemplate writing an article on "Rethinking Online Theft." It
might do us all some good.
Michael Gibbs
-
40
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Most artists I know can't afford health care. Maybe if all the jerks who steal their work and use it to illustrate their articles started paying for what they've ripped off, that would change.
Your defense is just sad, and if this website stands behind you, that's even worse. Thanks for lowering the bar for the use of the term "smart," Smart Planet.
- Jamie S. Rich
-
41
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Dana's own words:
"I get paid for what I write, not for the illustrations
accompanying them. If I had to get permission for every
illustration I used I wouldn't have time to get any illustrations
on my articles and would likely not make any money.
Unbelievable.
-
42
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Undervaluing Artists
This is exactly the type of mindset that makes it difficult for
Illustrators and other creative professionals to demand fair rates
for their work.
Cheers to the artists who have come to add their voices to the
conversation.
Thomas James
Escape From Illustration Island
-
43
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
The world is not your personal eye candy store, dude. Take some responsibility for your actions, and use a stock image service to illustrate your articles. It's just NOT that hard to do the right thing!
-
44
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting http://community.smartphealth costs
Dana, Have you gone abroad or something?
-
45
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
I really can't add anything that hasn't already been said, but you are a thief. "This idea that one must gain permission before doing what comes naturally on the Web has to end. You have the tools to stop it. Use them"...I assume you have the tools to stop stealing from other creatives and would probably like to take that back.
-Blake C Himsl Hunter
-
46
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Dana, no one cares about your interpretations of the laws. Fact is: you have stolen and used artworks from artists, not for the first time as you have stated yourself.
It left a bad taste of disappointment in seeing this sort of behavior from someone your age,
It is not like your are some 5 year old who simply does not know better, stealing someone?s artwork to beautify his little homepage, no, you are stealing IPs to benefit your profits.
Do you think you could run by offering a waiter to spread word about the good meal for exposure instead of actually paying for the food? No? For how stupid do you hold Artists then?
You are very lucky not to have tried this with my IPs.
Randis
HD-Fortress.com
-
47
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
You don?t mind if I use your Photo for some articles about Art theft , do you? It is ok, because you have no watermark on it!
Thanks!
Cheers
Randis
HD-Fortress.com
-
48
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
You are surely not the only one that feels this way about grabbing images for your own profit. That's what scares us image creators. As you can see, we illustrators help each other out. Let's just see you try to use an illustration free of charge for your own profits. We will all be watching. Here is a something temping for you. Use any of these for free I dare you! My work is even on this database.
http://www.profilestock.com/
Oh and since your portrait is not watermarked I guess I can use it on my FB page and blog. Oh don't worry I give you a link and credit!
Thanks!
Jay
-
49
04/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Big Mother and Big Government are the same thing. Why do you think the called Soviet/Communist Russia, Mother Russia. It was because of the Big Government and it's big involvement in people's lives. So whatever you call it, Big Mother or Big Government, it's still unwanted intrusion into people's lives....at a big cost.
-
50
04/07/10 | Report as spam
Copyright issues
Thank goodness Tim O'Brien said it first. What an ignorant view point.
First of all, artists should not have to hide their work behind watermarks, it is actually a deterrent for people trying to buy online as they can not see the whole product they are purchasing. Just because something is not watermarked it is not fair game. Stealing is stealing
Second of all, even by giving him credit you are still stealing the use of the image which he didn't agree to.
Just because it is more accessible does not mean that "getting permission to use it needs to stop." It makes it even more important.
It's people spreading ignorance and unethical business practices that make it so hard to be an artist.
It's not difficult to just email someone and ask permission.
Elisha Dasenbrock
www.limitedpalette.com/blog
-
51
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Dana,
I get paid for what I draw, not for the blog posts accompanying
them. If I had to get permission for every block of text I used I
wouldn't have time to get any blog posts to go with my
illustrations and would likely not make any money.
So I developed this policy, which usually works. I seek to give
credit. When I can find one, I even seek a place where the
article's being sold, and link to that.
I used to just link to the particular blog, but I was accused then
of stealing bandwidth.
No one is going to take a 100 word blog post or email and call
it art. No one is using it as anything but eye candy, and those
who like it are going to use links to seek it, and the writer, out.
I don't know how to get this through to you. I didn't steal from
you. I didn't rob you. I sought to publicize you. And was called
a thief for my troubles.
Now I'd like to get to work helping you, but unfortunately, I
haven't actually read your article or anything you've ever
written, except for one email and a blog post in response to it.
-
52
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Dana's response isn't just arrogant it's outright lies. I'm sure it's possible for anyone that does creative work to not be fully aware of copyright laws. However I can't accept that the idea he thought what was doing was in anyway OK.
As a writer, I'm sure that if someone reprinted his words, to make money, he would have the same reaction Chris did if someone said, hey I'm giving you free advertising, people will be lining up to have you write for them.
Taking Dana's own words, I don't have time to get permission...shows absolutely he knew the law, and thought he could get around it. Not only that, but he didn't even try, since he knew who the artist was, and clearly never contacted him.
Dana, your ethics are clearly lacking, Dana, and I question anything you write as being the truth. I certainly hope that CBS takes action against you for your theft. It's also clear from your own words this isn't the first time you've done this.
And you don't even have the good enough sense to realize if you had just apologized, this would have gone away.
-
53
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
To my fellow artists and illustrators,
While it is great to have a forum to help spread the word that intellectual rights are not just an inconvenience to people who wish to take from others, I think the point is now well made. And now, the strongest message that can be sent is to just walk away from this web site and never return to any article this incompetent "journalist" happens to write. If you revisit his work, you give him business, and an unrepentant thief should not be helped to continue practices that he clearly feels willing to continue. Why not write to his boss and say you are avoiding anything with his name attached to it?
Randy Asplund, Fine artist, illustrator, educator.
-
54
04/08/10 | Report as spam
Shame on you
Shame on you for stealing someone's artwork. By your logic of
Fair Use, I should be able to copy your article for my own uses
without your permission, or even giving you credit. I seriously
can't believe you would do that, and I find it even more
deplorable that you think you are in the right. If I were him (Chris
Buzelli) I would sue you for copyright infringement.
-
55
04/08/10 | Report as spam
Ridiculous.
It's true that artists have the tools to protect their art from being
stolen -- it's called the LAW. We shouldn't have to watermark
ANYTHING, but apparently ignorant people like this feel they need
a visual reminder (like a little kid) of how to behave themselves
correctly.
Unbelievable.
-
56
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Hey Dana
Isn't the internet great.
Before the internet did you have to go to the library and cut the pictures out of the books?
-
57
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Ok. I'm going to illustrate something for you. HAHA no not acutally draw something, because you wouldn't pay me for it. Let me re-phrase: I'm going to explain something for you, something about the fair use provisions of U.S. copyright law, or what you, Dana, may refer to as your "safety net". Unfortunately There's a giant hole in your net. Perhaps reading the law would help, or maybe you lack basic comprehension skills. So here's where I illustrate, oh sorry, explain my point, in lamens terms of course.
Dana Blankenhorn wakes up on a beautiful Wednesday morning and decides to write something that has the words Big Mother in it (an article that thousands of people will not read due to the controvesy of his behavior). Upon finishing up he realizes it just isn't quite "there" yet. He needs something to drive home the point...an illustration! Of course! So he attempts to paint a picture, but discovers that he hasn't dedicated his ENTIRE LIFE to mastering that art, so he'll just use a little image he finds online and do the artist a favor by saying something nice and putting up a link. Uh oh...all well meaning aside Dana broke the LAW.
My second example:
A strapping young artist named Jason stumbles across a link to an article written by a somewhat respected writer, and finds that he used an image without the artist' permission. He also reads his condescending "rebuttal" and link to a copyright law he believes is on his side. So Jason decides to paste both articles in every forum he can find and offer his criticism on the ideas of one Dana Blankenhorn. LEGAL!
The later is legal because he offered a smart critique and opinion on a work, and did not use the work to further or add to his own work. He could also use these articles as examples in a school setting to teach students about the wrongs of copyright law. Or reprint your article on my television news show, and talk about how you broke the law and why.
Interesting isn't it? Hopefully you learned something, Dana, after all it's never too late to learn. And I'm always glad to lend a hand!
Dis-respectufully yours,
Jason Wright
Artist, Writer, Law-Abider
-
58
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Hello Dana,
As an illustrator I agree with Mr. Buzilli and feel you should
educate yourself re: copyright law infringement so you don't
further embarrass yourself and alienate readers.
You have to understand your swiping a professional artist's
work to dress up your column can lead one to think what else
to you lift?
Suzanne in CT
-
59
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
I can't believe that someone who makes their living by writing is so demonstrably ignorant of copyright law and its ethical underpinnings.
I can understand people in other professions not getting it - but a writer?
Margaret Organ-Kean
-
60
04/08/10 | Report as spam
PSA: SmartPlanet responds
Please see comment No. 147 in the following post for a note from
our editor-in-chief about this issue:
http://smrt.io/afLRv6
-
61
04/08/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
I'm saddened by the hatred coming from the art world. I am an
artists advocate, and I'm deep into the business of art. My entire
business is based on selling art and illustrations.
But I have to say, this attack on Dana Blankenhorn closely resembles
a witch hunt!
He was ignorant in the way that he handled this. I'll give you
that. But he's human, and like most humans, most people don't
understand the copyright laws or the implications with regards to
illustrators. (Even writers)
I think it's important to educate people when they've got something
wrong, but this hatred and venom is just overkill.
I have no problem with someone taking my art and using it (non-
commercially) for a blog post, as long as they attribute and link.
(I don't know if he did that, because his blog article changed when
he took the illustration down.)
Anyway, I don't want to have an angry mob come at me, I get what you
all are saying, but come on, let's lighten up a little. There's a
lot more to consider - like sharing online, being generous and
spreading ideas.
There's only one reason no-one else is saying what I am: either
they don't care, or they are scared of the angry mob!
-
62
04/09/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
What you did and defend your right to, is literally taking the bread out of a hard working illustrators mouth.
How about if I cut a little piece fabric of all your shirts and trousers. Taking something that small, would not be (to compare to your views) something you regard as clothes, and would be an OK thing to do. But, if too many of us took a piece of your clothes, your wardrobe would be full of holes and rags. This is exactly what happens to an illustrators economy when you use their image without asking permission.
Maybe it is hard for you to understand, but it is like downloading music illegally. We illustrators are not record companies that sue you into oblivion, but private persons that live on a humble income. When someone steals our work, we would politely tell them to correct the mistake you made. You should be grateful for the free advice and not send arrogant replies.
Cheers to the artists who spoken up in this matter.
Lars Munck
Illustrator & Storyboard artist
-
63
04/09/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
@mariabrophy. Well, he did get himself into a hornets nest, and maby he did take the picture down. But if I by mistake took a bite of someones apple, I would put it down AND give an apology. So this is just a natural psychological reaction to a person who don't give a hoot and defends his right to steal.
Here in europe our unions are strong and if you can afford being in a one, the lawyers will deal with a copyright infringement. We pay the union, so we can sleep at night and focus on work instead of dealing with this on the internet. But, it IS interesting to see how this case went viral. Maby it's the beginning of a internet union for illustrators? LOL
-
64
04/09/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Hi Maria,
Why are you saddened? Many artists are obviously upset with Mr. Blankenhorn and his actions. I assume many have gone through similar situations.
He states that he understands the current copyright laws. He just doesn't agree with them.
How do you react when someone steals your property? If you want to share your property and be "generous," then go right ahead and give your property away. However, I have a right not to do the same. It is not about nice or mean. It is about right and wrong. Legal and illegal.
And he did not change this article. It is still the same, just without my image. He used my image to illustrate his editorial on health care without my permission. Mr. Blankenhorn has stated that he gets paid from CBS to write these articles.
I was civil, next time I'll send the real mob - My lawyer.
Chris Buzelli
-
65
04/09/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Boy, Dana- You have started the rallying cry for all oppressed
Illustrators everywhere. Sort of awakening the townspeople with
burning torches in their hands to rid themselves of the pariah, Did
you ever imagine your arrogant, teabaggin', misguided views on
Healthcare reform would be overshadowed by lifting some
artwork? Evidently not. The scope of this outcry could galvanize a
new anti-infringement copyright measures called the "Delusional
Dana Law". Kind of like what the Lindbergh baby did for
Kidnapping reform.
-
66
04/09/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
I understand the frustration from all the artists (because I LIVE
that world ? I know what it?s like to have people wanting stuff for
FREE and it?s annoying).
And this writer?s ignorance came through in his first response(use
watermarks). He wasn?t paid extra for using an illustration ? so I
see it as non-commercial. But I agree, Chris, you have the right to
decide who uses your art for what.
I?m just not liking the mob scene. Because where a mob gathers, you
start hearing unintelligent, emotional mutterings which hurts the
cause. And I guess I should have stayed out of it altogether, but
since only one point of view was being shown, I felt compelled to
throw in another one.
To all of the illustrators who are angry about this:
I?m wondering if you had a problem with Shepard Fairey taking Manny
Garcia?s copyrighted photo of Obama (without permission) for his
HOPE poster? Many artists seem to be okay with that ?taking? of
someone?s art. In this case, it was for financial gain (commercial
use). And the photographer?s name was nowhere to be found on the
art. There was no attribution for Manny Garcia.
Also, I?d like to know what you think about the Creative Commons
License? Many artists use this on their website which gives people
the right to use their art (as in the case of a blog post) without
permission, AS LONG AS it?s non-commercial and is properly
attributed. I use a creative commons license on my blog
http://www.mariabrophy.com - and often people will take parts of my
writings and use in their blog, with attribution. It sends people
to my blog, which gets me more readers. It's a win-win for all.
The thinking behind Creative Commons is this: Sharing ideas,
spreading your art, and directing people back to your website from
others. (You have to admit, it worked in Chris'favor here. He may
be a well known artist, but I never knew of his wonderful artwork
until now.)
-
67
04/09/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
I've asked before and ask again is Dana the best that CBC can find?
Dana as you commented to me, "Even adults with mothers have relationships with them, and those mothers don't just ignore our bad habits. At least mine doesn't." Well I hope so and while your at it show some other articles on health care you have written and maybe she will dive o a good tong lashing.
Dana it appears YOU do need your mother to help you navigate in this adult world however just because you do does not mean the rest of us do. Perhaps if you were to start acting like and adult, take responsibility and consider your words carefully and with some thought instead of preaching falsities or ill conceived notions to the rest of us you would not find you would so often need MOTHERS intervention. A free society predicated on thought, companion, consideration and self determination means less government intrusion and more freedom, soothing you have no notion about.
-
68
04/09/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Dana Blankenhorn, your views on copyright are appalling.
I hope you will come to your senses and issue a public apology and monetary compensation where it is due, the sooner the better.
Mark Vatsel
Vatsel.com
-
69
04/09/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
The service providers are not the criminals in the health care debate as so many try to paint them. It's the consumer who thinks they need to run to the doctor with every sniffle, and then doesn't want to pay for the extra cost. Extra cost to process claims, have enough employees to schedule appointments, track down unpaid accounts, order more supplies, clean and do all the other needed aspects of running a medical or dental office. Consumers wanted $10 dollar co pay plans because they were cheaper up front, but they didn't educate themselves to the reality of limited access to health care as PPO plans determine who you can see. The old HMO's were thrown out because paying 20% of a visit was "too high", BUT with those plans you had better overall coverage and could see any doctor you chose, not a specific "service provider" based on your plan. Under the PPO plans doctors and dentists are required to adjust off charges, so in order to make ends meet and pay their employees they had to raise over all rates.
The new health care reforms will put us all in the position many who are military dependents are in. 3 hour wait times in a clinic even though they had a scheduled appointment. Rushed and over worked doctors and dentists trying to keep up with the patient load. Hmmm Dana, perhaps you should try and have a baby in a military hospital. I've been there. Great doctors, but poor over all care because the whole staff was so over loaded they didn't have time to adequately devote to each patient.
I don't need government being my "mother". The assumption is that everyone will do the right thing if given a chance. Everyone will start to eat right, exercise, not smoke and so on. Really? We've been teaching children in our schools for years not to smoke and drink yet they grow up and do it anyway, even though it's very expensive to do so. So now we will compel everyone to do the right thing for themselves?
-
70
04/09/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
"This idea that one must gain permission before doing what comes
naturally on the Web has to end. You have the tools to stop it."
Perhaps you're right. All of your previous posts should be examined closely for copyright infringement and the owners of said copyrighted items should be turned over to a lawyer (the tool) for prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.
After all, it was YOUR idea.
-
71
04/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
CBS??? Are you serious????
As a professional illustrator who makes a living off of his artwork, I find it absolutely appalling that you, CBS, is allowing this nonsense response from your writers and editors to continue, how fast would it end if say, Chris Buzelli was to go forward with a lawsuit against you? Which at this point I hope he does in a big way. However something tells me he will not as he can't take anytime away from his artwork.
You have to be kidding me right now.
Nicholas Wright
Glens Falls, NY
http://www.sharppencilcreative.com
-
72
04/16/10 | Report as spam
Lay off
Really? Instead of jumping on the bandwagon, shouldn't illustrators spend their time drawing or painting instead?
Dan has some valid points. If you don't use the tools (both technological and legal) available to you to protect your work then don't get upset when someone uses them.
If you don't want people using your work then don't post them. If you post them then protect them. If people still use them, then sue.
It's that simple people.
-
73
04/16/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
No one's taking the flame bait?
You illustrators are too smart for me!!!
-
74
04/20/10 | Report as spam
re: Lay off
Do you understand what you read? I'll make it easier for you:
LAW protects the creative works as well as any other. It's called Intellectual property law.
If someone uses artwork without permission is theft.
There is no valid point in mr Blankehorn's point of view. It's what you can call a poor docummented post and point of view.
It's called law infringment.
I think he was ignorant of all this and instead of recognise it he still dig deeper his owm hole...
So, for you to understand:
As long as I need to promote my artwork, I can post whatever artwork I want in internet because there's a thing called law that protects my work.
I know what I write because I did studied Intellectual Property Law in my art school back in the 90's. I assume that you didn't.
Do you copy?
It's that simple.
-
75
05/05/10 | Report as spam
Moral reasoning about taking what is not given
As I just posted on Chris Buzelli's blog, Dana's moral reasoning in his email response to Chris about his unauthorized use of his illustration is a textbook example of "selective moral disengagement." Psychologists Jenny White, Albert Bandura, and Lisa Bero sum it up in one sentence: "Moral self-sanctions can be selectively disengaged from harmful activities by investing them with socially worthy purposes, sanitizing and exonerating them, displacing and diffusing responsibility, minimizing or disputing harmful consequences, making advantageous comparisons, and disparaging and blaming critics and victims."
-
76
06/07/10 | Report as spam
RE: Big Mother gets her shot at cutting health costs
Dana, were you behind in your work, did you suddenly have this deadline creep up on you? Did you suddenly realise to make your words seem more interesting you needed an image, pronto? You found one that suited and thought "ah sod it, i'll put a link to their website and their name, they may never find out, so who cares". It seems you went with a decision that has cost you dearly.
Who the hell do you think you are?
Can't you see how many illustrators and writers who are disgusted in your actions? People like you need a lesson on etiquette, but i guess you'll just smarm your way out of that. I sense a note of narcissism within you. Maybe you could write about that and then nick one of my illustrations. It's ok, you've worked out a way around having to contact me or let me know your intentions, i'll never find out anyway. NOT!
People are now watching you closely and not for the right (write) reasons. Good luck.
