T-dub beat me to my own defense, which appears just below his comment in the goddess blog:


warzauwynn said...
Dear Anne Johnson,

Why are you talking to Rob about my photograph? He didn't take it, and he does not own the copyright to it. I did take it and I do own the copyright to it. I also am not guarding it zealously, I'm including it with all of the rest of my photos in a blanket "all rights reserved" copyright. It's a standard option on Flickr because it's a common thing to do, so don't treat me like I'm an exception.

Another common thing to do is to only post resized photos online, so that when people come along and snag your photos then make money with them you can take them to court and bring the original RAW file with you as proof that you took the photo.

You are right that the internet is a public bulletin board, but you're not right that it's not a private photo album. I've browsed some pretty awful Flickr streams full of baby photos, elementary school graduation photos and bar hopping photos, all displayed as if they'd taken a movie and posted its contents frame by frame. I'm talking about artistically devoid, personally documentary photography. That's not what my stream is.

The photograph in question here is of my spiky haired friend Rob, who you seem to think owns this photo, and Mark Shuttleworth, the CEO of a lucrative global tech company. It was taken after Mark Shuttleworth spoke freely to a room full of enthusiastic technical types about his company, its interactions with other companies, the fundamental principles of open thoughts and ideas, and his trip into space.

This was a professional gathering of people from all walks of life in a chinese restaurant in San Francisco. I documented the occasion photographically, and I did not do so as a charity to people who intend to make money from my work or use it to sling unrelated theosophical and gender inferiority garbage.

Also, I never once told Athana to take my photograph down. Legally she must have felt it was the right thing to do, lest we stroll across the bridge to Oakland and have a talk with her publisher about her confusion with copyrighted material.

-Daniel

Maybe I'm a little depraved, but this thing just doesn't stop being funny.

These mid-life crisis new agers now resort to educating us about how the Internet works:

Anne Johnson said...

Dear Rob,

Clearly you are intelligent enough to craft responses to web log entries. Therefore you must also know that photos posted on the Internet without special protection (which professional photographers and artists use all the time) can be snipped from their original locations and placed *wherever.* If you want to see pictures of yourself and your friends on the Internet, but not allow these pictures to leave your space, I suggest you ask someone to help you protect your images from unsolicited usage with the proper encryption package.

Given the nature of the photograph you want to guard so zealously, I would remove it from the Internet entirely if I were you, because its very nature is likely to appeal to any number of people looking for a ... shall we say ... unconventional portrait.

The Internet is a public bulletin board, not a private photo album. Knowing the difference will save you the time and trouble of leaving long, angry comments on peoples' web logs and other communal sites.

Have a lovely weekend.

2:42 PM


T-Dub said...

Anne -

Actually, the original photographer does indeed own sole rights to any and all works of his or hers that they post on the internet. Photos posted on the internet, in many cases, can NOT just be "snipped from their original locations and placed whereever" without the photographer's consent. It happens a great deal, sure, it's very hard to monitor, and unless money is involved, legal authorities aren't going to lose sleep over it. But it can certainly violate copyright laws which, should the photographer (or author, composer, whatever) protest the unauthorized use of their work - the law does side with them.

I did a quick search for information, some links:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010804626_pf.html

If the author of this blog had been discussing photography, and as such the composition of the photograph itself, I believe she would have been covered under "fair use". But as it is, she overstepped her legal bounds, and trod on the photographer's ability to protect his work.

Though you are correct in that the surest way one has to protect their work IS to keep said work offline. But even so, she really should have asked first. She, nor anybody, has any real right to grab whatever they'd like for their personal use.

3:08 PM

Who moved to California?

Oh, right. Not me.

Though I'm still baffled why he didn't have his Conan throne from the end of the first movie installed in the Cali state house. That would've been kickass.

Dude. Seriously.

Your fetish for all things Governator merits the attention of a mental health professional.

I still don't get why you dissed 'Kindergarten Cop'.

:'(

T-Dub makes a contribution to the cause...

T-Dub said...

Part of what it's going to take at least, is the resolution of the unique war that's been born and bred via the technological innovation that is the internet. The war between "opinion and information" vs. "fact and knowledge". There is plenty of the former, to the point where there's far too much noise for the signal that is the latter to effectively get through.

For example: You cite the country's prison population, tying the psychology of your average convict into their physiology. But you didn't bother to acknowledge, and there are plenty of references scattered about the internet for those who really want to go digging, that many are exploring the fact that many of our nation's convicts lacked solid, positive male role models growing up. There's also been some interesting exploration into this topic, by some who have looked at how various species of animals fare in similar situations (young male elephants it turns out, fare poorly - a potentially relevant example given elephants' social structures are matriarchal).

This specific issue within urban African-American communities has actually seen a great deal of face time recently, through a number of media outlets. People looking closely at the cultural, psychological and sociological impact on people who lack a strong, positive male role-model. There seem to be some significant ties between this, and how many of those within our prison population got there.

Or even as Chris Rock so eloquently put it: "They don't give out grades for being a father. But if your daughter grows up to be a stripper? You fucked up somewhere."

There's also accountability. You may not believe you should have to argue your points, on your blog, if you don't want to. It's your party and you can spew and soapbox if you want to. But. If one posts something on the public forum that is the internet, one should always be prepared that their statements may draw attention from others (or why, really, post on the internet to begin with?). Thus one must be ready, and able, to own up to and defend those statements when they're challenged, or this really isn't the pool for them to be swimming in.

Anyway. The lack of actual discussion, exploration or citation (both initially, but especially in the face of Rob's arguments which could themselves have been dissected, explored, and debated) comes off as half-assed, lazy, and perhaps even somewhat anxious or weak. What could be actual, interesting fodder for a topic, has been neatly undermined by this.

Citing that something like 'testosterone poisoning' exists, and here's the justification for the claim, is akin to my claiming that too much estrogen in one's system leads to hyper passive-aggressiveness flavored with grade school-level jibes, and an inability to communicate or debate effectively. Or that the fact that you're an accountant, when it's been demonstrated that high levels of estrogen have the side effect of making math "hard"', certainly merits further exploration and research.

And that would just be silly.

6:49 AM

Love these bits...

Rob:
"Was a lack of "testosterone poisoning" the reason why Kindergarten Cop was a bad movie? It's almost as though you made all this shit up."

Rob:
"You can't just run around Flickr like it is some kind of clip art gallery and then blame some fictitious condition for when someone calls you out on it."

T-Dub:
"Or that the fact that you're an accountant, when it's been demonstrated that high levels of estrogen have the side effect of making math "hard"', certainly merits further exploration and research."

Good stuff guys!

Here comes the Pain Train, making all local stops.

The latest exchange in our duel of genitalia:

Anne Johnson said...

I hope my EZ Pass is paid up when I come to that troll's bridge.

2:44 PM
Blogger Athana said...

Amen to that, anne.

3:44 PM
Blogger Rob said...

Here's the thing, lady. Human beings aren't "confined" by anything. You *can* ignore Elements of Style. You *can* choose to abandon logic in your argument. You *can* run around Flickr and link photos for your little hippie blog. It is the Internet after all and the previous barriers of good taste no longer apply.

But these conventions of writing, reasoning and intellectual property are adopted for our benefit. They are the generally accepted principles that grownups use in their discourse in order to remain intellectually (if not materially) courteous. They are not restrictions on creativity, just good manners for the mature to make sure everyone plays fairly and accurately. Ignoring the rules of logic and writing like a gossip columnist doesn't make you bold and courageous - it just makes you an asshole.

That said, why object to your style when your substance is far more frivolous and intellectually bankrupt? This whole flame war began because you stole something that didn't belong to you. Carefully evading that issue, you've instead tried to frame the argument around this whackadoo concept of "testosterone poisoning" with the ham fisted klutzery of a Fox News editor. Again, this is absolutely something you *can* do as a blogger. It's just something that people who aren't zero-talent shitnecks try to avoid.

In a rare statement of accuracy you indicated I clearly haven't heard of "testosterone poisoning." This is totally true. Before you stole my friend's work and put it next to your new age psychobabble I hadn't come across this silly ass idea. Let's take a few inches to explore how fucking ridiculous "testosterone poisoning" is.

1) Credulity

I keep looking for your degree in endocrinology, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. It's almost as though you have no professional credential that would make you qualified to define a hormonal condition. How does one *get* "testosterone poisoning?" How much testosterone is too much? What training would you suggest for children identified as suffering from this condition? Was a lack of "testosterone poisoning" the reason why Kindergarten Cop was a bad movie? It's almost as though you made all this shit up.

2) Post hoc ergo propter hoc

If you write a post about "testosterone poisoning" and then some dude comes on your blog and tells you to get fucked, there may be a number of causes for that reaction. Just because an event occurs after another event doesn't mean they are directly related. If that post, for example, contained intellectual dishonesty, blunt rhetoric may be delivered as the result of perceived slight as opposed to a "double-dose of testosterone to the brain."

Consider the possibility the negative reaction from men you receive could be because *you suck*, not because there is something wrong with their brains.

3) Scholarship

Usually when a new hypothesis is presented (particularly when it involves, you know, *science*), some previous academic work is cited to provide a context for that hypothesis. Citing scholarship evidences that a problem exists and that the solution you're providing has merit.

The problem is that "testosterone poisoning" is used, except around here it seems, as a joke. As a matter of fact, the position of people who actually know something about this shit has been that testosterone doesn't affect mood and behavior at all, even when injected at the double and triple doses "Athana" describes.

(Bhasin S, Storer TW, Berman N, et al (1996). "The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men". N. Engl. J. Med. 335 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1056/NEJM199607043350101. PMID 8637535)

That's something called a "citation." It's when you recognize that someone else does something better than you and then you direct your readers to it. Adequately grasping this whole thing called research may be the reason you didn't finish your Ph.D.



In conclusion, I really think you should stand down your dissection of my responses in order achieve some sort of rhetorical victory and just apologize for stealing my friend's photo. You are clearly ill-equipped for this sort of thing. You can't just run around Flickr like it is some kind of clip art gallery and then blame some fictitious condition for when someone calls you out on it.

Just because it is on the Internet doesn't make it yours and just because you believe it doesn't make it true.

In a way, it's sad I had to be the guy to tell you this. You're just an accountant from Maine. How could you be expected to stand toe to toe with a professional Internet rhetorician? Just from reading a couple posts it's clear you are just another in a world of lost souls scared shitless and disenfranchised by a brave new world that seems more dehumanizing by the year. We're all grappling to make sense of it all; this crushing weight of data each person seems forced to carry now with a dearth of wisdom to make that weight comprehensible. This place during these times are absolutely terrifying to live in and we're all searching for a simple way to explain it and, in so doing, wrest it into our control.

Whatever that answer is, I'm sure its going to take more than a vagina. But, fortunately, so long as vaginas like you keep claiming to have the answer, there will always be a dick like me around to declare flatly, "Fuck you."

On this you can rely.

2:05 AM

An update from our exchange, saving this Radical Goddess from the benefit of our unique visitorship:

Dr. J said...

Using somebody else's work without attribution is lame, regardless of how eloquently you can defend yourself on your own blog.

4:20 PM

Athana said...

I agree, dr. j. Who did that? It wasn't me.

6:33 PM

warzauwynn said...

It's true, Athana, you did give attribution, but unfortunately the license on all of my photographs is all rights reserved. That means you have no right to copy the photo even with attribution, you need explicit permission from the artist. You clearly don't understand this though since you took yet another photo with all rights reserved and posted it in place of my photo. I think you should wrap your head around the legality of reposting random clips from the internet before you publish your book.