Comments on: Lane Hartwell is Wrong, Dave’s a Hypocrite

By: EyeOnWiner

EyeOnWiner — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:28:32 +0000

No, it’s not — not any more so than renting a movie and watching it with a few friends in your livingroom.

By: j4b

j4b — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:12:58 +0000

Aren’t Winer and Scoble pushing this thing for displaying on a tv with friends? Isn’t that going a bit beyond private use?

By: EyeOnWiner

EyeOnWiner — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:44:14 +0000

“I have trouble seeing how Lane Hartwell could make the case that it’s OK to view her picture feed in Bloglines but not in FlickrFan.”

That’s simple: it’s not a principle she’s standing on, she’s just whoring for publicity.

By: EyeOnWiner

EyeOnWiner — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:41:39 +0000

“There is no implied license to create what amounts to a new work (a screensaver) using someone else’s images,”

Nobody “created” a screensaver. They used a piece of software to view data which was made available for public viewing. No more, no less. The fact that the piece of software turned on when the mouse hadn’t moved in X minutes is insignificant.

Now, if someone had “created” a screensaver and embedded Lane’s images in it, then you’d have a valid point. But that’s simply not the case. The screen saver is really no different than a web browser here. It’s a piece of software which takes input in the form of images and displays them in a preconceived way.

“When I put something up on the web, and give you an RSS feed, I’m letting you view the images in a web browser.”

Absent large warnings to the contrary, when you put something on the web you give me license to view it however I please. Anything that shows me that content is, in the most general of terms, a “web browser” and even if it’s not, so what?

Saying I can only look at your pictures in a web-browser is like putting up a billboard and saying people can only look at it if they’re wearing dungarees.

One thing I don’t get: Why, exactly, should it be Dave’s job to fix Flickr’s feeds?

By: Bullshit Mancuso

Bullshit Mancuso — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:33:21 +0000

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the images displayed by FlickrFan transitory and replaced with newer images constantly? If so, how is the application any different than an RSS reader with a mode that just shows the images from subscribed feeds?

The most common function of RSS is to download content for personal reading. I have trouble seeing how Lane Hartwell could make the case that it’s OK to view her picture feed in Bloglines but not in FlickrFan.

By: Ian Betteridge

Ian Betteridge — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:29:23 +0000

Sorry, but you’re wrong. There is no implied license to create what amounts to a new work (a screensaver) using someone else’s images, even when you put them up on a web site or distribute them via RSS.

When I put something up on the web, and give you an RSS feed, I’m letting you view the images in a web browser. I’m even being generous, and letting you download them to look at them when you like. What I’m not allowing you to do - unless I explicitly give you permission - is to take those images and use them to create something else, even for your own personal use. Using them to create a personalised screensaver is essentially the same as using them to create a publication: it’s taking someone’s work, and making something new out of it.

Personally, I don’t give a damn: I license pretty much ever image under a Creative Commons share-alike license that even allows for commercial use, as long as the image is attributed. But not everyone wants to do that, and systems like Creative Commons only work IF people respect ALL the licenses.

The issue here is that Dave is consistently refusing to engage with anyone over this.