More Sleaze At Pandagon
Why is it that the people who scream loudest for rights for themselves are the first to thumb their nose at the rights of others? Such as copyrights.
The nutbags at Pandagon have, apparently, thieved again. I don't read their blog, but during the Edwards/Amanda Marcotte incident, I popped over to see what the deal was -- and found what I figured was a stolen B. Kliban cartoon. I posted a comment inquiring whether they had rights to it -- which those staunch freedom advocates over at Pandagon promptly erased. Later, B. Kliban's rep told me they had lifted it -- without pay. (What, workers' rights only count when the workers are little brown people?)
Yesterday, in my comments on my B. Kliban/Pandagon theft blog item, "How To Explain Theft To Socialists," Jerry posted an exchange with the extraordinarily disagreeable Amanda Marcotte, who yet again, justifies stealing. I'd say this woman has the ethics of a sand flea, but I hate to slander sand fleas. Here's the exchange:
Nina Berman took an aware winning picture of a Marine disfigured in Iraq at his wedding.http://www.ninaberman.com/index3.php?pag=prt&dir=marine
Amanda decided to use it as part of a post entitled, "Blogger Fuckfest 2007: Not as fun as it sounds"
Several people took issue with her use of the photograph:
# Jay Tea Mar 1st, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Gee, I wonder if it ever occurred to the author to ask the subjects of that photo if they minded their images being used to make some sort of political point?
Nah. That would be the decent, responsible, honorable thing to do. If they don’t like it, fuck ‘em.
J.
# 12 Amanda Marcotte Mar 1st, 2007 at 8:56 pmAs yes, Jay—politics. Where we shouldn’t use curse words or get angry, because it’s not real.
Fuck you, you sleazy fucking asshole. Your belief that politics has no bearing on real life—and your willingness to cut corners and make ridiculous assertions to score cheap points like you just did(if you look at Doc’s link, you’ll see that the photographer grew close to the couple)—is why this young man nearly died. Your game took his face, his hands, and nearly took his life.
But it’s a game and we are big meanies you use curse words and make “political” points, “political” points meaning points that have to be made to stop sociopathic assholes like you who think this is a game and has no bearing on real life.
I asked Amanda if she had obtained copyright permission:
jerry Mar 1st, 2007 at 9:20 pm
I don’t see that Jay Tea said anything particularly conservative or liberal in nature.
I am not certain under what conditions they released that photo, or if have permission of the copyright holder to use it, but I think that before someone makes a political point with another person’s photograph, common decency would be to ask permission to do so.
Assuming you don’t have their permission, I find your desire to use it here understandable, but exploitive.
You really don’t know the context of the photograph. You don’t know what the woman was feeling. You feel it with your projections, but it could have just been one bad camera moment out of a very joyous day. Because of the doubt about the context, I think it is exploitive to use that photograph without getting further information and permission from the couple.
and followed that with:
jerry Mar 1st, 2007 at 10:12 pmAh! Following Lindsay’s link, I do find the photo at reduxpictures. Their copyright says:
Please note: all images are subject to copyright laws and may not be sold, distributed or otherwise displayed without the explicit permission of the copyright owner. By making this feed available, the owner has agreed to allow you to display the images as part of a feed in the context of an RSS reader, website or blog. That permission can be withdrawn at any time by the owner, and the owner reserves all rights regarding the display, distribution and sale of the images. Feeds are restricted to personal, non-commercial use only.
So you do have conditional permission to use them as part of a blog, but no other permission, and the owner can withdraw that at any time.
At BAG News, they reiterate that the images are for commercial sale.
Ah! Nina Berman says at her website: All photographs contained in this web site are © Nina Berman, all rights reserved. They may not be copied or reproduced without written pemission.
But the one thing I haven’t found anywhere is any text describing the picture. So I just happen to think that since it is a photograph and not a painting, it is presumption on our part to place the photograph in the context that Amanda is.
I suspect she’s right, but it could just be pre-wedding jitters, and not a contemplation of a marriage to someone so harmed by the war.
Ms. Berman’s contact information is here:
http://www.ninaberman.com/index3.php?pag=con
It should be pretty easy for you to speak with her and obtain permission.
I emailed Ms. Berman, cc'd to Amanda, and had a response within an hour or so in which Ms. Berman thanked me, agreed with me, and asked Amanda to remove the photo from her post.
Amanda did so, without explaining to anyone why, so hours later (to give her some time) I added the following:
jerry Mar 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 am
Amanda,
Do you think you owe your readers an explanation?
Here was her response the next morning:
Amanda Marcotte Mar 2nd, 2007 at 9:45 am
Interestingly, the copyright troll emailed the photographer and openly lied to her about his intentions and misrepresented himself as sympathetic, when of course he’s all about maximizing the amount of soliders who hav to suffer like this.
Right wingers are interesting people. Their willingness to lie, cheat, steal and kill (so long as it’s done by others and out of sight) seems not to prickle the conscience like pretty much ever. I’m really beginning to see how the Good German mentality formed. Hell, you see tons of bloodthirsty Good Germans on this thread.
I am about as left as they come, and am proud to have lived in the two People's Republics. The PR of Santa Monica as well as the PR of Berkeley. And I have my own issues with copyright, mainly the way that Disney and others have turned it from a temporary and reasonable monopoly into a permanent monopoly.
And I have been against this war since before it started and I have the emails to prove that.
I think that not understanding theft is one of the least of Amanda's problems.
Jerry posted one last thing:
I forgot to add the obvious. After the last post, she banned me of course.
The photo, it seems, has since been removed from the post (I'm guessing, at the behest of the copyright owner). But there are still comments up about it, like the very first one on the entry, from Nothip:
While your point is well taken, (FUCK!) I’m not sure this photo should be the icon of suffering. It is a wedding photo, after all, and the couple was surely joyous about the occasion, even if we are put off by some of the details of their joy (or the suffering within the joy). Are there other pictures that do not needlessly spotlight people getting on with their lives available to make the same point?
And the second one, from chuck:
dear lord that picture is brutal, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen it, but it still hits hard, had to scroll past it before I started crying like I did the last time I saw it.
Last time, when somebody paid for the rights to the photographer's labor?
Posted by aalkon at July 14, 2007 1:15 PM
Comments
That beating by Amy Winehouse is looking pretty good, now.
Posted by: Paul Hrissikopoulos at July 14, 2007 8:12 AM
TO: Amy Alkon
RE: I'm Reminded....
"Why is it that the people who scream loudest for rights for themselves are the first to thumb their nose at the rights of others? Such as copyrights." -- Amy Alkon
.... of Rosie O'Donell's belief that only SHE and her body-guard, and now, child, should have weapons and ammunition.
It seems to be the standard modus operandi of the so-called 'progressive' to say that they are entitled, but no one else.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 14, 2007 9:01 AM
It seems to be the standard modus operandi of the so-called 'progressive' to say that they are entitled, but no one else.
I'd say it's more of a broad human tradition, really. Yesterday, a bunch of conservative Christians shouted down a Hindu who was attempting to give the opening prayer on the Senate Floor. Apparently, they think that it's only OK for Christians to be given that honor; maybe that's wrong - a jew might be OK too. It was a really nasty scene, and totally disrespected the institution and everyone present. I don't think this one can be laid at the feet of "progressives."
(I know many here may think there shouldn't be prayer at all in the Senate, but if we're gonna have it at all, people need to play nice)
Posted by: justin case at July 14, 2007 10:22 AM
You know, I'm really attentive sometimes. I made my comment here before noting the next entry. Anyway, check it out, Chuckles, it's not just the lefties who want things both ways!
Posted by: justin case at July 14, 2007 11:35 AM
Here's yet another photograph they didn't have permission from the photographer (Sian Kennedy) to post:
http://pandagon.net/2007/07/10/details-magazine-hates-men/
Perhaps theft of others' work is business as usual over at Pandagon?
Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 14, 2007 11:52 AM
TO: justin case
RE: Interesting Report
"Yesterday, a bunch of conservative Christians shouted down a Hindu who was attempting to give the opening prayer on the Senate Floor.
Anyway, check it out, Chuckles, it's not just the lefties who want things both ways!" -- justin case
I hadn't heard that one.
Got a url so I can read it for myself?
RE: The So-Called 'Progressives'
"I don't think this one can be laid at the feet of "progressives."" -- justin case
I've personally encountered this sort of nefarious activity Amy is referring to from the so-called 'progressives'. More so than I've found it from a lot of other 'political' types.
Case in point, Colorado Progressive Coalition was trying to host a series of seminars/training sessions to recruit and train young emergent leaders in my community.
I, being a local activist for neighborhoods, attended.
When I pointed out some double-standards they were applying vis-a-vis where it was okay for their more militant types to intimidate people but not for others to intimidate them, they changed the venue of the meetings and didn't tell me where they had moved them.
That's just one example.
I'll wager dollars to donuts that Mz Pandagon calls herself a 'progressive'. That's another example.
Then we've got the Kos Kidz; a myriad of examples.
As for religious hypocrisy, it's pretty much everywhere, except amongst REAL christians, i.e., those who really try to live by that code of conduct. And there are darned few of them about, or so it seems.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Christianity might really work, if anyone actually tried it. -- George Bernard Shaw]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 14, 2007 12:49 PM
TO: justin case
RE: Interesting Report [Reprised]
Okay....
....I found the report the next door down the hall from here. [Note: I'm working my way backwards.]
Change of venue for this particular sub-discussion, to that thread.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 14, 2007 12:57 PM
A moment of agreement with Chuck: Kos and Pandagon and their ilk are rife with hypocrisy. I find them noxious and don't visit their sites. But as I said before, both sides do this stuff, especially in these polarized little community echo-chambers where people go there to cheer their team on and jeer the other side, regardless of who's right.
Posted by: justin case at July 14, 2007 2:41 PM
TO: justin case
RE: As With....
"But as I said before, both sides do this stuff, especially in these polarized little community echo-chambers where people go there to cheer their team on and jeer the other side, regardless of who's right." -- justin case
...our discussion of compare and contrast US Forces vs. Iraqi Insurgents, down the hall from here...
...it's a matter of policy and degree.
Sure. There are people in both camps that do bad things. But who does it as a matter of policy? Therein lies an interesting indicator.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Fib: A lie that hasn't cut its teeth yet.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 14, 2007 2:47 PM
Sure. There are people in both camps that do bad things. But who does it as a matter of policy?
So, progressives are hypocrites as a matter of policy?
Posted by: justin case at July 14, 2007 3:15 PM
TO: justin case
RE: Could Be
"So, progressives are hypocrites as a matter of policy?" -- justin case
Something to do with a policy of 'the End justify the Means'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion.....]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 14, 2007 5:02 PM
Something to do with a policy of 'the End justify the Means'.
Is that a progressive principle?
Posted by: justin case at July 14, 2007 6:59 PM
Let's paint everyone with a broad brush based solely on your personal experiences, Chuckle?
No single political faction monopolizes the censorious spirit. The 'one size fits all' kind of thinking just exhibits your limited ability to appreciate people as individuals.
Posted by: Joe at July 14, 2007 7:31 PM
There are unethical jerks in every group. What's important for any group is to be able to recognize that and police itself.
My liberal blogosphere has failed miserably in that regard in the case of Amanda Marcotte. She adds no value in any of her "good" posts because her behavior creates such a liability.
Who in your camp acts that way, and what are you doing about that?
Posted by: jerry at July 14, 2007 9:21 PM
> Who in your camp acts that
> way,
Almost all everyone! (And thanks for asking!)
> and what are you doing
> about that?
Avoiding "camps."
Posted by: jerry at July 14, 2007 9:21 PM
Posted by: Crid at July 15, 2007 1:13 AM
TO: Joe
RE: Broad Brush
"Let's paint everyone with a broad brush based solely on your personal experiences, Chuckle?
No single political faction monopolizes the censorious spirit." -- Joe
I do believe you're not reading my posts very well.
Maybe you should go back and re-read the part about....
"Sure. There are people in both camps that do bad things. But who does it as a matter of policy? Therein lies an interesting indicator." -- Chuck Pelto to justin case
justin got it. Why can't you?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[For more information, re-read this message.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 2:26 PM
TO: Joe
RE: See?
"There are unethical jerks in every group. What's important for any group is to be able to recognize that and police itself.
My liberal blogosphere has failed miserably in that regard in the case of Amanda Marcotte. She adds no value in any of her "good" posts because her behavior creates such a liability."-- jerry
Jerry gets it too. Why don't you?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson; something jerry seems to be saying to Amanda]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 2:36 PM
TO: jerry
RE: The Unethical Jerks
"There are unethical jerks in every group. What's important for any group is to be able to recognize that and police itself." -- jerry
True. Every group has them. And it is up to each group to 'police their own'.
Maybe, that way, they can avoid the REAL police from coming after them....as a group.
"Who in your camp acts that way, and what are you doing about that?" -- jerry
That character from some 'baptist' church in Kansas for one. Along with the abortion mill bombers.
In Islam, such are 'praised', by the apparent majority; most of whom are silent in their 'praise'.
In politics, McCain; the blackgard who vowed to uphold the Constitution of the United States and then creates and passes a law the suppresses the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
I could name a LOT of others, but that would take up too much of Amy's band-width.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first. -- Ronald Reagan]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 2:43 PM
TO: justin case
RE: Progressively Hypocritical
"So, progressives are hypocrites as a matter of policy?" -- justin case
It would seem that way.
Indeed, if we were to apply a judicial approach to it, akin to the approach the legal system takes to issues like 'discrimination', we could apply the 'pattern of behavior' as a legal test. And, based on personal observation, it would hold up in a legal case.
Case in point, on one hand, look at the hue-and-cry from these so-called 'progressives' any time a 'conservative' denounces homosexuality. Witness the proposed 'Marriage Amendment' to the Constitution of the United States.
On the other hand, look at how the so-called progressives were silent about exposing Republican members of Congress who were homosexual. Or the way they've used Cheney's daughter's homosexuality to attack him.
It's prima facia hypocrisy.
If you can't see it, you're blinding yourself because of a particular agenda.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And visa versa. Unless you're a hypocrite.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 2:50 PM
Case in point, on one hand, look at the hue-and-cry from these so-called 'progressives' any time a 'conservative' denounces homosexuality. Witness the proposed 'Marriage Amendment' to the Constitution of the United States.
I don't get it - complaining loudly when somebody attacks you and others like you is hypocrisy?
When it comes to gay marriage, conservatives are no longer federalists. Hypocrisy too. Marriage is traditionally a state issue.
Just like when conservatives say that they're in favor of limited government, when it comes to business regs, but unlimited government when it comes to spying on people in the U.S.
On the other hand, look at how the so-called progressives were silent about exposing Republican members of Congress who were homosexual. Or the way they've used Cheney's daughter's homosexuality to attack him.
Yeah, these ain't right. But then again, there's always people like Haggard preaching morality one day, snorting meth and buggering the masseuse the next.
Posted by: justin case at July 17, 2007 4:03 PM
pylq zmwur xeuyod bdryxfmos gclnrfoai lrvhud nqrzky
Posted by: prxwtibs sbjotpw at July 18, 2007 7:48 AM
ulcyx qetmwzria vfour ncodeyv dkxf lphx zwmujlve ympvslq hyfklsm
Posted by: pglswuyjv hgqkdjxy at July 18, 2007 7:49 AM
Leave a comment