« November 2007 | Main | January 2008 »
Picking up the meme from last year and the year before, here's a list of the places I stayed in 2007:
(* - went there on more than one trip)
With extry-special bonus list of all the airports I flew through!
Be nice to me; I've got a Man Cold:
Heh.
1. Baltimore woman takes a picture of her pug wearing a Santa outfit, and uploads it to Flickr marked "all rights reserved."
2. Fox Sports steals the picture and incorporates it into a promotional animation during their NFL coverage.
3. Woman discovers Fox's infringement and blogs about it.
4. PROFIT!!!
Well, I'm projecting there for that last step. Fox screwed the pooch (and not Truman) big-time here, and as I understand IP law, they're really over a barrel. Gaughran-Perez had copyright to that picture the moment she pressed the shutter, and uploading it to Flickr doesn't change that a whit, nor does the fact that Fox made some alterations to the picture (despite what some of the incredibly ignorant commenters on her blog post are claiming.) Fox used a picture from a page marked "all rights reserved", saved it despite the fact that the original poster had declined to provide a download link (so, in other words, they saved it through URL hackery or a screen grab), made changes to the images, and then used it for commercial gain without the rightsholder's knowledge or consent. Bad idea. Very bad idea.
Just about the only thing that Fox has going for it in this case as far as I can tell (and IANAL) is that Gaughran-Perez apparently didn't register the photo with the U.S. Copyright Office within 90 days of "first publication." (Does posting something on Flickr constitute a "publication"? That could be an interesting debate.) If she had registered the photo's copyright (and really, why would an amateur photographer register the copyright for a picture of her cute dog?) then she could stand to win statutory damages from Fox, which = big money. (One of the ironies, of course, being that Fox has a reputation for being quite litigious in going after copyright infringement. Do as we say, evidently, not as we do.)
But, all hope is not lost for Gaughran-Perez. I myself managed to squeeze some money out of a magazine earlier this year; they'd run a picture of mine as editorial content, ignoring the Creative Commons license that I'd applied to the content -- which requires attribution and noncommercial use , not to mention the distribution of derivative works under the same terms as my original license. After a little bit of back-and-forth, I got an apology, a correction in the magazine, a few free issues, and a check. (They handled the situation reasonably well, and I'm satisfied with the outcome, so I won't be naming the magazine in question here; I didn't feel like I needed to resort to public shaming to get what I wanted.) It wasn't quite like fighting City Hall, but I offer this episode as illustration that yes, one can go up against infringers and come out the winner. (Similarly, Flickr user Roadsidepictures was successful in his dealings with AutoWeek, which used this picture without permission, as described by Lawrence Lessig.)
I hope that Ms. Gaughran-Perez is contacting a lawyer toot-sweet to go after King Rupert.
A friend of a friend told me about an audaciously conceived prank; seems that his company's picnic involved some sort of competition, and the wrong team (i.e., not his) team won a trophy. Needless to say, the trophy decided that it needed better, more responsible owners, and decided to set out to see the world and find some new ones.
A year and a half later, the big reveal was finally ready: check it out.
After I visited the abandoned City Hall subway station, I went uptown and checked out the Little Red Lighthouse in Fort Washington Park. (More photos.)
Moar linky goodness, as I am hip-deep in the Xmas craziness:
Updates most likely sporadic (yes, even more than usual -- quiet, you), as I will be winging my way rivahward for a few days.
A few months ago, I was lucky enough to take a rare Transit Museum tour of the City Hall subway station. Built in the first stage of subway construction in 1904 and abandoned in 1945, it's a true gem -- skylights, Gustavino tile vaulting, brass chandeliers, terra cotta plaques, and gorgeous arches everywhere you look.
I've finally gotten my pictures of it online, and you can see them here.
Kinda busy here at the start of the week, but I wanted to give a brief shoutout to Gridskipper, Roadfood.com, and About.com for using my photos in the past week:
Thanks, y'all.
I continue my domination extremely meager contribution to the NY Times' "City Room" blog (see also) with this "Comment of the Moment."
And wouldn't you know it, during my ever-so-brief moment in the blogsun (is that what orbits the "blogosphere"?), I'm saying something slightly pissy, kvetching about the taxi drivers of Our Fair City. "City Room" conducted a brief investigation into the credit-card readers that taxis are required to sport, and found that out of 92 attempts to pay for a cab ride with a credit card, 47 were successful, 35 didn't have the readers yet installed, and ten drivers resisted, citing made-up (and untrue) excuses for why they weren't offering the (mandated) service. This seems a bit low to me, actually -- I haven't actually yet attempted to pay with a card, but every time I've gotten in a cab that has the GPS/credit card combo, I have to get an earful from the driver (solicited or un- ) about how terrible they are and how Big Brother is watching them and drivers won't be able to make any money anymore. Setting aside the question of how much extra business they'll get when patrons won't have to have cash on hand in order to get where they're going (I've shrugged and taken the subway sometimes after checking my wallet and finding it empty, rather than go look for both an ATM and a taxi), I wonder how much of an impact these new rules will actually have on cabbies, and how much of the resistance is simple resistance to change. (I also think a fellow commenter hit it on the head when she noted that the taxi drivers' union "creates an 'us versus the world mentality' and encourages cab drivers to break the rules."
Which brings me to my comment:
When was the last time that a taxi driver was happy about anything?
I conduct a little unscientific poll each time I get into a cab; I ask the driver how s/he’s doing. I think I’ve gotten one positive response — the rest of the responses are a litany of complaints: about the traffic, construction, the TLC, my employer, that the trip I’m making is too short, that the trip I’m making is too long, that I have the temerity to live in Queens, that the GPS was installed, et cetera, et cetera.
I don't have anything against taxi drivers -- I've met a lot of very knowledgeable, personable, kind drivers -- but there are a lot of hacks (or would that be hack hacks?) out there. And I don't think it's too much to ask them to follow the rules. (And you know what? I'd happily pay a premium for convienience in order to pay with a credit card -- if they pass the fees onto the passenger, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.)
Stay classy, New York Post...
Best correction I've seen in a while, from the UK's Sunday Times:
An article about Lord Lambton (“Lord Louche, sex king of Chiantishire”, News Review, January 7) falsely stated that his son Ned (now Lord Durham) and daughter Catherine held a party at Lord Lambton’s villa, Cetinale, in 1997, which degenerated into such an orgy that Lord Lambton banned them from Cetinale for years. In fact, Lord Durham does not have a sister called Catherine (that is the name of his former wife), there has not been any orgiastic party of any kind and Lord Lambton did not ban him (or Catherine) from Cetinale at all. We apologise sincerely to Lord Durham for the hurt and embarrassment caused.
More -- lots more -- at the great Regret the Error's roundup of 2007 corrections.
Hey, have you checked out my photoblog?
And if you like what you see, would you consider voting for it over at the Photoblog Awards?
Thanks.
w00t!
We went to see The Farnsworth Invention on Broadway a few days ago, and I really, really enjoyed it. (Ben Brantley doesn't know what he's talking about; the writing crackled. Yes, the play covers a lot of historical ground, but staying awake is no problem -- check out Kurt Loder's more nuanced review.)
B. and I tend to watch TV on DVD at home, and "Sports Night" is currently our selection of choice. A couple weeks ago, we noticed a quick allegory in a scene about Philo T. Farnsworth and his glass-blowing brother-in-law, and I was tickled to hear that name on a network television show, given his relative obscurity. I told B. that I'd heard there was a Broadway play coming soon about Farnsworth, and she expressed interest. Fast-forward a couple of days, and we're walking through the West Forties and come across a billboard for "The Farnsworth Invention", and we noted Aaron Sorkin's name with surprise. (I hadn't known that "A Few Good Men" started out on Broadway, and I only thought of him as a screenwriter.) Then, when we heard about a good deal on matinee tickets, it created the trifecta, so we of course just had to see the show.
Hank Azaria is really good, as you'd expect, and I also was very impressed by Jimmi Simpson, the other lead. The staging was interesting -- a two-level minimalist set that's very creatively used to evoke many different locales with just lighting cues and props. We also liked that just a few supporting actors played a huge number of smaller roles.
And of course, it was interesting to see a dramatization of what was basically half of my first semester of TV courses in high school. (A friend who attended the show with us made a similar comment: that it was her Comm 101 class distilled into two hours of stage time.)
The show pretty much described the history as I remember learning it, but going home afterward and doing a teeny bit of research revealed that Sorkin took some dramatic license, especially as regards the court fight between Philo Farnsworth and David Sarnoff's RCA. (Details not given here, as they're essentially spoilers, and I urge you to see the play.) That's okay -- it's a historical drama, after all, not a documentary -- but it seems to have upset Farnsworth's biographer Paul Schatzkin, who has started a website (and blog!) to set the record straight. (Dig the scene-by-scene breakdown of the play vs. the history, with bonus arch comments by Schatzkin, and it's also fun to eavesdrop on a four-way feud disagreement between Schatzkin, the New York Post, Sorkin, and Philo's son Kent Farnsworth.)
Still working on the photo backlog....
There's a venerable Italian tradition -- no I'm not talking cannoli or arancini -- of companies producing pin-up calendars to promote their businesses. Vespa and Lambretta produced them, but the best-known would have to be the famous Pirelli calendar.
Italian coffin manufacturers Cofani Funebri are apparently no exception, and they've produced calendars since 2003. Here's the 2008 version. And here's a bizarre "backstage" video -- dig the Dean Martin, guys!
They actually have a surprisingly extensive (well, considering the business they're in) gift shop as well. It's almost as good as the L.A. County Coroner's gift shop (I love my Department of Coroner beach towel), but with low-budget cheesecake photography.
This might come in useful for you: a map of my favorite restaurants in NYC. I've been to all of them multiple times (well, not WD-50 yet) and can recommend them unhesitatingly.
(If you'd like to see it fullscreen, you can also go here.)
Keep practicing that hard-hitting journalism, guys...
