A woman in Boulder was the victim of a very unusual run-in with a cow on Monday afternoon. Park rangers say she was riding her bike on the South Boulder Creek Trail when she stopped to let a cow in her path pass by. Instead, the animal charged at her, knocking her down, and stepped on her legs.
"You see cattle every day on the open space lands," said city spokesman Steve Mertz. "You just give them some room but they're generally very predictable."
Click here for the full article.
This sounds funny, so I'll chuckle under my breath while extending sympathy to the woman who was attacked. Does sympathy cancel a harmless chuckle?
Loading ...
Loading ...
Could you please credit my images if you use them. Thanks.
The image was linked directly to your Flickr page, but I’ll happily replace it with a different one. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
It’s irrelevant whether you link an image directly or not – if you are going to use other peoples hard work I suggest you become familiar with creative commons licenses. Also the image you are using now is still in violation of CC. (See first clause)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en_GB
All you need do is credit the photographer – that’s hardly too much to ask is it?
You may be interested in reading the comment I posted in reply to Rick. Also, in the future I would appreciate your emailing me about this issue at kittymowmowsanimalexpo@gmail.com instead of commenting here. Thanks!
That’s now my photo – Cheers for linking to the original page, but as paul says, CC does not mean “free to use as you like”, there are various grades of Creative Commons license – mine is Non Commercial with Attribution – the Attribution bit means you’re supposed to credit me as the copyright holder – (c) Rick Harrison (or “Tricky”) under the photo to make it more obvious who’s work it is.
All CC images are licensed with Attribution, so something worth getting right, as currently you’re violating the images’ licensing agreement and leaving yourself open to legal trouble (not that i think anyone would do anything, but still)
Let me explain my point of view.
The CC license draft (a link to it is embedded within this page – http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447) says:
“If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give credit, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing, to the: (i) Original Author (his, her or its name or pseudonym if applicable) if supplied; and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institution, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor’s copyright notice or terms of service or by other reasonable means [...]”
I interpret this to mean (and could not find a reliable source that directly contradicted this interpretation) that as long as I credit the photographer in a way that is reasonable to the medium I am using, I will not be in violation of the CC license. The medium I am using is the internet – a web of interactive, interconnected pages of information. In my opinion, the most reasonable way to credit someone on the internet is by linking back to them (think about the innumerable times you’ve seen credit given to someone through a link to their homepage or blog post on the internet – in fact, think about the results of Google’s image search, which lists only the web page hosting the image, not the author of the image). If I were using this image in a printed document or any other medium that did not allow me to direct viewers directly to you, I would credit you by listing your name, because then that would be the most reasonable form of credit.
I honestly believe that a direct link benefits you and other photographers much more than listing your name or Flickr name. If someone sees your photo and likes it, he or she can click on it and be directed to your photo, your name, a way to contact you, and links to your other works on Flickr. I’ve even had some photographers express appreciation for my attempt to share their work with a wider audience in this manner. However, I am also aware that the attribution license says, “[I] must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.” That is why I remove and replace the photos as quickly as possible if a photographer lets me know that he or she does not think I am attributing it in the way he or she specified. I am doing what I believe is best for both parties with the time and tools we have at hand.
I am now in the process of consulting with a lawyer to ensure that my interpretation of the CC license is valid. If I learn that my interpretation is wrong, I will immediately change my approach. For now, I am going to continue attributing the images on my site via direct links and replace the images upon learning that a photographer disapproves of this technique.
I hope that no ill will arises from this discussion. I appreciate that you’re trying to help me become a better blogger.
By the way, in the future I would appreciate your emailing me about this issue at kittymowmowsanimalexpo@gmail.com instead of commenting here. Thanks!
Is she making a profit off of it? No. As a current PR Practitioner, I know for certain that she is well within her bounds as long as she is not pulling a direct monetary profit off of it. Have a problem with that? Call or email me and we can discuss this. In the meantime, I suggest blocking your pics from unethical download, or using an image hosting site to do so.
In the meantime, please communicate with her directly and stop spamming her comment feed. If I can google your image, you obviously don’t care to protect it all that much.
By the way, I use Tagaroo (http://tagaroo.opencalais.com/) to find and manage CC licensed images on Flickr.
[...] was recently reading a blog post written by my good friend and fellow activist, Martha Jean Schindler at her [...]
Technically, I think Kittymowmow did comply with the CC. She linked to the image on Flickr, so I think that satisfies the ‘Attribution’, although I could see where Paul might have an argument for more clear disclosure of who’s work the image was.
Personally, I only use Flickr images from people that have said they are ok with their work being shared, and I add a link to their Flickr account, and the CC license for the work. Like if I had used Paul’s image, I would add ‘Pic via Flickr User Paul’ at the end of my post, with a link to Paul’s Flickr account, and the CC terms.
The end result is that because of the image, this post is now more interesting. So I’m not sure why Kitty wouldn’t be happy to explicitly link to the image owner’s Flickr account. Sure she did in the image itself, but most people don’t even think about that, I looked at the post the first time and thought ’she didn’t even link back to Flickr’.
Why not try to promote someone that freely gave you a great image that made your content a bit more interesting?
This is going to be a case in which we must agree to disagree. I do not regard someone’s Flickr username, or even their real name, as being as valuable a form of attribution as a link back to a Flickr page that includes username, contact information, etc. If a Flickr photographer disapproves of the way I attribute the photo to them, I quickly remove it and replace it.
You ask why I wouldn’t be happy to “explicitly” link to the photographer’s account. It’s because I believe that the link embedded in the image is more than explicit enough. I am promoting them in the best way possible on the internet (direct link), given my time and resources.
I could explain that I spend a great deal of time researching the news, selecting relevant articles, finding relevant photos, and formatting these posts. I could also explain that taking the time to manually add each photographer’s name to the post would add up to a significant increase in the time spent on each post. I could go on to explain that taking the time to ask each CC licensing photographer for prior permission to attribute the work via link would add an impractical amount of time to the posting process. These points are true, but they are insignificant in the face of my belief that I am already providing these Flickr users with the best form of attribution available. I am not inclined to go out of my way to add photographers’ names to a post, because I do not believe it creates as much value for them as a direct link. I am, however, inclined to go out of my way to replace an image as soon as possible if a photographer lets me know that the form of attribution is not acceptable.
Also, nearly 40% of the visitors to KittyMowmow.com are conducting image searches. When they see an image they like, they more than likely will click on it. I suspect that if they don’t like it, they won’t click on it – and probably won’t remember or care who the photographer is or what his Flickr name is.
As has been said before, as photographers we’re grateful that you’re linking to to the actual flickr pages, and it’s a great little blog. But as pointed out above people don’t necessarily realise the image is a link unless they physically look at it, nor do they realise there is copyright ownership of it – i can quite happily right click on that image and save it with no appreciation that there are usage terms associated with it. I should also point out that if you’re going to not show that the photo is copyright the photographer, you should really change your page footer – “(c) Copyright Kitty Mowmows…” implies all copyright on the page is in your ownership.
Technically you are also breaking the non-commercial usage point of the images – your blog carries advertising so is technically a money-making venture. I doubt you’re making anything above the costs of running the site, and given that, it’s something i don’t particularly have an issue with you breaking, but breaking it you are none-the-less.
No-ones asking for you to email people for permission to use the image if it’s usage meets the creative commons licence (tho receiving an email from people just telling me they’ve used the image is always nice to know), all we’re asking is for us to be *properly credited* as being the copyright owners of the photo.
Lets not forget we’re providing these images for you to use for free.
You say there’s a lot of time involved in you creating your posts – but you seem to be overlooking the sheer amount of cost, time, research and effort *we* put into producing a great photo only to effectively give it away free for people like you to use.
As I explained in a comment on jacobs blog post about this, the cow photo you used of mine took an entire day to produce – several hours drive (fuel’s not cheap these days), walking in the rain for miles on end, spending time with the animals so they were more used to me, and then post-processing in photoshop afterwards can take 30 mins per photo – for which I made *no money* and through my good-will helped you out finding a nice image for your blog – so i’m sorry that the extra 2 minutes visually crediting me as the owner of my own work is too much effort for you to do!
Good photos rarely magically appear out of nowhere – they generally involve the photographer putting in a fair amount of time, effort and expense, for which we’re not asking anything but being correctly identified as the author/owner of the work.
I’m sorry if that’s all a bit ranty, feels really weird cos i’m actually a very laid back person, but you have no idea how much this happens…. creative commons licences are a really neat idea which I embraced whole-heartedly, the fact that a large proportion of people gloss over it’s requirements and just see it just as a free image resource with no thought for the provider is one of the reasons i’ve recently stopped releasing under it.
r.