Pot meet kettle.

Not that anyone should steal photos, but you guys do it a lot.

I, for one, would like to point out that there’s a difference from lifting a photo and/or screen-grabbing something off a site with proper attribution (as I always do) and just taking a photo with no attribution whatsoever. As a major news outlet, NOLA.com should attribute all of its material.

Did it appear in a section where they were displaying user uploaded content? It’s possible a reader lifted it from here and submitted it there.

Agreed that major (or minor) or any outlet should attribute.

I’m talking about this:

http://blogofneworleans.com/blog/2009/12/15/the-other-resident-of-fort-knox/

Or this:

http://blogofneworleans.com/blog/2010/01/14/help-for-haiti/

Even this, I think, is not cool:

http://blogofneworleans.com/blog/2009/02/01/the-la-times-looks-to-disparage-new-orleans-one-tragic-utopian-story-at-a-time/

Suppose I should add the disclaimer that as freelancer I’m just speaking for myself.

But as someone who spends a lot of time tracking down photos that I can legitimately use, it’s frustrating to see commercial operations just grab things.

And I believe pretty strongly that people should be compensated (or at the very least credited) for their intellectual property.

NOLA.com has done it before and they’ll do it again.

Looks like your beef is with nola user MrGumbochild, who submitted that tribute video to a community content section. That space on the home page looks like it just highlights any user videos uploaded to that area of the Web site.

Gumbo Child uploaded the same video to YouTube. The picture you’re griping about is 2:18 into the video. I guess YouTube also published it without properly crediting it, huh?

Quick, go write a blog post about YouTube ripping you off.

Man, look at those pictures from the Gambit photographers in Italy covering the Knox trial and in Haiti covering the earthquake aftermath. I never knew y’all had offices in those areas. Oh, right … you don’t. So that would make those uncredited pictures Frloic linked to –everyone together now — stolen!

I realizt it’s probably fun for the alt weekly to beat up on the big daily in town. Many alt weeklies around the country do that. The difference is the other alt weeklies use, you know, facts they gathered from some actual reporting. {this is jerry} is right said it best: Get mad at the user who uploaded the video to YouTube then nola.com. Call the NFL if you need help making future baseless arguments. They’ll be happy to lend a hand.

Oh well. I’m sure someone grabbed it from my Flickr page and submitted it to NOLA as a fan picture. Its not like the TP has any money to pay me anyways…

I’ve since deleted the AP photo on the Amanda Knox blog (I did link to the source, however. I think it’s pretty obvious that Gambit didn’t take that photo). My apologies.

Well what a fun discussion this has turned into.

First of all, I’d like to clarify the tone of the original post is meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Anyone who doubts that should read it and see that I realize this picture was originally taken by the person that made the video. (This is also not the first time this has happened, this picture of the Saints Spartans was also taken by Jonathan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9v6-dnHtAE#t=2m21s).

Also, as much as I like to poke fun at NOLA.com/T-P (ahem: http://blogofneworleans.com/blog/2009/12/12/things-that-do-not-belong-on-a-serious-news-web-sites-front-page/) I do admire the work they’ve done covering this Saints’ season (their Super Bowl coverage has been especially superb thanks to Mike Triplett, Nakia Hogan, et al.).

The greater issue, of course, has been brought up here and that’s the issue of intellectual property. The internet has clearly skewed things to a point where something can quickly almost immediately be claimed to be in the public domain (we’re looking at you, NFL). The question of what’s ethical and what’s not can lead to heated debates when using pictures or any kind of original work — that’s why I always link back to the original source when not using something I created on my own.

Maybe it’s because I became accustomed to this new way of spreading information while still in school, but to me the ultimate goal is to never post a work (whether it be art, an article, or a photo) that isn’t yours and claiming that it is.

As far as I know, neither the Gambit nor the Times-Pic has ever committed that kind of intellectual larceny in the two years I’ve worked in this City. And yet we all tread a fine line when posting user generated content (which usually is close to 100% stolen) surrounded by ads in an attempt to drive up pages views and revenue.
What a fun time to be a journalist.

The tone of your original post was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek? OK, and John Georges was just kidding about wanting Jim Letten replaced.

FYI, the word “bullshit” is a little too earnest to qualify as tongue-in-cheek.

GIMME A BREAK. YOU’VE GOT ALI BABA AND HIS FORTY THIEVES IN CITY HALL. WARREN RILEY AND HIS “THUGS ON PATROL” AND A NEW MAYOR WHO COMES FROM A FAMILY THAT HAS NEVER HAD A REAL JOB AND Y’ALL ARE WORRIED ABOUT WHO STOLE A PHOTO!!! I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING. PERSONALLY, I’M WORRIED ABOUT THE MONGREL MUSLIM AND HIS NEXT ANTI AMERICAN MOVE.