(Thanks, Ed Reading)
Just curious if the Dilbert strip above is protected by copyright . . .
Hey, watch it! Vinyl records are still cool. ; )
Hmmm. I thought this was actually poking fun at people who aren’t creating content.
Dogbert is usually the villain of the piece. Which side are you coming from, Jeff?
I stand strongly in favor of humor.
Yes, but did you get permission to reprint the cartoon?
POST – you mean POST the cartoon.
It’s an embed from the originating site. No republication needed. The beauty of links :-)
Wrong. You wouldn’t expect someone like Jeff Jarvis to understand this but this is an infringement of United Media’s copyright plain and simple.
Read the terms: http://dilbert.com/terms/
And Jeff is profiting from this infringement by displaying ads on the page.
So I too would like to know Jeff: did you get permission to reprint the cartoon?
You are a putz, Rich Harris
Pingback: Do what you do best and link to the rest — Dios Ameba
Yo, people I sued the EMBED CODE provided by the cartoon. They wisely invite embedding and distribution. If you click on the cartoon – you don’t even have to click; all you have to do is mouse over and see the link – you’d see that it goes to the Dilbert site. Try to do a LITTLE reporting – moving your mouse – before mouthing off.
Okay, tail between legs – Dilbert does provide an embed code which would suggest a licence to reuse (though it does contradict their own T&Cs). I apologise.
Really though I was responding to R Freeman’s idea that a website can take whatever content it likes by embedding it. I meet this absurd idea all the time, and as someone who creates content for a living it angers the hell out of me.
If copyright worked that way anybody with limited coding skills could duplicate an entire site and wrap it in their own ads, and the content owner couldn’t do a damn thing.
I apologize as well. I don’t see how it helps Dilbert to provide an embed code, but you’re talking to someone who gets paid in money rather than exposure, so what do I know?
>>>If copyright worked that way anybody with limited coding skills could duplicate an entire site and wrap it in their own ads, and the content owner couldn’t do a damn thing.
No! Because once you do that, the freetards suddenly discover the wonderful power of copyright. Look at Team Skype, Facebook or Craigslist, all of which recently filed suits asserting a right they have looked down on in the past.
> Look at Team Skype, Facebook or Craigslist, all of which recently filed suits asserting a right they have looked down on in the past.
I don’t suppose that some supporting evidence would be possible.
You know – a verifiable cite to Craig Newmark or the Facebook founder saying that he didn’t believe in copyright.
Yes, I know that both Craigslist and Facebook have been sued by folks claiming copyright violations. So has every major publishing house, newspaper, record company, movie studio, and so on. No one thinks that they look down on copyright. (Every major author has also be sued for copyright violation, but I’ll concede that some authors look down on copyright.)
Pingback: Recommended Links for November 18th | Alex Gamela - Digital Media & Journalism
Oh, so true.
file this one under “if the comic is that important it will find ME”.
i probably wouldn’t have seen it without jj posting it here (and i then linked to it from yahoo! finance when arguing over a media share price (like most it’s been under $5 all year)).
i imagine a few others have seen the loveable ceo dogbert because of it… some probably laughed like i did.
Pingback: 21st century news « Clive Davis Blog
Buy my new book and get clickable footnotes and links.
Buy my new Kindle Single on Amazon.
Now out in paperback!