Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on You Shoot ’Em!

1

By "Seattle Area", do we mean the Stranger's idea of what this area consists of (Cap Hill, Downtown/Belltown, the U-District) or the whole enchilada?

Posted by JMR | October 1, 2007 1:44 PM
2

The *whole* city—show us the corners we always overlook—even the entire Northwest.

Posted by Amy Kate Horn | October 1, 2007 1:46 PM
3

You should ease up on the ownership. Why not just do creative commons? You know, some rights reserved? Or ... the original photographer owns it, but the stranger can publish it.

Posted by chris | October 1, 2007 1:50 PM
4

But not photos from my neighborhood -- those go here

Posted by jseattle | October 1, 2007 1:57 PM
5

Good point, Chris. Thanks. We don't want to own these photos, just show them off occasionally.

Posted by Amy Kate Horn | October 1, 2007 2:08 PM
6

Someone has captured those old cow pokes that are always wandering round downtown. Anyone know their story? Me and about a trillion co-workers see them almost daily and are dying to know.

Posted by longball | October 1, 2007 2:12 PM
7

I'd love to see the Stranger try to make that ownership thing fly in court. Perhaps if photos were uploaded to the Stranger web site. But if you notice how FLickr works, everything is still attached to an account, and the account holder determines the license a photo is released under. Not the group.

Posted by King Rat | October 1, 2007 2:12 PM
8

Oh settle down.

Posted by Carollani | October 1, 2007 2:15 PM
9

actually you can't make a blanket statement like that on your blog and say that it is really valid. each flickr user has the ability to set the rights for each image individually. If a user puts a photo in the pool but has it marked as "copyright [user]", then you can't use it.

The best way to manage it is to use the image according to what the user specified in Flickr. If it is creative commons license, there you go. If it is copyrighted, then your claim in this blog post won't mean shit.

Just sayin'

Posted by copyright | October 1, 2007 2:34 PM
10

I've seen those cowboys for a few years now, too. Are they Seattle fixtures or Stranger reporters incognito?

Posted by Who&Whom | October 1, 2007 2:42 PM
11

Good to know, copyright. I'm removing the fine print until we have advice from our lawyer.

Posted by Amy Kate Horn | October 1, 2007 2:47 PM
12

Seattlest?

Posted by b | October 1, 2007 3:20 PM
13

Um... All photos are copyrighted. You can get permission to use them ("usage rights"), or you can take ownership of the copyright, but the only photos that actually have no copyright are old photos where their copyright has expired.

Jesus, you'd think people at a newspaper would have some basic grasp of copyright law.

Posted by SDA in SEA | October 1, 2007 3:28 PM
14

Seattlest, holla.

Posted by The Minister | October 1, 2007 3:41 PM
15

yeah, seattlest invented flickr. And myspace profiles.

The whole copyright thing is/was an unfortunate start, but glad Stranger is joining the club and adding to an existing cool thing instead of cobbling together a lame imitation cool thing. Does beg the question of which pool to throw your Seattle images in. Guess it depends on your motivation.

Posted by jseattle | October 1, 2007 3:49 PM
16

so, when's the twitter feed coming?

Posted by PGC | October 1, 2007 4:18 PM
17

I love the Seattlest pool, they get some great shots. Too bad you guys didn't do this before they did!

Posted by Katelyn | October 1, 2007 4:29 PM
18

we were so first. by "we," i mean the royal we. seattlest represent!

Posted by kim | October 1, 2007 9:36 PM
19

... and metroblogging seattle had a flickr pool before seattlest did.

the more the merrier.

Posted by josh | October 5, 2007 5:19 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).