Slashdot Mirror
Why You Should Never Lose Your Digital Media
kkrista writes "What would you do if you found someone's digital media card from their camera in your taxi? One such individual has decided to provide the world with 227 days of entertainment. I Found Some Of Your Life will post a photo a day and accompanying fictional narrative for the next 227 days using the photos found on a digital media card left in a cab. Is it pure genius or pure evil? Who cares? Just be thankful they're not your photos."
They have an RSS feed, so if you have your shiny new mozilla 1.0PR, then you can easily make it a live bookmark.
:)
:)
Just click on the lightning bolt in the bottom left corner of the browser. It's really neat
Sorry to all of those who have been using RSS feeds forever.. I just got hooked
The idea of posting someone's photos, without permission and one at a time, is funny but wrong. It would be one thing if they just posted a few so the owner could know who had them and how to get them back, but that is not what is happening. Plus, the photos are automatically copyright by the person who took them. The blogger does not have permission or fair use rights to post all of the photos to the internet for their own amusement.
If you read this comment, you'll see that someone already found one of the people in the photo a while ago. The conclusion of the discussion at the time was that the participants should be allowed to 'discover for themselves.'
Hopefully the meta-drama will half as fun as the blog so far :)
(Yeah, it's pretty wrong. But hilarious.)
One of the comments posted on the blog identified this sorority as the source from another picture of one of the girls that was posted on their site.
Here you go people.
First a picture from "I Found Some of Your Life"
Dianne
Now a picture from KappaDelta
Lindsey
That's basically the comment that got deleted.
And those are the same person!
awake since 7, angry since I met you
This post could be an attack on the above post, or a defence. Why not find out for yourself?
/. debate about property and transmission law.
I get particularly annoyed when I see heated discussions that involve nuances of law, when it is clear that most people talking don't have any CLUE about law. Here's a link to get you *inspired to search some more* before you keep discussing.
Hopefully this will inspire you all to search out the laws of your state/country and help keep the discussion based in fact. I am bowing out, because frankly, I don't want to enter into another ignorant
Be sure to check the laws that govern your country.
Where's the evidence that says it's a hoax?
The photos that come after the one at the top of the tower where you see the creepy hunched over guy's reflection are clearly meant to appear as though they were taken as the photographer ran like hell. The fact that none of them are blurry shows that he stopped to take each of these "frantic" shots carefully enough for them to be in perfect focus with no motion blur. The sequence was too carefully crafted and tells a linear story too clearly to be unintentional. It's not even half as believeable as The Blair Witch Project, and that was pretty obviously fiction as well.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Yes. However, it is a derivative work which you could not legally create or distribute without permission from the original copyright holder (unless the infringement is so inconsequential that it could fall under fair use).
what if I aim the camera and my buddy presses the button?
What if the shutter button is pressed by two people simultaneously?
Then they both share the copyright.
Nobody blames the taxi company; most likely the cab driver didn't even know about the flash card.
The alleged crime here is all blogger's - he took someone's else property from the taxi (he shouldn't have done that at all), and then he accessed someone's else private documents without permission, and then he distributed the documents for everyone to see.
He violated the implicit copyright and a whole bunch of other laws that regulate who may and may not take pictures of who (some other poster, with better knowledge of these laws, already commented that a "release" is needed from anyone who was photographed.)
It may be also argued that he used the illegally obtained materials for profit, and then he is really in trouble. Additionally, if any of photographed persons claims any injury from his actions (anything from lost appetite to lost boyfriend) then he is in for a much more severe torture.
Finally, if anyone gets hurt or killed because of his disclosure, he goes to jail. That scenario is not impossible at all if, for example, some of photographed people have more than one {boy,girl}friend who is violent and jealous.
Further study into the Kappa Delta site and photo leads to Lindsey Herrel, a.k.a "Dianne"
Google search yields the email address of a Lindsey Herrel (director of the Dance Marathon?) at Vanderbilt.
Trying to do a search through the University People Finder, but it's not going through...
A Google search of Herrels in Elgin, SC gives us an address and names of possible parents John and Mary. Pretty small community of 800+ so it's not likely there is another Herrel family in that particular city.
Search for John Herrel: works for Denali Partners (a company in North Carolina) as a managing partner. He graduated from the University of Cincinnati.
(First, please note: I am not a lawyer, only a law student. Don't rely on this as legal advice!)
;)
That's not true. The finder has the basic common law title to the item as against all but the original owner. Title to property is relative. The finder has "worthier title" to the property than anyone but the original owner.
Now everything I'm about to say is based on the presumption that this is "lost property" rather than "abandoned property"...
This seems to be valid law in NY. See Hume v. Elder, 178 A.D. 652, 165 N.Y.S. 849 (2d Dep't 1917); Forman v. Rosetti, 38 Misc. 2d 317, 238 N.Y.S.2d 328 (City Civ. Ct. 1963); Garramone v. Simmons, 177 Misc. 330, 30 N.Y.S.2d 465 (Sup 1941)...
But at the moment he finds it, he only has an expectation of that title in NY, and he has to wait for the statutory time period to elapse, and the owner not to claim the item, for title to vest. See Bisignano v. Harrison Central School Dist., 113 F. Supp. 2d 591, 147 Ed. Law Rep. 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
He gives it to the police, they keep it for a period, and when the owner doesn't claim it, and the time period expires, he can demand it back and his title vests.
The periods are described in N.Y. Pers. Prop. Law 253(7), and are basically...
* three months, if the property has a value of less than $ 100.00
* six months, if the property has a value between $ 100.00 and $ 499.99
* one year, if the property has a value between $ 500.00 and $ 4999.99
* three years, if the property has a value of $ 5000.00 or more
But there's more! This guy may be guilty of a misdemeanor:
N.Y. Pers. Prop. Law 252(1) says he has to turn it in to the cops within 10 days. 252(3) says anyone convicted of noncompliance is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $100 fine or 6 months in jail or both.
He also may be guilty of larceny:
N.Y. Penal Law 155.05(2)(b) says this could be larceny if he doesn't take reasonable measures to return the property.
Just goes to show, use your instincts about what's right, and you'll probably be much better off...
These people are providing potentially objectionable captions to images of recognizable people that have not authorized such use of their image (through a model release). They may well be liable for defamatory use of these people's images.
Are you adequate?
Actually...
Having government registration allows you to have a more solid footing.
What is important in Copyright infringement cases is to prove intent. In this case, the poster KNEW the content was not their's to use and fully intended to post the content up.
The poster also decided to create fake events around the pictures. This can lead to slander/libel cases if the posted content results in mental anguish, loss of job, or other personal losses.
The quality of the pictures is not the point, the theft and misuse of the pictures is.
It would be very funny if the pictures actually belonged to a law student. *grins*
Winged Power Photography
You should'a warned us you're linking to a porn site.
Regardless, it's not the same thing at all. An unprotected gallery on photobucket is much more fair game than stealing someone's memory card and platering it all over the web.
my password is private, but unchanged.
And there are different found property laws in different states. It's possible that "finders keepers" applies here. Whether it's right or not is another issue. Of course, if the owner doesn't come forward... well,then, I guess it doesn't matter.
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
you mean this link
:)
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/KappaDelta/
one of the girls can be found among the recruitment pictures
Surely, even if a 'finders-keepers' rule applies, it doesn't cover the photos, which are covered by copyright. If this is not the case, then any photograph, radio signal, dvd, etc that you found in such a juristiction would ultimately end up in the PD.
He might gain ownership of the storage device, but I doubt the content on it
> Its a memory card, its not like there is an
> address and phone number on it
Write your name address and phone number (or whatever details you want to include) on a piece of paper and take a picture of it on minimum resolution. Set to read only so you don't accidently delete it.
Cheers,
Roger
Do you have any better hostages?
Jesus christ, model releases are for when you use images in the PROMOTION of a commercial product/service, etc. Please know of what you speak. There would be very little to no photographic art if you had to obtain a "release" from anyone and anything.
Duh?
I'll tell you right now that if you and I are in a pblic place I can take and PBLISH photos of you legally UNTIL you tell me not to.
I got in a nice sticky fight about that early this year, you have absolutely no right to privacy in public. I can take photos of you, and I can take vido/film footage of you UNTIL you tell me to stop. and I can publish and broadcast those images of you without your consent.
If you want otherwise you had better run around with a "do not photograph me" sign around your neck".
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Filatova links to http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.asp?fid=1&threa did=8951
IANAL, but my law classes say this is correct. You have copyright over everything you create, unless its covered by some else first (ie, if I happen to make the exact thing as you, even if I haven't seen yours, you own in)
Mod point free since 2001
"Mental anguish" is one of the most often sued for things, and one of the least frequently one. Its hard to proved your were "anguished" to the point of needing damages.
Libel, however, is a pretty easy case to win.
Mod point free since 2001
I hope he doesnt have any pictures of children under 13 If so he is royally screwed. You're not allowed to put pics of children under 13 online without parental consent, And your not even supposed to put pics of people over 13 online without asking them.
Interesting. Your comments caused me to double check the logistics of how a copyright is actually enabled. Basically, you don't do anything. You need to register things with the government en order to sue for damages, but you can do that anytime up until the copyright expires (Life+70).
Trademarks you have to continually enforce; copyrights you don't have to do a thing other than have created it. The © symbol is not necessary, its more of a reminder.
----
Comments by squigit, © 2004
Mod point free since 2001
"Secondly, the copyright infringement case would be difficult to make. Granted he is infringing on someone else's copyright, but he is not doing it for financial gain."
... it's copyright infringement, pure and simple. Financial gain is irrelavent in determining infringement itself. Should the owner of the photos decide to sue for damages, that's where financial gane would come into play.
You're contradicting yourself
It's unlikely, I know, but you can't assume that this is the only copy of the pictures.
Editor's Note
Hi. No new posts until further notice.
If you know things: ifsoyl at gmail.com.
posted by jordan | 1:57 PM
-+-+-+-
Thanks for ruining it for everyone, Slashdot :)
Actually, I figured with tidal wave of publicity a slashdotting gets you, plus the timbre of the legal-minded comments posted here, the site was doomed.
The site appears to have been removed in the last 5 minutes.
7:11 PM - the site has disappeared.
Three Squirrels
I was wondering about that myself, since otherwise how does the blogger justify possession of the media card in the first place (what's the moral difference between stealing the property of a previous occupant of the cab and stealing something out of the cab that belongs to the driver or the cab company?), but apparently it's too late to find out without hunting up a cache somewhere. Below is a copy and paste of the site from a few minutes ago (with formatting destroyed by the process, of course).
I Found Some Of Your Life
That's It
September 2004
Current Posts
Monday, September 20, 2004
That's It
Sorry folks.
Contact: ifsoyl at gmail.com
[Thank you for all of the emails. I took the site down pre-emptively. I have not yet heard from the owner of the card. I will try to let you know.
Let me be very clear that I never intended to hurt or embarrass anyone. While I understand that this is a somewhat naive position to maintain, you must understand that the scope of this project grew far beyond my expectations in a very short period of time.
That having been said, I would like to formally apologize to all of those who were unknowingly involved.
Finally - yes, the celebrity was Vanilla Ice.]
posted by jordan | 7:11 PM
Of course anything involving Vanilla Ice was bound to end badly so it's just as well.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.