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."

Comments

Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

Those ARE my pictures! Please Slashdot them so no one can see them! Thanks.

Thank you sir, may I have another photo published?

[SYFer]

It's truly one of the great blogs of all time, IMO. Ya just gotta read it from the beginning to savor it fully. Soon however, perhaps even tonight via this very thread, the gig, as they say, will be up.

One of "Jordan's" Slashdot-reading frat brothers (probably the goofy EE major who got in on a legacy bid) will spill the beans. I'd love to be a fly on the paddle-festooned wall for that moment.

What will happen next? The blogger has been careful to conceal his or her identity. What are the legal issues? Can the blog continue? Does the blogger face any liabilities?

If "Jordan" and his chums play it one way, they could be minor celebrities for a while--perhaps concealing their knowledge of the blog's existence to let the thing reach critical mass. Jordan could be the next Mahir! "I am Jordan! I high five you!"

On the other hand, they can probably bring terrible, expensive legal might to bear. What will blogspot do? What will become of America's new best-loved blog?

This little dramady is just beginning! heh

Quoth I Southpark

[muntumbomoklik]

"Hey Cartman, isn't that your mom?"

I'm jealous

[wrinkledshirt]

Actually, I wish my life were interesting enough right now that somebody would want to build a website based on my photos.

Day 1: This is wrinkledshirt on Slashdot.
Day 2: This is wrinkledshirt on Slashdot.
Day 3: This is wrinkledshirt cursing spymac mail.
Day 4: This is wrinkledshirt cursing Slashdot for not posting his spymac submission.
Day 5: This is wrinkledshirt on Slashdot.
And so on...

I love sites like these

[British]

Found photo sites are the best.

http://www.spillway.com/ is still the king of "found photos on the Internet."

RSS Feed

[XaXXon]

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 :)

Re:RSS Feed

[threephaseboy]

Just click on the lightning bolt

<other-larpers.mpeg>
LIGHTNING BOLT! LIGHTNING BOLT! LIGHTNING BOLT!
</other-larpers>

Keep in mind

[AndroidCat]

Keep in mind that there have been hoax blogs before. Did they really find the camera card? Do you believe every blog is true?

Re:Keep in mind

[lspd]

Keep in mind that there have been hoax blogs before. Did they really find the camera card?

Either (a) it's a hoax, or (b) the author doesn't realize this is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Re:Keep in mind

[davebarz]

Actually, I know some of the guys in the pictures. They're frat boys from Vanderbilt, my school. I am privileged enough to have gotten drunk on their beer freshman year.

In any case, I happen to know that they are nowhere near smart enough or geeky enough to create a blog out of their pictures, let alone do so as a hoax.

Heh.

[Black Parrot]

> Just be thankful they're not your photos.

Fortunately he didn't find the card with pix of his wife.

Presumed copyright

[wheelbarrow]

What are the copyright issues here? I'm assuming that by default the pictures are protected by a copyright belonging to the owner of the memory stick. If I am right, this could be a problem for blogspot.

Re:Presumed copyright

[sik0fewl]

Unless finding it in the back of a cab counts as a "transfer of ownership".

Re:Presumed copyright

[skraps]

Sooo... what if I aim the camera and my buddy presses the button?
What if I take a perfectly framed picture of a copyrighted picture? Do I then own the copyright?
What if the shutter button is pressed by two people simultaneously?
Maybe there is a complex multi-key system like they have in those submarine nuke movies. I suppose it's whoever turns the key last.
I guess they could both turn the key at the same time.
Of course, If you follow Einstein at all, you know that there is no way to know who turned the key last - and that it's impossible for them to turn at the same time.
You could argue that I didn't personally press the button. There are a number of bacteria and other assorted lifeforms on my findertips. The bacteria probably own the picture.
Can bacteria own things?

Re:Presumed copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I take a perfectly framed picture of a copyrighted picture? Do I then own the copyright?

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.

Indeed.

[ktakki]

Just be thankful they're not your photos.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Regards,
Arthur Goatse.cx, Sr.

Kappa Delta

[bluewee]

At first I thought they looked like frat boys, and sorority girls, then I saw the white shirt dude's tag:
google: Kappa Delta

Re:So THAT'S where I left it...

[xstonedogx]

We have irrefutable proof those are not your photos:

There are girls in the pictures.

Actually it's purely illegal

[Sycraft-fu]

The taking of the card itself is theft. If you find something on the sidewalk, in a cab, etc that does not belong to you, you do not have the right to take and keep it. It is still property of the orignal owner. To keep it is theft, pure and simple.

However this is also a case of copyright infringement. Works are automatically copyright to you upon creation, no registration is required. So these photos are the copyright of whomever shot them. To post them on the Internet without their permission is infringement.

If I was the person who this happened to, I'd go after the blogger with a vengence. Instead of being a good citizen and either handing it over to the police or trying to track me down and instead of just being neutral, and leaving it, they decided to be malicious.

Personally, I hope they go to jail.

Re:Actually it's purely illegal

[Starji]

You might be going in the right direction, but I think your feelings in this are a little extreme. First off, how the hell is he supposed to find the guy this belonged to? The card was found in a taxi in NYC. Going to the police wouldn't do anything as they would be more concerned with catching murderers and rapists than returning somebody's momentos. Leaving it in the cab wouldn't do any good either, as it would end up in the hands of another rider later on, or pawned off as soon as the driver found it at the end of the day. The only feasible way this would get back to the owner in a physical manner would be to give it to the driver of the cab and hope he puts it in lost and found. This would of course require the owner to call that particular cab company to see if someone picked up a memory card for a camera.

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. I don't even see ads on the page (aside from a blogger banner at the top). Also how would somebody assess the value of these pictures. Criminal offenses for copyright infringement don't occur until the infringer has caused a significant amount of financial damage (a few hundred thousand dollars IIRC). I would be hard pressed to believe these pictures are worth that much.

If I was the person who lost the card, and I found out about the site, and if I were angry about it, I'd get a cease and desist letter sent and prove that I was the owner of the card. It's likely the blogger would close the page and return the card. The end result of this is the guy who lost his card would get it back, and the site would go down if the owner chose to do so. This would not happen if the site was not getting this much publicity, and may infact become the best chance for the owner to get his card back, along with some measure of internet immortality.

Personally, I hope the owner of the card gets it back and doesn't mind seeing the blogger continue his series.

Re:Actually it's purely illegal

[EvanED]

Depends on jurisdiction. For instance, there was an example from 1993 in Mass where a couple found a $10,000 lottery ticket in a parking lot. Mass had a law that obligated people who find property worth over $3 to turn it in to the local police. (If not claimed in a year, the finder can claim it.)

It was only a decision by the local DA that the case wasn't worth pursuing that kept it out of the courts.

Re:Actually it's purely illegal

[EvanED]

"so i stole $5 from the person who dropped the $5 bill in the parking lot. no one was to be seen, it was the middle of the night. i hardly think you're right here"

Depends on where you are. For instance, in 1993 a Mass DA had to decide whether to apply a statute requiring people who find property over $3 to turn it in to the police station in the case of a family that found a $10,000 lottery ticket. (The actual owner later looked for it in the same location.) Ultimately, the family was not charged. Though it's an interesting question to ponder if the father had not been the local fire chief and a very respected member of the town if the outcome would have been different.

So unless you've looked at NY law specifically, don't think you know what it says.

(I personally have not looked either, so I remain neutral. I apologize if you have.)

Re:Actually it's purely illegal

[torokun]

(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... ;)

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[metlin]

I'll leave the legal issues for the lawyers to handle - but more importantly, is it ethical?

If you found someone's driver's wallet with their driver's license and credit cards, would you go ahead and impersonate them or steal their identity? It would be an identity theft - in some ways, I think that is exactly what this guy is doing.

I shudder to think what will happen if the real guy finds out. I for one know that if my pics were put up on the net - I would certainly get very mad, very pissed and would sue this guy to kingdom come.

Leave the fun and coolness part of it - it's just not quite right, it's unethical and wrong. I do not know about anybody else, but in my book what this guy is doing is simply wrong.

Evil...

[jargoone]

Not really evil, because the pictures don't really contain all that much. But still, if something like this happens, you should treat it like finding someone's credit card or driver's license. If you can find the owner, the owner would appreciate having it back. If you can't find the owner, laugh with your friends if you want, but don't post it.

Pure Copyright Infringement

[VidEdit]

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.

Camera in the woods

[phreakv6]

Sounds very much like the Camera in the woods which turned out to be a hOaX with most of the pictures photoshopped with aliens and stuff

Re:Camera in the woods

[Dun Malg]

Damn, those are some creepy photos.

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.

Boring!

[DAldredge]

Everyone has their clothes on! That sucks!

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[llin]

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.)

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[zors]

I can understand being mad, wanting an apology, and wanting the blog aken down, and maybe criminal proceedings if any laws were broken. But why do people think they deserve money for something like this? What have they lost? Mental suffering? Bullshit. People are just greedy bastards.

/Rant

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[spoco2]

"would you go ahead and impersonate them or steal their identity?"
No, and neither is this guy... he has there, for all to see, the disclaimer that this is all 'MADE UP', that what is being said is not the truth.

It's almost as if the card was meant to be left there, what with exactly one year of photos on it... almost like it was an arts project.

Or not.

It is amusing though... and from what I've seen, there's nothing there to be really worried about if they were your photos. Plus, he's now got them on the net in a professional manner for his friends to see. (and it's not like he could get off his arse to do so himself if there was a year's worth of shots on there)

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[photonagon]

Comparing posting pictures on the internet to stealing one's identity is kind of a stretch. One is blatently illegal, and as stated in parent, the legality of this is unknown.

Even on an ethical level, many people post personal pictures on a website/blog, though I don't think they go around impersonating themselves or others.

Illegal? Probably not. Immoral? Maybe. A cruel or at least embarressing joke? Yes. Made me laugh :)

Not at all

[Sycraft-fu]

An author CHOOSES to open source something. They actually make a specific declaration, in the form of the GPL. The choose to grant you a license to redistribute their work. That wasn't done here, the bloggers stole a card and then published the contents without the creator's permission. That's copyright infringement.

This is one of the things that bugs me about /. the hacker, or script-kiddie (which a large number of /. posters seem to be) mentality that if you CAN do it would should be allowed to. That it's ok to break in and copy someone's code and put it on the net, or to hack an insecure box and use it as your personal playground.

No, it isn't.

It's the same as the physical world and goes back to basic kindergarden eithics: "Don't touch what isn't yours without the permission of who it belongs to." This is as true for vitrual stuff as physical stuff. It isn't any more legal or morally justified to steal a CF card and publish the pictures than it is to steal a wallet and use the cash to buy yourself stuff.

Even if you don't believe in copyright, you can hardly justify the theft of the card. That's real, physical property and they deprived the owner of it.

Re:Not at all

[evilviper]

mentality that if you CAN do it would should be allowed to.

And I hate the mentality that all laws should be followed to the letter, and anyone who doesn't, should be executed immediately.

There is grey area in the world, and a LOT when it comes to high-tech issues... Technically, it's a federal offense if you do anything unauthorized on someone else's computer, but what if it's a friend of yours, who you are playing a prank on? Why is it that when you do the most trivial of things on a computer it becomes a serious crime, while pranks in the physical world wouldn't even be serious enough to get the cops to drive to the scene?

You mention posting source code. I have to wonder what's so horrific about it. the only thing it really does is to give skilled programmers the ability to modify a program their purchased, which is legal AFAIK. It's not as if anyone can start selling their own versions with that source code, and it's not as if anyone's customer base is going to be compiling a project from source, rather than buying the boxed product. So, I fail to see where the massive harm is. Maybe it should be illegial to do that, but I can't believe what a serious crime it has become.

There are lots of contradictions like that in current laws. It might be legal to download music, but illegial to share it... Well if nobody shares it, nobody can download it. It's illegial to publish a program to crack copy protection, but legal for an owner to use that illegially published tool to make backups of their program.

As far as insecure boxes go, the laws are Stalin-eque... You can't even port-scan a machine legally anymore! Using the latest known exploit to break-in, then wasting the person's bandwidth (or anything else) would not be cheered-on by anyone on /. However, breaking-in using a years-old exploit does tend to get a "they deserve it" response, mainly because their refusal to secure themselves makes the network worse for all of us.

The moral of all of this? You should really try harder to differentiate more than just "legal and illegal". There are many things illegial that are ok, and many things legal that are very bad.

Awhile back...

[teamhasnoi]

the Walmart photo website had a digital senior moment, and exchanged all of my photos with some random family's photos. My photos were of no consequence, (copies of product photos for work) but the photos they were replaced with were a window on a very poor family who lived in a trailer, had a t-topped Firebird up on blocks, and were suffering from poor dental hygiene.

There were about thirty-some shots that were all stereotypical 'poor southern family'. Very odd, and a little sad, until you realized that they were genuinely smiling in every picture.

Interesting stories played out in my head about this family until I got my boring pics back.

Re:Awhile back...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, I remember your pictures, they were boring.

Oh, and that Thunderbird in the yard runs Linux. Oh yea, I went there...

Re:Awhile back...

[grazzy]

Only in the land of the free, where a family can be "very poor" and still own a digital camera.

You should start digicam-bombing people instead. Food is soo 1990.

Re:Awhile back...

[Feanturi]

Yep, $10 to $20 in that range. Digital doesn't mean 'expensive' anymore.

What about model releases?

[fmaxwell]

It's also a bad idea because he has no model releases from anyone in the photos. Any one of them could bring a lawsuit against him.

Re:What about model releases?

[Zebbers]

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.

Re:What about model releases?

[Lumpy]

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".

This happened to me, sorta.

[John Courtland]

I was in Baton Rouge, LA. My car was having some problems with the AC and I stopped in at a Ford Dealer (Autobahn Ford) to get my R-12 recharged. Someone there took my Canon Powershot S30 with my IBM CompactFlash 384MB drive. Fucking redneck assholes. I should have beat the shit out of the inbred fucks working there, but that's a different story for a different day.

Regardless of how pissed I am at losing a $400 camera to a couple of asshats, I had some photos of my then girlfriend in various comprimising positions. To keep this brief, if I saw photos of her on the internet, bad things would happen to all involved. I wouldn't be surprised that if some of the images on that card are more personal, and if the owners get a glance, someone is gonna get hurt bad.

Re:This happened to me, sorta.

[raehl]

I had some photos of my then girlfriend in various comprimising positions

Now we *KNOW* you're lying.

Re:This happened to me, sorta.

[Slashamatic]

I had some photos of my then girlfriend in various comprimising positions

Now we *KNOW* you're lying.

If the compromising position was deflated then not necessarily!

Re:This happened to me, sorta.

[RogL]

asshat
n.
one who leaves his $400 camera (with personal porn) in the vehicle when taking it to a repair shop.

Absolute Scumbags

[LinuxBlah]

What would you do if you found someone's digital media card from their camera in your taxi

I would do what I would expect any decent person to do....give it to the driver and tell him someone left this behind. I can't image the sense of violation the owner will feel once identified. The scumbags putting these up for the world to see will face civil culpability almost certainly. IMHO they also belong behind bars, but I doubt this will happen. Now I eagerly await the flurry of posts along the lines of "Hey, they forgot the memory card so they deserve their private photos posted on the internet". This is Slashdot after all.

that sorority girl loves linux?!

[AresTheImpaler]

ok look at this picture. The girl in the left side with the with skirt has a tag that says says that she loves linux! It has 3 pictures of tux! oh wait... it seems it says "I love delta delta delta".... or is it?

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[Anonymous Coward]

The point isn't that they should receive the money. The point is that the person who's being an antisocial asshole deserves to LOSE it. After that, the person he wronged might as well get it.

Like Homer Simpson says...

[DriedClexler]

It's funny because you don't know the person.

The Victims

[ravenspear]

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.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[tempest2i]

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!

Huge copyright issues and no fair use at all.

[dameron]

In preparation for opening a website lampooning politicians (DailyHaiku.com, I asked a friend who is an intellectual property lawyer for some advice on what would constitute fair use for the photos we were planning on appropriating from the AP and other such sources.

His advice was pretty telling. While we had a good fair use argument, he indicated we would most likely run into legal problems anyway with model releases for people who weren't public figures, and even some politicians (like Arnold Schwarzenegger hotly contest their public figure status regarding copyright.

As it is we had to go strictly with photographs in the public domain (and thankfully almost everything the federal government produces counts) or expressly granted for general use.

Posting entire found pictures (actually an entire collection), especially if used with a profit motive, with no permission from the photographer and the subjects is just asking for an incredibly brutal pounding in court.

-dameron

Still waiting for my C&D from Dick Cheney...

Re:Huge copyright issues and no fair use at all.

[Eloquence]

This is largely off-topic, so I'll be brief. Please contribute to the Wikimedia Commons, which was born out of Wikipedia and other projects by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is a repository of free media to be used by our projects and others. We just started, but once we have aggregated all our images in one place, there'll be quite a lot of free (as in speech) images of politicians that you can use.

Next time a celebrity is in town, take a photo and upload it here.

Am I the only one that thinks this?

[JWeinraub]

I for one think this whole thing is bullshit. I believe he actually does own the memory card and pretending to have nicked it. What kind of person has the time to play with someone elses memory card? If I found it, I'd just put all of them up at once in a web gallery for all to see. Why the silliness?

Re:Am I the only one that thinks this?

[Bricklets]

I for one think this whole thing is bullshit. I believe he actually does own the memory card and pretending to have nicked it. What kind of person has the time to play with someone elses memory card? If I found it, I'd just put all of them up at once in a web gallery for all to see. Why the silliness?

This coming from someone who wastes time posting on slashdot. ;-) But it looks like the pictures are of someone attending Vanderbilt, not exactly an unknown school. The guy will find out about this blog soon enough (or in your case, he get exposed soon enough)

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[tepples]

But why do people think they deserve money for something like this?

Distributing copyrighted works without permission, especially unpublished copyrighted works straight out of a camera, can result in severe statutory damages.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[metlin]

The point is that what this person is doing is wrong. Taking another's property (no matter where you found it) is simply illegal. And using it in any way that the person would not approve of is definitely wrong (and now you would be telling me that the person who posted this stuff would not mind his pics being posted?).

It's not being greedy - for having done something like this, I'd like to see the other person suffer. The idea of sending a man to prison is not to make others feel happy - it's to make HIM feel bad and pay for his crime. Whether or not it works is a different issue, the idea is that you are punished for your actions.

Duh, I can't help it if you have an idea that taking a person to court is merely for my monetary benefit. That's YOUR flawed thinking, nowhere in my post did I suggest so. I merely said I'd sue this person for his wrongful act.

Is there anything in wanting to take a person to court because s/he posted my pics? And ofcourse, the brilliant Slashdot mods will moderate it down because nobody ever stops to think for a moment what the post really meant.

Sheesh.

Re:Amsterdam..

[raju1kabir]

Slightly over-the-hill women from Thailand and Surinam stand in them wearing unflattering negligees and smoking mini-cigars. Packs of drunken English lager louts stumble by and dare the youngest, most naive lad among them to go inside, which he does. Fifteen minutes later he emerges, shellshocked and dead sober. When he gets home to Gormless Crescent he resolves never to drink with those boys again.

Because thats all people understand

[Stone316]

Unfortunately in todays society people really don't understand the consequences of their actions unless its associated with a dollar value. Money is an excellent deterent.

You could always DMCA the bastard.

[raehl]

The copyright on the pictures is owned by whoever took them. I'd imagine whoever posted them might owe the owner of the memory stick a few bucks. Hopefully that guy has a sense of humor.

Re:You could always DMCA the bastard.

[mkldev]

And they would know the person's address how? For that matter, they would know the person's -name- how?

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.

Re:You could always DMCA the bastard.

[mpmansell]

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

Re:You could always DMCA the bastard.

[SlamMan]

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)

Re:You could always DMCA the bastard.

[SlamMan]

You never lose title to something after is been lost. I can lose a diamond now, and if I can proved 70 years from now its mine, its still my diamond, and whomever has it has to give it back to me.

Re:You could always DMCA the bastard.

[dougmc]

He "lost" the photos.

You assume. He could very well have copied the files from somewhere else to the digital media card.

It's unlikely, I know, but you can't assume that this is the only copy of the pictures.

Re:You could always DMCA the bastard.

[unitron]

"Maybe the blogger is the cabbie. Hmm?"

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).

begin paste

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

end paste

Of course anything involving Vanilla Ice was bound to end badly so it's just as well.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[cei]

Well, there's the copyright issue, for one... Any picture taken is, by default, owned by the person who took it, even if it's not registered with the copyright office. Distribution of said photos, without consent is a straightforward copyright breech. I don't even think it could fall under the parody clause, necessarily, but I haven't read the blog to see how funny or ironic it might be. It certainly doesn't fall under the fair use doctrine, particularly if you consider the contents of one memory stick to be a single collection of work, which is how the blogger is treating this.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[Tablizer]

But why do people think they deserve money for something like this? What have they lost? Mental suffering? Bullshit.

Obviously you are not from California.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[Anonymous Coward]

This woman "Dianne" in the blog is found here from the Vanderbilt Kappa Delta site. Here name is...well, you can figure it out.

Know the law or shut up

[shoolz]

This post could be an attack on the above post, or a defence. Why not find out for yourself?

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 /. debate about property and transmission law.

Be sure to check the laws that govern your country.

Disappointed

[pavera]

First off I found the site very funny. Now reading the posts here, I'm very disappointed that I live in a country where everyone's first reaction to this seems to be "I'd sue the bastard" or "put him in jail".

Yes the guy who found the card should attempt to find the real owner, what better way? If he posted a few pics on the net, it would never get enough notoriaty to be found. Its a memory card, its not like there is an address and phone number on it. The cabby wouldn't be able to find the person, the person I'm sure doesn't know where exactly they lost it, and wouldn't be able to remember the cab companies name either. The cops would just junk it. This is the only way the real owner can get his pictures back.

Yes, in a way this is copyright infringment, but geeze, for a place that is sooo against musicians being able to keep people from copying things they actually make money off of, this guys pics seem like a bizarre hypocrisy to try to protect. It's not like he's a pro, or that he was gonna sell these pictures for money.

People here posting that this guy should be put in jail, or fined, or sued... well just chill out. He's having fun, I had a good laugh, and its actually possible that the real owner will get his pictures back, whereas if the poster didn't post them in this manner there is basically 0% chance that would happen.

Re:Disappointed

[pocopoco]

Agreed. The blog writer even mentions he wants the owner to get his pictures back at the top of every single page in that header poem with the line:
"Maybe you will come here and reclaim this piece of your life."

Re:Disappointed

[palndrumm]

Its a memory card, its not like there is an address and phone number on it.

Surely I'm not the only one to put my name and phone number on my various memory cards, just in case something like this happens? Not that it'll guarantee I'll ever see them again if I lose them, but at least whoever finds them would have the chance to ring me up to have a laugh or try and blackmail me or whatever...

Re:Disappointed

[Sipos]

I don't really have a problem with him copying the pictures in the usual copytright sense but he has given out something that the photographer did not intend to publically display. If these were my pictures I would be pleased with the site. It is funny and as a creative work it is valuable but realesing photos like this into the public is something that can never be undone. What if the author wanted them to be kept private (unlikly in this case I would say since the few that I have seen are taken in public places). You can not say for certain how the photographer feels about this and it should be his decision. If you can't ask him you shouldn't display them.

Re:Disappointed

[oojah]

> 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

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[karniv0re]

What have they lost?

Well, a memory card for one.

Re:That's a little more grey.

[tftp]

It's clear that the vast majority of the people in the pictures are posing for the pictures

They may be posing, but not for you. They have a very strong case against the blogger.

Additionally, most of the pictures are in public. There probably isn't a whole lot of expectation that your picture won't be taken/distributed if you're posing for a picture in public.

There is a very reasonable expectation if you don't see any unauthorized photographer close to you. We are not talking about spy cameras here, these are decent quality pictures taken either on private property, or with flash in darkness.

If you think this is evil,

[karniv0re]

Check out Fusker. Especially the photos from Photobucket and Live Journal. Those are worth checking out.

Re:If you think this is evil,

[hai.uchida]

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.

Welcome to Blackmail!

[skinfitz]

Hello and welcome to Blackmail! The way this works is we post once picture a day, but at any time you can email our hot..er.line and pay the amount of money listed at the bottom of the page to have the pictures removed.

Each day the price doubles...

With kudos to Python

Re:Possession is 9 10ths of the law

[tftp]

most Taxi companies have a disclaimer that they are not responcible for your stuff.

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.

The Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players

[IvyMike]

Reminds me of "The Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players". From their web site:

The TRACHTENBURG FAMILY SLIDESHOW PLAYERS are an indie-vaudeville conceptual art-rock pop band. We take vintage slide collections that have been found at estate sales,garage sales,thrift stores,etc., and turn the lives of annonymous strangers into pop-rock musical exposes based on the contents of these slide collections.

It's a little weirder than it sounds.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[Txiasaeia]

Are you kidding me? If I left a roll of film around (cuz I don't have digital), somebody developed it, & turned it into a blog with a funny story attached to it, i'd think it were freaking hilarious! I'd want the pictures back, of course, but as long as they weren't crude about it, I could really care less.

it is NOT the same as the physical world

[circletimessquare]

you can steal a car, or a book, or a bike... or a camera, to stay on topic

but the endless and effortless copying of electronic bits is not "stealing" in that you deprive someone of something that is there property, something solid, physical, made of atoms

now i'm not condoning kazaa, nor marching down the "information wants to be free, man" technoanarchist's tired rant

but what i am saying is that what you are talking about is not stealing at all, and it is most definitely NOT the same as the physical world

what it is is something entirely new and different, and atoms are not bits, and they are subject to different rules and interpretations

what are those rules?

i don't know, but neither should you pretend to know either

because all those people who say "it's very simple" are very wrong

it's not a simple problem, really, it's not, and our whole cultural and legal standards about online behavior with bits instead of atoms is something we're all just beginning to come to terms with, and it is very complex, and very new

anyone who says it is very simple, or says it is just like the physical world, just doesn't get it, at all, in a very fundamental way, and they are not helping the situation in the least with their stubborn brittle attitude that refuses to understand when something is very different and alien to traditional cultural and legal interpretations

now i am not saying what this guy who found the camera did does not have negative real world traditional legal and cultural implications, and he also has dubious online cyberbehavior problems as well

and music pirates and script kiddies are not helping the situation

but also this: your simplistic kneejerk unthinking attitude about online behavior isn't helping either, not in the least

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[mt-biker]

It's not being greedy - for having done something like this, I'd like to see the other person suffer. The idea of sending a man to prison is not to make others feel happy - it's to make HIM feel bad and pay for his crime. Whether or not it works is a different issue, the idea is that you are punished for your actions.

Are you sure about that? I always thought the idea of punishments was to deter actual and potential offenders?

You'd like to see the other person suffer? That's rather small of you. Personally, I'd like to think that the intent of the law is to reduce suffering...

Damm Proctologist

[baywulf]

That is the last time I'll every trust my proctologist again...

Regards,
Arthur Goatse.cx, Sr

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[orcrist]

how many taxi drivers do you know that are smart enough to create a blog, making the images smaller for display, and witty enough to go and make up a story on it?

Ummmm, how many taxi drivers do you know at all? I have a good friend who's a Taxi driver and he's very intelligent; just not motivated enough to do something else for a living. Among his colleagues there are quite a few very intelligent guys, who have various reasons for driving a taxi: Some are students (it's perfect for the flexible hours), at least 2 I've met are even PhD's in purely academic fields (i.e. no big job opportunities); one was like a PhD in Music Theory or something and plays in a Folk Music group, which isn't lucrative enough to make a living, but he loves it. Okay, this is in Germany, but I think this applies elsewhere too.

-chris

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[Anonymous Coward]

Her tag says Lindsey. And the treasurer of Kappa-Delta is named Lindsey Herrel http://www.vanderbilt.edu/KappaDelta/. Apparently she is the organiser of the local dance maraton: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/dance_marathon/. Some slashdotters should go there and check it out for us.

Copyright isn't the only problem.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

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.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[digital photo]

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*

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[smacktits]

Yes, I agree with that. Here in Scotland I know a guy with a PhD in theoretical physics who drives a cab simply because in this country there are not many opportunities for theoretical physicists.

There was also a big story in the news here recently about a geneticist who gave up his amazingly crappy paid research job to become a gas fitter, for double or treble the money. it is the same principle, I would imagine.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[Anonymous Writer]

I can understand being mad, wanting an apology, and wanting the blog aken down, and maybe criminal proceedings if any laws were broken. But why do people think they deserve money for something like this?

They deserve to ask for punitive damages to punish and deter people from commiting these kinds of acts. And an extreme amount of public exposure can bring all sorts of problems like stalkers and death threats. There are a lot of loons out there that will target someone simply for being well-known publicly. Someone in that kind of a position will need security. Who is going to pay for it? If a person receiving a great deal of public exposure isn't someone like an actor who actually recieves an income relative to that exposure, then what financial recourse do they have to protect themself from the reprocussions?

What have they lost?

They have lost their privacy. Having pictures posted on the internet against one's will is an invasion of privacy, especially if it gets Slashdotted. Remember the Star Wars Kid? He and his family weren't too happy about all that and took the parents of the kids that put his video on the net to court. They didn't want any part of the internt cult status the practical joke had given him and would have preferred not to have him humiliated with that kind of exposure.

Even if these photos are taken down by the poster, they could already have been copied and circulated around the net, just like the Star Wars Kid. And just because you're not doing anything wrong in a photo doesn't mean your privacy should be left to others to toy with and take away. Isn't privacy a fundamental right?

Mental suffering?

Something like this can indeed cause mental suffering. Have you ever heard of social phobia? It is a very real anxiety disorder, and someone with such a condition could be severely traumatised if they had their privacy invaded with all the internet as an audience, even if the photos were innocuous.

What if a photo of yourself in an embarassing situation had been circulated on the net without your consent? A practical joke between friends is one thing, but letting a worldwide audience through the internet see it is another and can cause extreme humiliation and mental suffering.

Those of you bitching about copyright:

[Kiryat Malachi]

How does this differ from Found Magazine, a magazine which consists entirely of snippets of people's lives found lying around discarded or lost?

While the actions might be (since apparently the blogger actually does own the card) illegal or immoral, the end result was an interesting idea for something that is, essentially, a piece of art, and seeing the originator prosecuted would be a sad day.

Finding the owner back

[sita]

Yes the guy who found the card should attempt to find the real owner, what better way? ... The cabby wouldn't be able to find the person, ...

I don't know about how it works where he is from, but in my town, there's a good chance that you pay the cabbie with a credit card. Also, the card was probably lost the same day or the day before, so there is a chance that the cabbie could remember a face or an address.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[Anonymous Coward]

"The idea of sending a man to prison is not to make others feel happy - it's to make HIM feel bad and pay for his crime."

Replied:
"You'd like to see the other person suffer? That's rather small of you. Personally, I'd like to think that the intent of the law is to reduce suffering..."

Alternative:
The purpose of punishment is the hope that it will cause the individual to repent. Once they realise they have done wrong, they can take steps to make sure they don't do it again. If they never accept their wrong-doing, they cannot get better.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[ThinWhiteDuke]

I'd like to see the other person suffer

Wow, that's a statement. Too bad you weren't born in the 15th century, the Spanish Inquisition had a perfect job for you.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[llin]

Thanks for posting the direct links, didn't realize until after I posted that the blog admin had removed the comment. Now that's rather unsporting. (the rest of the convsersation is still interesting. Also, there's a mention of "Diane's" real name, Lindsey, in the comments still)

Re:Proof it's a hoax

[Arcady13]

Her button has three Delta symbols; "I love delta delta delta."

Duh?

Real Men

[logic hack]

Real men don't keep backups, they lose them in a taxi and mirror them on the internet.

The American Way

[synapz]

Nowhere else in the world would anybody have much chance of suing just because they left some photos lying around and someone made fun of them and their 'jesus is my homeboy' hat. In america, a couple of lawyers will get fat for a year. Truly the greatest nation on earth.

I don't think this is funny ...

[l3v1]

... this being one's personal photos for god's sake. It's like you found someone private journal and published it page by page in a magazine or something.

With more then 200 photos ranging along a year's time one could easily gather some clues which could lead to 1. the owner, 2. someone who knows the owner.

Instead of doing some research and making someone happy for finding the lost pictures, this guy places them widely available.

I wouldn't sue the guy for doing this. I would kick his ass flat.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[jjares]

The idea of sending a man to prison is not to make others feel happy - it's to make HIM feel bad and pay for his crime.
The idea of sending a person to prison is to give him an education, show him where he was wrong and make him an usefull contribution to society. Your view is plainly inhuman and wrong.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[lewp]

That was unexpected.

Asymmetric laws *can* make sense

[Dogtanian]

It might be legal to download music, but illegial to share it... Well if nobody shares it, nobody can download it.

This might be a stupid idea; or it might not.

Since they are two sides of the same coin, the act we wish to prevent is basically downloading/sharing. Making one illegal, but not the other shifts the emphasis of responsibility for the 'combined act' onto one party. This may be more practical in terms of law enforcement (better to prosecute one sharer than many downloaders).

In other cases with similar 'contradictions', such asymmetry may have the effect of protecting one party (e.g. if you simply made it a crime for an underage child to have sexual intercourse with an adult, you may be setting up the situation where a 14-year old is in danger of being blackmailed by a 40-year old, for fear of prosecution; and criminalising the 14-year old would almost certainly go against the spirit of the law).

Offtopic Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought the idea of punishments was to deter actual and potential offenders?

There are several purposes, actually.

Yes, one is deterrence. You hope that, by instituting undesirable consequences for a particular behavior, you'll discourage people from doing it. Another purpose is punishment -- to correct a single individual's behavior by imposing said consequences. Yet another purpose is to provide some relief for the victim, his/her family, and society at large. To put it another way, society exacts retribution in order to prevent vigilantism.

How to get your digital card back

[scumpacom]

This is why I make the first image on my media cards be one that displays my contact information and then I lock it so it won't be erased accidentally.

Rethinking things

[OhHellWithIt]

I put my name and phone number on the back of my CF cards, on the theory that if I lose one, some nice person might call me up, arrange to return it, and receive monetary thanks equivalent to his postage and a significant portion of the value of the media.

Now I'm rethinking my strategy. Maybe I should erase that information. I'd hate for someone to post my photos of my life AND my name!

I bought a keydrive that had stuff on it

[chiph]

I bought a USB keydrive at a computer show that still had stuff on it. The previous owner was apparantly a geologist working for various petroleum companies. He had some powerpoint slides in there that had his email address, so I was able to get in touch with him and send him a CDR with his files on it (he had already bought a replacement device). He didn't say how he lost/misplaced the drive -- might have actually been a cab or airport shuttle.

If the drive had contained photos, would I have posted them on the Internet? No, because they wouldn't have belonged to me. Would I have looked at them? Yes, I'm as curious as the next guy.

Chip H.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[SlamMan]

"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.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[op00to]

Um, how does the creator know that the original owner didn't LEAVE the pictures in a taxi to be discovered? Found art?

Oh fucking please

[Moraelin]

There is nothing technically innovative about posting some pictures in a fucking retarded blog. _What_ is the technical innovation there?

Now maybe if he was running Linux and Apache on a Dreamcast, with an ISCSI hard drive over the DC's broadband addapter (which is basically an Ethernet card), now _that_ would be technical innovation.

But "oh look, I can post pics on the net" stopped being new and original some 20 years ago. Any kiddie can just use pre-made software they don't even understand to get some text and pics on the net. Heck, nowadays you don't even need to know HTML to do that, as the software will do that for you.

So _all_ that is left is an asshole who thought it would be cool to (A) steal someone else's property, and (B) violate their privacy using the whole Internet as an audience.

And you know what? Even _if_ there was any technical innovation in there (but there isn't), there is no ammount of it which can justify the evil act. There are better way to showcase _any_ technical solution than raping someone's privacy.

And I'm not in the USA, and I too thought I'd sue the hell out of the fucktard.

Now _I_ wouldn't necessarily want his money. I'd just want him hurt so badly, people would cringe at the mere thought of such a stunt for the next 100 years. I'd want the asshole impaled and left there to bleed and die over several hours.

But since that's not an option, I'd probably sue for such a sum that he'd never see the end of the tunnel for the rest of his life. Then donate the money to some charity. Because, as I've said, I don't want his money, I just want him in a world of hurt.

Re:An awful violation of the law

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Bonehead,

The camera was purchased.

The media wasn't lost; it was included in the purchase of that camera.

The images weren't lost; they were included on the media.

Your argument is akin to "I bought this MS-Win2K CD from Comp-USA, and it had MS-Win2K on it!"
Oh, the DATA on that CD isn't included with the purchase of that media. REGARDLESS that the SELLER should have a REASONABLE EXPECTATION that there was data on them, you can't prove he did, and YOU should GO to JAIL."

Nonsense. If something is purchased "as-is", the door swings both ways.

For his sake

[Darthmalt]

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.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[Jim_Maryland]

IANAL

Found this site LawGuru Copyright defined.

Excerpt:

13.- 7. Requisites after the grant. No person shall be entitled to the benefitof this act, unless he shall give information of copyright being secured,by-causing to be inserted, in the several copies of each and every editionpublished during the term secured, on the title page, or the page immediatelyfollowing, if it be a book, or, if a map, chart, musical composition, print,cut, or engraving, by causing to be impressed on the face thereof, or ifa volume of maps, charts, music or engravings, upon the title or frontispicethereof, the following words, viz: " Entered according to act of congress,in the year by A. B., in the clerk"s office of the district court of ___________________"(as the case may be.)

The owner of the media likely did not insert any copyright notice into the media (either by labeling the media or posting in the media contents). I'm not sure that copyright applies here. Now going to a personal example, my church has Ollan Mills (photo company) take family photos for the church directory. The company also offers the photos for sale to the family. When looking at past photos before deciding to make a purchase, I asked if I could get the photo without a little overlay of the Ollan Mills logo. The photographer said that I couldn't have the photo without that mark as they copyright all their photos by including the logo (which does include a (C)).

I guess I'm not convinced that the media owner really has a copyright on the material if they never showed intention to copyright.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[SlamMan]

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 &#169; symbol is not necessary, its more of a reminder.
----
Comments by squigit, &#169; 2004

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[NemosomeN]

13.- 7. Requisites after the grant. No person shall be entitled to the benefitof this act, unless he shall give information of copyright being secured,by-causing to be inserted, in the several copies of each and every editionpublished during the term secured, on the title page, or the page immediatelyfollowing, if it be a book, or, if a map, chart, musical composition, print,cut, or engraving, by causing to be impressed on the face thereof, or ifa volume of maps, charts, music or engravings, upon the title or frontispicethereof, the following words, viz: " Entered according to act of congress,in the year by A. B., in the clerk"s office of the district court of ___________________"(as the case may be.)

This was supersceded by the Berne Convention; declaring copyright is no long necessary.
IANALBIPOOSD

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[orkysoft]

Music Theory has been worthless ever since Bach's Cathedral was built!

Well it's funny because...

[Ayanami Rei]

if you look, he didn't post one picture per day to cover the 35 pictures per day already up... There were a bunch of stuff in the beginning of august flirting with doing just a top ten, with a few pictures unnumbered... and it jumps from sept 9 to august 30.

So maybe the person got the idea to make it an april fools day joke after already starting the blog?

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[gravteck]

I go to school there (Vanderbilt). The dance marathon is actually a legitimate charity event that a fairly good number of people actually go to. I showed these pictures to one of my roommates and he actually knows some of the guys. I wonder if I added a link of this site in my instant messaging profile if the owner would soon find out about it due to a small number of degrees of separation... hmm.... Or if it was a farce, he'd get even more publicity from students here.

I was mistaken

[tepples]

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. But still, lawyers can inflate actual damages, especially with respect to the rights of privacy and publicity.

Site has been taken down

[mattOzan]

Monday, September 20, 2004
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.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish

[KnarfO]

Just one more plug for the Dance Marathon - - it is a great program that does a lot to help sick kids in need.

Site removed?

[rusty_rusty_rusty]

The site appears to have been removed in the last 5 minutes.

Gone Gone Gone

[rueger]

7:11 PM - the site has disappeared.