Raymond Nakamura and Lisa Willemse, Multimedia subject editors
When we started thinking about this post, Lisa noted that there’s been a lot of chatter about credit for photographers and artists in blog posts, such as the ongoing discussion about Canadian-based I Fucking Love Science and its inconsistent practice of not acknowledging sources. Not only that, but Getty recently announced that it would make its image library available for free to registered bloggers.
We know this is an issue that encompasses just about every form of web content. Entire blog posts are copied and reposted without credit. But it seems much more prevalent with images and other multimedia, which are somehow considered less important than the almighty word. The question is, how are Canadian bloggers, artists, illustrators and multimedia producers affected, and what do they think of it?
So we put out the call for recent Canadian posts and/or comments on Twitter, Google+ and in some cases, via direct email. It didn’t take long to get responses.
First in was Glendon Mellow, who’s an expert on the topic having posted quite a bit about it. He sent a flurry of resources to follow up, some from his own blogs:
.@WillemseLA @ScienceBorealis @raymondsbrain Here are 2 of mine: http://t.co/uEPkKHknOI and more specific: http://t.co/auyOV8bV5E
— Glendon Mellow (@FlyingTrilobite) April 10, 2014
@WillemseLA @raymondsbrain I'm Canadian (#wavingfromtoronto) even if Symbiartic isn't Canadian enough for the @ScienceBorealis rss. 🙂
— Glendon Mellow (@FlyingTrilobite) April 10, 2014
@flyingtrilobite @willemsela @scienceborealis The "What if the Images Went Away" post was what I had been thinking of when we started this.
— Raymond K Nakamura (@raymondsbrain) April 10, 2014
@WillemseLA @raymondsbrain @ScienceBorealis May be worth asking the SONSI gang: http://t.co/hp0ADCszJN
— Glendon Mellow (@FlyingTrilobite) April 10, 2014
@WillemseLA @cartoon_physics @ScienceBorealis Or, form a Wild West style internet posse to go after abusers: http://t.co/WiJ6J4HVpH
— Glendon Mellow (@FlyingTrilobite) April 10, 2014
@WillemseLA @cartoon_physics @ScienceBorealis 3 Canadians answer here (Mellow, Damstra, Dylke): http://t.co/QlzqxY8nZ2
— Glendon Mellow (@FlyingTrilobite) April 10, 2014
The latter post offers some interesting perspectives from media creators about the use of their work online. But Glendon and his colleagues on the Symbiartic blog have clearly given this a great deal of thought, with posts about life as an artist online, the differences between images and video online and what science stories would be like without images. Other Canadians weighed in with their own thoughts:
@raymondsbrain depends on what you mean- straight plagiarism, or using clips, photos, quotes without prior authorization? Or fair use?
— Scott Unger (@scottu487) April 11, 2014
@raymondsbrain @WillemseLA No, but I'm such small potatoes that I suspect no-one knows it's there to pilfer it.
— Steph Taylor (@8CrayonScience) April 11, 2014
@raymondsbrain @WillemseLA On the flip side, part of the reason I do drawings is to avoid the hassle of finding imgs I can use w/o issue
— Steph Taylor (@8CrayonScience) April 11, 2014
Michael Urbanski of the Plain Language Science blog chimed in via email:
“Yes, my articles have been republished without my consent here and there – though usually with credit – and I’m mostly okay with that. For me, the issue of proprietary rights is rather complex. I find that more often than not, the discussions around this issue are founded on a very dubious notion of “private authorship”. But just who is this alleged “private person” if not an impersonal brain secretion? Surely, there is no such “private” or separate entity — we’re all in this together. So, when asked, I’m happy to share content Open Access-style.”
And still more from Eric Mills at Cartoon Physics:
@raymondsbrain @WillemseLA I've seen people argue fair use–I don't think that applies here. Fair use requires that the work be used in a…
— Eric Mills (@cartoon_physics) April 11, 2014
@raymondsbrain @WillemseLA …new way. If an image was created to illustrate science, using it in a scicomm article isn't fair use. …
— Eric Mills (@cartoon_physics) April 11, 2014
@raymondsbrain @WillemseLA … Attribution/linking back is a bare minimum; asking permission is better.
— Eric Mills (@cartoon_physics) April 11, 2014
Solutions? Are there any? We wanted to know about this too.
@FlyingTrilobite @ScienceBorealis @raymondsbrain Great! Do you think what Getty has done re: free images to embed will help artists at all?
— Lisa Willemse (@WillemseLA) April 10, 2014
@WillemseLA @ScienceBorealis @raymondsbrain That is a Big Question. I think IMGembed is more likely.
— Glendon Mellow (@FlyingTrilobite) April 10, 2014
@FlyingTrilobite @raymondsbrain Agreed. & also more thought by editors about source and how they recognize. Often images are last minute
— Lisa Willemse (@WillemseLA) April 10, 2014
@WillemseLA @raymondsbrain YES THAT HAPPENS TOO OFTEN Oh sorry I should use my indoor voice.
— Glendon Mellow (@FlyingTrilobite) April 10, 2014
@willemsela @flyingtrilobite @scienceborealis Ideas around copyright, creative commons, and acknowledgement are evolving.
— Raymond K Nakamura (@raymondsbrain) April 10, 2014
@WillemseLA There will have to be a bit of a shakeout to a new standard, the way YouTube is for vid. See(unCanadian): http://t.co/XR3Ff4XqTp
— Glendon Mellow (@FlyingTrilobite) April 10, 2014
So Lisa gave IMGembed a try, just to see how it worked:
@FlyingTrilobite @ScienceBorealis @raymondsbrain Just used IMGembed in a post w/ image I have rights for. Some kinks. http://t.co/vTQqNDQRZS
— Lisa Willemse (@WillemseLA) April 11, 2014
@FlyingTrilobite @ScienceBorealis @raymondsbrain and even this is not ideal: hard to credit when artist is hired by or works for an org
— Lisa Willemse (@WillemseLA) April 11, 2014
Another facet of this story, beyond lines of embedded code, is greater awareness. We got some great thoughts on this:
@cartoon_physics @raymondsbrain I don't think many bloggers (myself included) have thought about it to this degree. How to open dialogue?
— Lisa Willemse (@WillemseLA) April 11, 2014
@WillemseLA @raymondsbrain reverse image search can often track down a site w/ contact email. I don't want to speak for others but I …
— Eric Mills (@cartoon_physics) April 11, 2014
@WillemseLA @raymondsbrain … think most sciart ppl are happy to give bloggers permission, and possibly more–a preferred link, …
— Eric Mills (@cartoon_physics) April 11, 2014
@WillemseLA @raymondsbrain … a better resolution, even suggesting a more suitable image. Working together makes better #scicomm
— Eric Mills (@cartoon_physics) April 11, 2014
@cartoon_physics @raymondsbrain unfortunate that media producers need track down offenders in order to protect their livelihood. But…
— Lisa Willemse (@WillemseLA) April 12, 2014
@cartoon_physics @raymondsbrain I think there is more awareness now and changes will give more credit and/ payment. At least I hope so.
— Lisa Willemse (@WillemseLA) April 12, 2014
Obviously this conversation is just a small part of a much broader community discussion – your thoughts and experiences with multimedia and image usage online are welcome in the comments below, or via twitter to Raymond (@raymondsbrain) or Lisa (@WillemseLA).
I think awareness is definitely an issue. Most *assume* that it is okay to use an image as long as the credit is given. But in fact that is not okay unless the author state that is the case specifically on the website/source. I have seen too many examples where I found the source that states no usage specifically, yet a blogger uses the image (sometimes even without credit). I think the embed with a code method is good and that’s the legal way to do it (like embedding a tweet). Not sure if it will catch on though…fingers crossed.
But definitely see the need for better awareness.