Dear Politicians: At Least Close Those Porn Tabs Before Sending Out Your Campaign Screenshots

from the pron dept

We all know the internet is for porn, right? But the implication in that age-old internet commandment is that it's for porn and nothing else. But that's not true! The internet is also for cats, for business-ing, for Techdirt, and for political messages. But what you really shouldn't do is mix any of those formers with the latter, which it appears is what congressional candidate Mike Webb did on his Facebook page.

What you might miss if you're not really paying attention is the open tabs Webb included in his screenshot: "Ivone sexy amateur" and "Layla Rivera tight booty." Some might point out that those tabs could be anything, which would be both silly and easily refuted. Both are porn. And, hey, maybe they are good porn. After all, it's not like the revelation that an aspiring politician enjoys nudity should be shocking to us. Still, this is usually when said politician would go into run-and-hide mode, deleting posts and claiming hacks and whatnot. To his credit, Webb is not doing any of this. He actually re-posted the image in an updated post. However, he explains away the open porn tabs in terms that essentially amount to him being the Sherlock of porn-related malware.

The explanation is 2,000 words long. It does not make a huge amount of sense, but apparently blames the pornographic images on an experiment Webb was performing to see whether or not someone was using malware embedded on porn sites to infect electoral candidates with malware that would prevent them from filing their candidacy before the deadline.

Maybe. It’s honestly hard to parse. Webb writes, in part: “Curious by nature, I wanted to test the suggestion that somehow, lurking out in the pornographic world there is some evil operator waiting for the one in a gazillion chance that a candidate for federal office would go to that particular website and thereby be infected with a virus that would cause his or her FEC [federal election commission] data file to crash the FECfile application each time that it was loaded on the day of the filing deadline, as well as impact other critical campaign systems.

Sure, okay. You weren't jacking it, you were testing out a theory of malware delivered specifically to congressional candidates through weaponized porn videos. I'll give Webb credit: my head is spinning after trying to put the logic together that would make any of his explanation possible.

It's probably a wasted effort. Mr. Webb, just mind your browser tabs next time, mmkay?

Filed Under: mike webb, politics, porn, porn tabs, screenshots

Author Of Book About Android UI Told He Needs To Get Copyright Signoffs To Use Any App Screenshots

from the fair-use? dept

We've talked in the past about just how ridiculous publishers are when it comes to doing something like quoting a song in a book. The publishers apparently have no appetite for standing up for the fair use rights of their authors, so they just refuse unless you get a license for absolutely everything, even when it's clearly and obviously fair use. In the latest example of this kind of insanity, it appears that Wiley -- a publisher who already has a reputation as a maximalist -- is telling the author of a book about Android's UI, Juhani Lehitmaki, that he can't rely on fair use to post screenshots of any apps. Instead, it's requiring that he get approval from each and every app developer. Lehitmaki has gone on Google+ seeking permission from a long list of developers:

I need a little bit help with my book stuff and thought to ask it from all of you awesome people here at G+. I'm in a bit difficult situation in the finishing it. I have been in belief that using screenshots of apps as examples of the platform functionality is covered under fair use but apparently I was wrong.

So now I need to acquire permission to use screenshot of different apps I've used so I can keep them in. So if you or someone you know are the copyright holder of any of the following brands / apps or know who to contact please let me know.

He then lists out 22 apps (down to 21 once he got permission from one):

* Google android apps
* SPB Shell 3D (by SPB Software)
* SlideIT Keyboard (by DASUR LTD.)
* Siine Keyboard (by Siine Ltd)
* GO Launcher (by GO LAUNCHER DEV TEAM)
* Evernote android apps
* Twitter android app
* Gameloft android apps
* Tiny Flashlight + LED (by Nikolay Ananiev)
* Able Remote (by ENTERTAILION LLC)
* TED (by TED Conferences)
* Gigbeat - Concerts (by GIGBEAT, INC.)
* TouristEye - Travel Guide (by Tourist Eye)
* Winamp android app
* Pulse News (by ALPHONSO LABS)
* Songkick Concerts (by SONGKICK.COM, INC.)
* Prixing - Scanner & comparer (by PRIXING)
* Catch Notes Notepad (by Catch.com)
* Sony, Android skin
* Samsung, Android skin
* HTC, Android skin
[edit: removed the ones I'm already in contact with. Thank you!]

He notes that all of the screenshots are used as examples of good UI design and are clearly credited. In other words, in each case, the app is portrayed positively.

Here's the thing: he should be pissed off at Wiley for totally failing him as a publisher and being obnoxiously unwilling to stand up for their author. Using screenshots in this manner is fair use. No question. I can't see how any intellectually honest person could go through the four factor test and not find that using screenshots in a book like this are fair use. Wiley should back up their author, but they don't, because they're too scared of a lawsuit and apparently don't have the guts to stand up for fair use rights. It's shameful, and should be a warning to any author not to sign on with Wiley. Why bother signing on with a publisher who makes you go through a silly wasteful exercise like this?

In fact, I'd imagine that many of the app developers are similarly inconvenienced by this process of now having to give Juhani permission. Of course they want their apps featured, but now they have to fill out some sort of release or license just to make Wiley's lawyers happy. This process inconveniences absolutely everyone. Wiley should be ashamed.

Filed Under: android, copyright, fair use, juhani lehitmaki, publishers, screenshots
Companies: wiley

Who Gets The Copyright On The Photo Of A Beaten Gaddafi, Captured Off A Cameraphone

from the copyfraud? dept

The AFP news agency (with its partner Getty) has a bit of a history with some rather odd copyright claims. You may recall the lawsuit that AFP was involved in after it yanked photos from Twitpic of the devastation after the Haiti earthquake without permission, credited the wrong photographer and uploaded them to Getty. Amazingly, once the real photographer called out AFP for this, AFP sued the photographer... and lost big time.

You might think this would lead AFP and Getty to be a bit more careful in how they attribute photographs and claim copyright over them... especially on breaking news stories. And yet... you might have heard how ex-Libyan dictator Gaddafi was caught and killed yesterday. You also might have heard that his capture and beating were captured on video by some of the rebel soldiers who helped capture and kill him. Now, the pictures and video can be pretty graphic, so don't click on the following link if you're a bit squeamish. It's a link to a Getty Images page of a screen capture of the mobile phone video. In the info, however, the cameraphone operator is not named. If you can't see that, it's the metadata beneath the photo, which notes that it's a video grab from a mobile phone of a National Transitional Council (NTC) fighter... but then says that the credit, if anyone uses the image, should go to: "AFP PHOTO/PHILIPPE DESMAZES (Photo credit should read PHILIPPE DESMAZES/AFP/Getty Images)."

Now, to be fair, according to the AFP, Desmazes was, in fact, on the scene, and took a photo of the cameraphone screen to get the shot:

"I was covering the fall of Sirte and heard gunfire a little further west of where I was. The rebels explained to us that Kadhafi’s men had tried to break out at night a little further west. There had been fighting but this sounded more like celebrations than fighting," said Desmazes. "So I asked the fighters to take me there. When I got there, they showed me big concrete cylinders in which they said Kadhafi had been hiding when he was captured. A little further on, I noticed some fighters gathered around a phone. I was lucky because I was the only one to notice them. The owner of the phone showed me the arrest of Kadhafi which he had filmed a few minutes earlier. Given the ambient light, it was very difficult to take a screen grab. The fighters gathered round and gave me enough shadow to take the shot. I was really lucky," he said.

So it's not as if he's just claiming credit for something he had nothing to do with, but it still seems a bit questionable that Desmazes/AFP/Getty have any real claim here. It would seem like this is a very derivative work from the original, without much creative input that would give a copyright to Desmazes. At the very least, it seems like they should give credit to the guy who shot the actual video. Obviously, it took some effort for Desmazes to get his shot of the cameraphone screen (and I must admit, the quality of the image is surprisingly sharp if it's a camera shot of a smartphone screen), but is that enough to get a separate copyright?

And if we take this thought process to the logical conclusion, since Desmazes/AFP get to claim a copyright for taking a photo of a cameraphone screen, if I take a photo of my computer screen showing that same photo, and crop it appropriately, now I could claim to be the copyright holder on the same image? That seems like quite a slippery slope.

Filed Under: copyright, gaddafi, philippe desmazes, screenshots
Companies: afp, getty

What's The Guinness World Record For Morons In A Hurry Sending Bogus Takedowns?

from the just-wondering... dept

I think we've set a new world record for any particular story being submitted to us here at Techdirt. I'd actually ask the folks at the Guinness Book of World Records to verify that... but I don't think they really want to have much to do with this story. You see, there's a wonderful blog out there called the Fail Blog. If you don't read it regularly, it's like you're not really online at all. It's quite amusing. It usually involves pictures of random (hilarious) "failures" of some kind or another. Last week, it had a great one. It involved the website of the Guinness World Record book, where it had an entry on the "most individuals killed in a terrorist attack." What was the failure? Well... it appears that the Guinness records' web template includes a link on each record for "break this record." Not quite the sort of thing you would think that GWR folks wanted to encourage when it comes to the most people killed in a terrorist attack.

So how does Guinness respond? Certainly not by fixing the screwed up template. And, apparently not by taking some time to think it over while drinking a tall glass of Guinness. Instead, it released the legal hounds on the Fail Blog and threatened the site with a totally bogus trademark infringement claim, saying that because the screenshot included the Guinness World Record logo, it was a trademark violation. Of course, that's preposterous. Still, Fail Blog complied, took down the original, but posted Guinness' letter, its own rather direct response, and a new version of the screenshot with the Guinness World Record logo pixelated. Nobody will ever figure it out now: Oh, and it looks like the Guinness folks have finally taken down the original world record page...

Filed Under: blogs, screenshots, trademark, world records
Companies: guinness