Metro and the little duckies
Monday, October 16th, 2006I see RedMum’s photography has been picked up by Metro recently, but not in the fairest of ways…
One of her pictures was used on the front cover of the 12th October issue of the Dublin freesheet Metro but without permission, credit or payment. There’s little denying that it’s her picture and hopefully she’ll keep us all up to date on what Metro have to say for themselves and whether they’re willing to pay up or apologise.
On the other side of the same coin, Darragh has been taking issue with the article the pictures were used for.
He’s saying that the appearence of the article in question is coincidental, given that he posted this just two days previously; which obviously implies that his piece has been lifted without credit too…
I’ve got to disagree with Darragh on this one; his blog post simply asks what happened to the ducks and suggests people contact him/the site if they’ve come across one. The article on the other hand gives examples of the distance travelled by the ducks and references dowehaveyourduck.com; a site set up to track them.
I fail to see the similarities beyond the basic topic of ducks (and the fact that the headline/subject share two words); the blog post doesn’t cite the examples used in the article nor does it cite the website mentioned. It’s entirely possible that the writer saw the blog post, got inspired and decided to look into it further but as long as the research is his own (and I can’t see why it is not) then he doesn’t need to credit his muse or justify the existance of his article in any way.
I think it’s important to remember that in this day and age the first person to mention or point out something doesn’t instantly become the owner of the idea or point of view. If they ask a question and a newspaper article answers it, they’re not being ripped off. Generally, it’s only if their actual work, words or ideas are taken without credit (like with RedMum) that issue should be taken in my opinion
Blogs elsewhere
October 16th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Hey Adam, I will keep you posted on what happens or doesn’t with the pic. But in fairness to Daragh I think the story was inspired by what was put on Dublinblog.ie. It wasn’t copied (and I’m not saying it was at all) as you say more research was obviously done in the article including talking to the organisers, but the article certainly looks like it was inspired by the post (but I could be very prejudiced after seeing my pic on the cover).
The geotagged duck website refered to in the article and on Dublin Blog has been set up for months so it is a little coincidental it appeared just after Daragh’s post though Daragh does acknowledge that many bloggers are inspired by other stories, as we all know, and in most cases they hat tip the post, which is the difference. BUT my annoyance on that could be just sour grapes, though the use of my pic is not. I’ll keep you posted.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
Please do; they certainly owe you an answer in the very least.
As for Darragh, I can see his point in relation to the timing but in fairness I don’t think that means much…
Things available online, on blogs, forums and normal sites are always going to be starting points for journalists; just like other newspaper articles are, events they catch on the radio or television and comments their friends/family/contacts make to them.
Also, blogs are going to be a resource just like every other website in the world and where an individual’s work is used they should be credited and/or paid, but where they are simply inspiration I’m not so sure… it’s impractical for a journalist to list of their inspiration etc. too
I suppose I’d look at it this way; if I posted on my blog saying ‘I wonder how much my TD got in expenses last year’, and days later The Daily XYZ had an article detailing what my local TD got in expenses last year I wouldn’t see it as my idea or writing stolen, I’d just see it as my question answered on a larger scale than I had expected.
Anyway, best of luck with Metro, and don’t take any shit from them; the picture is quite clearly yours (if they say otherwise, ask for proof)… you’re entitled to something from them, be in money, an apology or both.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Well, the person who wrote the article is a former, quite sober, blogger, so you’d expect him to tip a hat to his source if he was ‘inspired’ by the blog post.
It’d be interesting to know if the journo chooses the pictures though or if the Metro has a picture desk like other papers.
Those picture eds can be very precious, Adam.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Hey Adam,
Just getting around to this now. I agree entirely that the Metro piece was definately not a ‘lift’ of the piece I had written, they took a different approach, and researched it well, what got up my nose was the fact that it appeared in the Metro immediately after my piece was written. I have one or two other reasons to feel aggrieved by the story and lack of hat-tip in our direction which I won’t be going into here.
I agree entirely with the fact (as I said) that journalists use blogs / bloggers use journalists for inspiration and ideas, that’s the way the world goes around.
As for what happened in RedMum’s situation, that is *totally* unacceptable, and a gross breach of copyright, and this needs to be addressed with far more importance than my grievances.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:26 am
@Twenty: In a normal situation the pictures would be sorted away from the writing side of things, or as is my understanding anyway… however a freesheet like Metro isn’t in a normal situation and quite frankly (completely seperate from this issue) it’s quite obvious when they lift other paper’s stories to fill gaps, like many tabloids do on a Monday..
Even if they have a pic editor, Markham may have suggested a picture to them, or they may have just been lazy and googled it, grabbed the best one they could see and forgot about it.
@Daragh: I can see your suspicion with the article showing up so closely to your blog, and the way the article is written I can see how a reference to the dublin blog discussion could have been made, it’s not like it was a hard news piece or something like that.
Fair enough if you’re not willing to go into your other reasons, although I think based solely on the lack of hat tip and timing issue there isn’t much of an issue here; there’s always the (perhaps remote) chance that the article was just coincidental.
I’d agree with you regarding the picture though, there’s no question of the problem there.
October 17th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Metro Ireland’s rubber ducks
Bloggers go ducky as Metro uses photos without permission A well known Irish blogger and Flickr up-loader, ‘RedMum’, has said one of her photographs of rubber ducks in the Liffy was published - without permission or credit - on the
October 18th, 2006 at 9:02 am
I think the Metro owes a few people an explanation. I’ve no problem with them writing their own story based on an idea inspired by Daragh, but it would have been nice if they had at least given him the chance to get a quote in.
The situation with Red Mum is completely out of order. Most photos on Flickr can be freely used for just the price of a few drops of ink to add a credit. If any blogger started republishing Metro stories on their blog without payment how long do you think it would be before the lawyers came knocking?
October 18th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
heh - what a good idea. Why doesn’t someone start a blog and just rip off all their content?
Let’s see how quickly they get in touch.