Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

flowingdata.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 145 posts

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#21

Post by untog »

fixermark wrote: post #15

I can't help but think that it would make sense for Mr. Yau to either (a) Change the server setting to emit the X-Frame-Options: DENY header or (b) monetize views on his graphic. In general, you can't assume people won't deep-link your content, and that includes embedding. Taking steps to protect against or take advantage of traffic spikes is the responsibility of a content provider. This, of course, wouldn't protect…

> I can't help but think that it would make sense for Mr. Yau to either (a) Change the server setting to emit the X-Frame-Options: DENY header

The article states that the Daily Mail scraped the files and uploaded them separately, to avoid his iframe detecting JS.

And "just monetize it" feels like a... simplistic approach. Even if the Daily Mail did a normal iframe embed, how would the author monetize, exactly?

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#22

Post by 6stringmerc »

dangerlibrary wrote: post #14
6stringmerc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downloading all files and re-uploading them without attribution is pretty akin to digital IP theft however.

You can remove 'pretty akin to digital'. But also it's copyright infringement, not theft.

Though I agree and understand the difference (layman's mistaken terms aside), it's also a criminal version of copyright infringement which, if memory serves correctly, in the US is a more stiff penalty than petty theft even.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#23

Post by fixermark »

wnevets wrote: post #17

the daily mail is awful, I wish people would ignore their garbage.

They had a story about the Orion capsule project recently [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3432512/Orion...], that included an infographic comparing rockets throughout space history.

Take a look at that last one; fans of space simulators will recognize it.

Seriously, they are garbage journalists. Editorial oversight and quality control is, at best, a hobby for that publication.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#24

Post by whistlerbrk »

untog wrote: post #20
6stringmerc wrote: post #16

What I Would Do: Find out what law firm represented the Beastie Boys when they went after GoldiBlox. Why I Would Do That: They were successful in their defense of the rights of the Beastie Boys and reached a settlement that included a public admission of guilt. Long-Term Goal: To discourage such behavior through numerous examples of punishment using established rules.

Something tells me the Beastie Boys have a little more money to spend on lawyers than this guy does. And that's a significant problem - most of the time organizations like the Daily Mail are ripping off small-time practitioners of data visualizations, comics, whatever... if it's something produced by a large company with lawyers you can bet they wouldn't touch it.

Class action, if that applies then maybe?. I think if this is really a repeat behaviour enough people would come out of the woodwork to say they too were stolen from and signup.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#25

Post by 6stringmerc »

untog wrote: post #20
6stringmerc wrote: post #16

What I Would Do: Find out what law firm represented the Beastie Boys when they went after GoldiBlox. Why I Would Do That: They were successful in their defense of the rights of the Beastie Boys and reached a settlement that included a public admission of guilt. Long-Term Goal: To discourage such behavior through numerous examples of punishment using established rules.

Something tells me the Beastie Boys have a little more money to spend on lawyers than this guy does. And that's a significant problem - most of the time organizations like the Daily Mail are ripping off small-time practitioners of data visualizations, comics, whatever... if it's something produced by a large company with lawyers you can bet they wouldn't touch it.

Well I didn't list "sell all worldly possessions and file a lawsuit" as one of the options, I just figured they'd be in the best position to consult, at least from a US standpoint if that's of any help. If I'm not mistaken, The Daily Mail likely has pretty hefty insurance policies in place for damages against them for a variety of legal tests / cases.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#26

Post by fixermark »

untog wrote: post #21
fixermark wrote: post #15

I can't help but think that it would make sense for Mr. Yau to either (a) Change the server setting to emit the X-Frame-Options: DENY header or (b) monetize views on his graphic. In general, you can't assume people won't deep-link your content, and that includes embedding. Taking steps to protect against or take advantage of traffic spikes is the responsibility of a content provider. This, of course, wouldn't protect…

> I can't help but think that it would make sense for Mr. Yau to either (a) Change the server setting to emit the X-Frame-Options: DENY header The article states that the Daily Mail scraped the files and uploaded them separately, to avoid his iframe detecting JS. And "just monetize it" feels like a... simplistic approach. Even if the Daily Mail did a normal iframe embed, how would the author monetize, exactly?

As noted in my original comment: yes.

However, he's had issues with multiple sites iframing his content against his will, not just Daily Mail. DM just went the extra mile to straight-up rehost the content, which crosses a line that directing a user's browser to mash up content from multiple servers isn't generally considered to cross (and can be controlled by content providers via use of existing cross-domain headers).

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#28

Post by privong »

Raphmedia wrote: post #7
[deleted] wrote: post #3

[deleted]

Didn't you read the article at all? It's only a few paragraphs: "So how did Daily Mail embed the visualization without the word “poop” popping up on an empty page? They downloaded all the files from my server on to their own server and deleted the snippet that brought up a poop alert. That way they didn't have to deal with those pesky safeguards I setup. In other words, The Daily Mail deliberately stole my work."

> Didn't you read the article at all? It's only a few paragraphs:

This is an unhelpful comment to make. But if you're going to take that tack, one could plausibly make the same remark in response to your comment. Because farther down, the post talks about the other time the Daily Mail used one of his visualiations:

They didn't just screenshot the map. They didn't just embed the map itself. They iframed my entire site, which is why the FlowingData logo and header appear on their site.

So there were two instances. One in which they copied the code and removed the code snippet, and another in which they just iframe-ed the page. The charitable interpretation of the GP's comment is that they were referring to the latter.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#29

Post by fixermark »

Raphmedia wrote: post #7
[deleted] wrote: post #3

[deleted]

Didn't you read the article at all? It's only a few paragraphs: "So how did Daily Mail embed the visualization without the word “poop” popping up on an empty page? They downloaded all the files from my server on to their own server and deleted the snippet that brought up a poop alert. That way they didn't have to deal with those pesky safeguards I setup. In other words, The Daily Mail deliberately stole my work."

Yes, but the parent poster isn't wrong; the bulk of the article is about iframe embedding, and it's a clear distinction people should draw in terms of responsibility.

In addition, DM crossed a line that they shouldn't have crossed by re-hosting the content. But conflating iframe embedding and content theft is a bad precedent.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#30

Post by andy_ppp »

What does the law say about putting a license on use of things like this "Embedding this content into your site without written permission from the author will involve a £100000 fee for it's use. You agree by embedding this content that you abide by these terms."

Is something like this enforceable?

Post reply on HN