Live data from Hacker News

The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

flowingdata.com

31–40 of 145 posts

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#31
post #8

The morally corrupt posing as moral guardians. I know people who have had other things like photos from flickr stolen by them. They are disgraceful!

Well, what does one expect - they are the hateful paper for hateful people. In the 30's they ran many pieces about the wonderful Mr Hitler and his brilliant solution to the Jewish problem - and today they trot out the same rhetoric re: Muslims and immigrants.

This is relevant because the kind of person who wants to work for a paper that espouses such views is very unlikely to care about your human, never mind intellectual property, rights.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#32
post #21

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?

> 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?

Send them an invoice for using his material, with an additional fee for not getting permission in advance.

Then take it to small claims if DM doesn't pay.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#33
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As I understand it, we don't have class action in the UK.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#34
post #3

[deleted]

He had, shall we say, "protections" in place to prevent his page from being embedded. Daily Mail downloaded his source files, removed the protections, and then embedded their own iframe referencing the copied files with the protections removed. I'd say that counts as stealing.

This sort of thing happens all the time with images though. It just sounds worse and different because it is a fancy visualization rather than a .jpg or .gif.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#35

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?

I think the problem with this, like with most routes that involve a lawyer, is that this isn't about being enforceable or not, but whether you can actually pay in time and money to try to enforce it.

That's why typically only companies try to enforce licenses.

The author said that even writing the blog post was hard because he had not much time to spare.

Imagine what it would cost if you sue and demand a newspaper like The Daily Mail.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#37

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…

In general, you can't assume people won't deep-link your content, and that includes embedding.

Technically, no, you can't with current protocols. However, this has been regarded as bad manners ("hot linking", "bandwidth theft", etc.) since forever.

Taking steps to protect against or take advantage of traffic spikes is the responsibility of a content provider.

The trouble is, with the increasing concentration of attention on the web in the hands of a few high profile traffic aggregators and social networking sites, this kind of argument holds less credibility than it used to. It's all very well saying if you put something on-line then you're responsible for supporting it, but the reality is that someone else suddenly diverting large amounts of traffic to your site is statistically indistinguishable from a denial of service attack.

If it's qualified traffic and being directed to somewhere you welcome the extra visitors, you might appreciate it. If it's unqualified traffic and overloading your servers at your and/or your normal visitors' expense, you probably won't appreciate it. If it's not even being directed to your normal site but instead deliberately freeloading on your servers and bandwidth via hot-linking, I think you're at least well into a grey area in terms of both ethics and legality.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#38
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.

Wow. I can't believe this passes as a newspaper.

Where are the editors? Can't they even screen the things they steal at least?

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#39

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?

Is something like this enforceable?

We'd better hope the general principle isn't, because otherwise every search engine, social networking site, traffic aggregator and directory service on the web is about to spend the rest of its very short existence fighting off lawsuits.

Post reply on HN