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

41–50 of 145 posts

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#41

Post by andy_ppp »

saganus wrote: post #35
andy_ppp wrote: post #30

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 li…

Ah yes; it's almost as if we live in some sort of serfdom where all the laws are set up to benefit only those who already have wealth, influence and power.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#42

Post by NelsonMinar »

A few years ago the Daily Mail ran an article about a visualization I made. They obeyed my CC license, so I have no complaint as serious as Yau's. But the article was just full of errors, including spelling my name wrong in three different ways. I wrote the article author and pointed out all the errors and he responded "No copy editing! It's a tight budget."

The Daily Mail truly doesn't give a shit. About quality, about copyright, about decency. It seems to be working for them.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#43

Post by andy_ppp »

Silhouette wrote: post #39
andy_ppp wrote: post #30

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.

I suppose, maybe if you don't have a licence on things it's fair game, but I know the Daily Mail has ripped off Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Licenced works.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#45

Post by jrs235 »

beckler wrote: post #44

sounds like someone needs to set his X-Frame-Options header.

Thank you for this. I was unaware of such an option!

Here's a nice clickjacking cheat sheet I found after searching for more info:

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Clickjacking_Defense_Cheat_S...

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#46

Post by oldmanjay »

privong wrote: post #28
Raphmedia wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Since the latter isn't the point of the article, the charitable interpretation is actually that the OP didn't read it

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#47

Post by drostie »

beckler wrote: post #44

sounds like someone needs to set his X-Frame-Options header.

Unfortunately that would not work in this case: in this case they created an unauthorized copy of the work on their own server for the purposes of redistribution; therefore they had full control over the HTTP headers.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#48

Post by SixSigma »

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.

One of the reasons The Beastie Boys had money was that in 1983 they sued British Airways [1] for using a snippet of “Beastie Revolution” [2] without permission and received for $40,000 which they used to build a rent an apartment / rehearsal space / recording studio which they used to learn their craft.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110826155454/http://samplingla...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooky_Puss

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#49

Post by samstave »

saganus wrote: post #35
andy_ppp wrote: post #30

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 li…

What if you just start invoicing their AP department?

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#50

Post by easytiger »

saganus wrote: post #35
andy_ppp wrote: post #30

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 li…

if a lawyer gets a percentage then it is hardly any work at all
Post reply on HN