At work an amazing gallery @ Boston.com… Alan Taylor writes-
When the economy makes big news, many photographs of people at work come across the wires, usually to help illustrate a particular story or event. By collecting these disparate photos over the past few months, I found that a global portrait emerged of we humans producing things. People assembling, generating, and building items small and large, mundane and expensive, trivial and important. I hope you enjoy this look into some people’s work lives around the world.
8 thoughts on “At work”
Comments are closed.
You made a big deal about how Klutz used Evil Mad Scientists BristleBot idea. Here you crop the copyright notice of off two photographs. What is the difference?
hello anonymous commenter – we did not crop the copyright notice at all, go view the pictures where we clearly credit the source and the author and look for yourself.
i think you’ll agree that we did not create a book called “at work” by the same name and then say we developed it years ago, presented it as our own and didn’t credit or source anyone.
if you’re going to scrutinize us please try to be a little respectful of us too.
I guess it didn’t come across that way, but I was genuinely interested in what you saw as the difference between using a copyrighted photo without attribution (and there is no copyright with the photos in your blog) and what Klutz books did. From my limited understanding, Klutz didn’t break any laws. Your point was that Klutz not acknowledging Evil Mad Scientists was disrespectful, so I was curious as to how you viewed this situation as different vis a vis respect. I guess I spoke out of turn.
hello again anonymous commenter – if you read the scholastic / klutz post(s) – our concern wasn’t a legal one, it was about attribution and the “right” thing to do. most of us are brainwashed to pretend we’re lawyers about copyright, trademarks and patents – we’re not – but what we *can* do is expect common-sense ethics from each other. it happens to all of us, but we forget that we’re not in courts, we’re in the real world.
in this post we link to the original article, credit the author / photographer and did not change the photo aside from making a smaller “thumbnail” – we also included their excerpt and just 2 of the dozens of photos, common sense says this is fair and i’m pretty sure boston.com is enjoying the traffic we’re sending them as well as the proper attribution. most would say this is “fair use”.
getting back to scholastic and klutz, they didn’t attribute and worse – they seemed to have claimed they invented the term bristlebot and the idea despite evidence to the contrary. we never talked about legal matters in our post(s)) only what seemed like the -humane- thing to do, credit EMSL.
don’t get hung up thinking about laws, focus on what you think companies should do.
do you think we should do anything else in regards to this specific post? did we do the proper attribution?
what about scholastic and klutz? they’re going to credit EMSL now, it seems they had a change of opinion about their own initial statement.