I think that the internet DIY set reacted to making fun of a costume that fits their ethos perfectly. Last halloween, for example, one DIY dad became a YouTube hit when he posted an awesome homemade Iron Man costume he made for his kid. Is Target's message really that the kid would have been better off wearing a storebought version? If so, citizens of the internet (and makers in particular) are right to be a little ticked off.
As for the non-DIYers, I think that what made them upset was the way Target tried to manipulate kids by playing the dual role of the bully who makes fun of your costume and the cool parent who just wants to help you fit in, unlike your weird, lame, Iron-Man-suit-building mom.
That doesn't work, though, because the parents who will be paying for the costumes are the ones who teach their kids that bullying and peer pressure are wrong, and that creativity is good. The bigger, more popular kid who mocks your costume is the bad guy in every cartoon and after-school special. Why would any kid root for him? And why would parents root against their own nostalgia for (sometimes embarrassing) homemade Halloween outfits? (And if this ad was made to be seen by kids, it sure was shot poorly.)
That leads me to a distasteful theory about who Target was, well, targeting with this commercial. It's not aimed at internet geeks with the time, money and technical skills to make amazing Iron Man costumes for their kids. They aren't going to go to Target for a costume anyway. It's aimed at parents who don't have that time, money or expertise, and who don't want their kids to be singled out as weird or poor. Did Target pick a black family for the ad because they think African-American parents fit that profile? That would be the grossest type of marketing, but I think it's possible.
It doesn't matter if you can't make (or afford to make) your kid a costume, though: the ad still fails because the homemade costume it shows is cool. That mom did a great job with it, and clearly put in some time and effort, so there's nothing for her kid to be embarrassed about. If Target wanted to invoke shame and peer-pressure to make parents feel self-conscious about their income or costume-making skills, they should have at least shown a costume that was actually bad.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Yep! Twitter is gonna make a fortune off your drunken night at Chili's
Posted by: ZuDfunck |
October 18, 2010 1:45 PMLet's see. . . you use a free service and then want them to promote your restricted material and give you the profits. . . hmmm... yeah, I would like that deal also.
This really sounds like much to do about nothing. Let me see, I have a photo that I want to sell at some point but show it off on twitter. How can I do that without loss of my property? Well, maybe make a low res thumb of your image and upload that with slight modifications, like a watermark, then the original image is still yours to do with as you please, isn't it?
I don't know but this sounds a bit ridiculous. How many problems would arise if such services allowed everyone to copyright everything they submit? Well, when you think of it it's really funny. . . people complain about every company suing every other company over patents and how those sofware patents shouldn't be allowed yada, yada, but WAIT!!! when it comes to my precious picture that I'm going to upload via a free service. . . I WANT IT PROTECTED!
Posted by: gpeasy |
October 18, 2010 1:55 PMThis article, and all of the other articles that this stemmed from, contains a fundamental misunderstanding about the definition of "Content" in the context of Twitter. Twitter's "Content" is the 140 characters and any metadata stored and served by Twitter. Anything that requires a URL to access (i.e. a link shared on Twitter) is not considered "Content" in the context of Twitter's ToS (from http://twitter.com/tos "any information, text, graphics, or other materials uploaded, downloaded or appearing on the Services (collectively referred to as 'Content')").
This may become an issue if Twitter were to—say for example—buy TwitPic or create their own Photo Sharing tool. And yes, there is potential legal concern with the way that their Media Pane system works in the #newtwitter UI design, as it does state "appearing on" but for their license to apply to the content of their Media Pane, it would require that the license from the service allowing their content to be displayed to be sub-licensed. Prior to the Media Pane in #newtwitter, I would have said this is a complete non-issue. Now, it's just something to "watch" and, if you're really worried about it, don't use services that work in the Media Pane.
tl;dr: This article is vastly misleading. "Content" is the text in a tweet and anything you upload directly to a Twitter website, not to a third-party service or your own servers.
You should know better, RWW.
Posted by: Michael Owens |
October 18, 2010 1:57 PMThis is a significant development for professionals, and it's worth noting to the general public. I wonder how often the people at Twitter might acutally take advantage of this...? The web seems to get more "open" every day, something we all need to be aware of.
Posted by: David Perdew |
October 18, 2010 1:57 PMThis is about lawyers and their constant need to prove value to their clients (whom they charge absurd hourly rates to).
A number of lawyers take this approach (non-exclusive license; right to reproduce, sub-license, etc.). Other, more reasonable lawyers take more of the BasecampHQ approach to managing data on behalf of someone (albeit, under paid accounts).
If Twitter ever tried to resell a photo that was uploaded, they would (most likely) run afoul of a range of Copyright Laws while they try to uphold their T&C which are one-sided and were never reviewed by their User's attorney's in a fair and reasonable negotiation. Additionally, if a Minor uploads photos, without parental consent, good luck appropriating those under their T&C.
If Twitter had strong management, who had more experience, they'd fire the lawyer who wrote the T&C and say, "thanks, bye." Then, go find an attorney who's more forward thinking.
Posted by: Bob |
October 18, 2010 2:04 PMI agree with @MichaelOwens on this, mostly a non-issue. From the TOS,
"...information, text, graphics, or other materials uploaded, downloaded or appearing on the Services (collectively referred to as “Content”)."
So it looks like photos you upload to Twitter (your profile pic and background image) can be used by them, but your linked photos are not uploaded to Twitter so they don't count as "Content" in the TOS.
The only gray area I see is photos appearing in the media pane, since the definition of content includes "appearing on the Services," so avoid using twitpic and the like and there is no issue.
tl;dr +1 to @michaelowens' point
Posted by: aaron.pk |
October 18, 2010 2:27 PMSo, if my photo is hosted at my paid Flickr account and it's labeled "All Rights Reserved" but I send a link to my photo to Twitter... who owns it now?
Posted by: Erin |
October 18, 2010 2:32 PMSeriously? This is a surprise to anyone? People share pictures on Twitter (and third party pic services) because they want the world to see it and SHARE it. Professional photos aren't posting their masterpieces on TwitPic.
Posted by: Russ Hill |
October 18, 2010 2:39 PMMichael Owens said much what I came to say so I won't repeat him.
Based on the false logic of this article, you are implying that if I share a link to a NY Times article, Twitter can use the content from that article to their hearts content. Obviously false.
Anyone can put anything they want into a TOS but that doesn't mean its legal.
Posted by: Jmartens |
October 18, 2010 2:43 PMI am not an expert on this topic, but I believe companies (like Twitter) need to have clauses like this in the TOS to protect themselves from copyright violations. They need the freedom to copy, modify, and reproduce contributed content as well as the right to move it around in on their servers. Technically wouldn't Twitter be violating copyright if the original author didn't approve of how their content was being used, displayed, or modified by Twitter? I was given this notion from different company's rep that deals with online content distribution. Although, the way companies word their TOS make many people worry about losing control of there IP.
Posted by: bobsbag |
October 18, 2010 3:32 PMI don't believe this is as casual as some of the comments indicate; nor, is the Post so off-track.
Twitter are acquiring both photo and video developers to bring this all in-house.
To @bobsbag's point -- yes, Twitter need some non-exclusive publication right, within the boundaries of their service (even extended to the future to some degree); or, even a self-extending license based on a User not deleting files. What Twitter do NOT require is an unrestricted License coupled with the ability to sell, transfer or in any manner profit from the direct licensing of content (they can sell ad space around it and use it for promotional purposes).
Now, yes, anyone would be a fool to post anything on nearly any "free" service out there if they intend to use it commercially themselves. But, I'd look to Flickr's T&C for a better model than what Twitter provide. There are a slew of alternatives out there, only a high paid lawyer will tell you they "must have these draconian T&C."
Posted by: bob r. |
October 18, 2010 5:33 PMObviously false.
Anyone can put anything they want into a TOS but that doesn't mean its lega
Posted by: ogame |
October 18, 2010 8:30 PMSorry but their is no way that this can be legit or enforced. adding a URL to a permalink that contains an embedded image and/or download links to higher quality versions of that image (or other media) does not give Twitter the rights defined in the ToS. Even if this were the legal intentions by Twitter's lawyers and business executives, I have to assume that this would not hold up in a court of law... that is if the terms are not properly modified before a case were to ever get that far.
As for the issue of displaying media on the #NewTwitter Right Side Column used for presenting supplemental meta data, media and eventually ads..... This is not really an issue since only official content partners can use this real estate and those services ToS already apply. I have been waiting for over a month (contacted contentpartnerships@twitter.com) to learn more about the content embedding situation. I'd assume that their would be a whitelisting process and then twitter would utilize common tech to fetch and display media from approved domains (oembed, link rel & meta tags). Ideally, Twitter would also pull in License info when specified and content creators would use preview/watermarked versions of their media for display inside Twitter.com while reserving the high quality media as separate embeds/links on the URL/page.
Posted by: sull |
October 18, 2010 9:19 PMThe problem is people don't try to understand legalise, and try to understand the tech terms for the same. Now lets look at the part of the ToS he has quoted.
use, copy(copy from photo sites to display them within twitter, pic may be copied to cache), reproduce(retweet), process, modify and adapt (reduce 2mb pic to may be 100kb before displaying it), publish (just in case someone decides to print a twitterfeed from a browser?), transmit (send across the internetz), display (duh!) and distribute such Content (retweet!)
"You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use"
You know, people use Twitter API and I think that's what they are talking about here. So please stop freaking out, really!
If there's a newsworthy pic you have taken, the agencies will contact you and not twitter. Do they really think Twitter would employ somebody to handle silly requests from media like this? Really?Posted by: | Balu | |
October 19, 2010 12:08 AMNon-issue.
This is a standard language to protect company from people who would upload stuff onto a content distribution service and then sue the same service for copyright infringement. Check Yahoo's, for example:
"With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted or made available."
Posted by: twitterer |
October 19, 2010 12:30 AMWell, Twitter can use the photos, and they can even sell them further. So if they appear on magazine covers, tough luck.
However, for use in advertisements, pictures of people need a model release. So there are limits to what the images can be used for. But in general, yes. Twitter (and Facebook) can do pretty much what they want or dare with the content they are sent.
Most of the legalese is there to make the actual service possible, but eg. Twitters ToS goes beyond that.
Posted by: Tarmo Toikkanen |
October 19, 2010 12:39 AMThis might be beneficial for twitter but I don't think that general public would like this. This seems disturbing to any pro photographers who tweet their photographs.
Posted by: street bike accessories |
October 19, 2010 2:18 AMSeriously now, if you share your photos via Twitter or any other social media sites, you lose its rights exclusively and can be picked up by anyone and use it anywhere. If you have photos you don’t want to be used all over the internet, don’t share it or publish it anywhere. Once it is published, it’s gone unless you have stated on your own website against using the photos for other purposes other than yours.
Posted by: Steve Jobs |
October 19, 2010 9:18 AMThis is clearly a load of nonsense. Michael Owens above has debunked this misleading information nicely but I'll add some food for thought: if an article from the New York Times appears in the Twitter media pane can Twitter re-publish and sell that article? I think not. Nor do they "own" your photo. Photofocus did not "consult it's lawyers," Scott Bourne asked his buddy Larry to scan the TOS. Larry is obviously not an entertainment lawyer and knows little about content licensing. This scare mongering was well deconstructed by petapixel dot com yesterday, It's sad that this noise is still floating around and considered legitamate information.
Posted by: Daniel K. Berman |
October 19, 2010 9:39 AMThese are all great comments, and I'm glad to see people unpack this item -- though it's interesting to see where you all agree and disagree. The critiques of our coverage are compelling and much appreciated, though it's important to see that question mark in the title. I put it there for a reason.
I don't think Twitter is "evil" nor do I think that the wildest interpretation of what can be enforced (or not) with the ToS changes are necessarily true. What is important is that a photo blog had consulted their lawyers about it. And lots of people (still) have questions about it. The coverage is the conversation, and we can all only weigh in until our questions are answered. PhotoFocus' means of getting these questions answered was to ask their counsel. And that's significant.
Posted by: Violet Blue |
October 19, 2010 4:10 PMIt we view this to the point of twitter then it's quite beneficial for them, they can do what they want with other photos but I don't think that public would like this.
Posted by: flash banner |
October 19, 2010 11:06 PMMy only worry is people read articles like this by looking at the headline and a few paragraphs only. The notion then starts rumours that twitter owns you and your data and your pictures/video and we will soon have a sequel to the movie social network.
I see you suggest you don't think twitter is "evil" but I can guarantee you most eyeballs on this page will walk away thinking exactly that.
A
Posted by: ashul |
October 20, 2010 2:56 AMI agree with @MichaelOwens comments.
Thanks for the article and interesting commnets.Posted by: Penny |
October 20, 2010 11:50 AMHow is this news? I remember the TOS for facebook saying the exact same thing. Yes, I read the TOS.
Posted by: Dan |
October 21, 2010 10:32 AMI should have looked at the author of the original post. Much ado about mostly nothing. Twitter may eventually start a hosting site for pics and will get rights to things posted there but, as others have noted, just because a ToS says something doesn't mean they can actually get away with it. And I don't think Twitter is evil (certainly not even close to the evil that is Facebook), if I did then I'd have stopped using it long ago.
Posted by: Erik O |
October 21, 2010 10:43 AMNot sure what everyone is surprised about. Most major social networking or blogging platform gain a royalty free right to your photos if you post them. For example, Tumblr, Posterous, etc all gain a royalty free right to any photos you post. The lesson? Don't post photos on the internet unless you are okay with people or companies using them for free. I am surprised people get upset about this, it's 2010 and I thought we all knew this by now.
Posted by: Mike |
October 21, 2010 5:10 PMI dont find this a big shocker - read the tos of most companies and you find this type of proviso. Usually its just ot cover themselves and to provide them with the final word if they wanted to push it - in reality, how many photos would this affect? On the bright side, I could use with some extra exposure so it could work out good for some photogs!
Would it just be the rights to the low res, watermarked image?Posted by: Grant Stringer |
October 22, 2010 1:44 AMThe moment you upload and shared your photos in twitter you have an idea already that it might be use by the third party and not only by you. It's obvious I guess not only in twitter but in other social sites that your photo for that matter when you made public any one can have access on it and can use it. The best way to alter that is not to share at all or try to upload something you know it's okay to let go. I don't give a time to see their provision because it's really obvious though.
Posted by: daniellehudges |
October 23, 2010 12:41 AMYep! Twitter is gonna make a fortune off your drunken night at Chili's
Posted by: ZuDfunck |
October 18, 2010 1:45 PMLet's see. . . you use a free service and then want them to promote your restricted material and give you the profits. . . hmmm... yeah, I would like that deal also.
This really sounds like much to do about nothing. Let me see, I have a photo that I want to sell at some point but show it off on twitter. How can I do that without loss of my property? Well, maybe make a low res thumb of your image and upload that with slight modifications, like a watermark, then the original image is still yours to do with as you please, isn't it?
I don't know but this sounds a bit ridiculous. How many problems would arise if such services allowed everyone to copyright everything they submit? Well, when you think of it it's really funny. . . people complain about every company suing every other company over patents and how those sofware patents shouldn't be allowed yada, yada, but WAIT!!! when it comes to my precious picture that I'm going to upload via a free service. . . I WANT IT PROTECTED!
Posted by: gpeasy |
October 18, 2010 1:55 PMThis article, and all of the other articles that this stemmed from, contains a fundamental misunderstanding about the definition of "Content" in the context of Twitter. Twitter's "Content" is the 140 characters and any metadata stored and served by Twitter. Anything that requires a URL to access (i.e. a link shared on Twitter) is not considered "Content" in the context of Twitter's ToS (from http://twitter.com/tos "any information, text, graphics, or other materials uploaded, downloaded or appearing on the Services (collectively referred to as 'Content')").
This may become an issue if Twitter were to—say for example—buy TwitPic or create their own Photo Sharing tool. And yes, there is potential legal concern with the way that their Media Pane system works in the #newtwitter UI design, as it does state "appearing on" but for their license to apply to the content of their Media Pane, it would require that the license from the service allowing their content to be displayed to be sub-licensed. Prior to the Media Pane in #newtwitter, I would have said this is a complete non-issue. Now, it's just something to "watch" and, if you're really worried about it, don't use services that work in the Media Pane.
tl;dr: This article is vastly misleading. "Content" is the text in a tweet and anything you upload directly to a Twitter website, not to a third-party service or your own servers.
You should know better, RWW.
Posted by: Michael Owens |
October 18, 2010 1:57 PMThis is a significant development for professionals, and it's worth noting to the general public. I wonder how often the people at Twitter might acutally take advantage of this...? The web seems to get more "open" every day, something we all need to be aware of.
Posted by: David Perdew |
October 18, 2010 1:57 PMThis is about lawyers and their constant need to prove value to their clients (whom they charge absurd hourly rates to).
A number of lawyers take this approach (non-exclusive license; right to reproduce, sub-license, etc.). Other, more reasonable lawyers take more of the BasecampHQ approach to managing data on behalf of someone (albeit, under paid accounts).
If Twitter ever tried to resell a photo that was uploaded, they would (most likely) run afoul of a range of Copyright Laws while they try to uphold their T&C which are one-sided and were never reviewed by their User's attorney's in a fair and reasonable negotiation. Additionally, if a Minor uploads photos, without parental consent, good luck appropriating those under their T&C.
If Twitter had strong management, who had more experience, they'd fire the lawyer who wrote the T&C and say, "thanks, bye." Then, go find an attorney who's more forward thinking.
Posted by: Bob |
October 18, 2010 2:04 PMI agree with @MichaelOwens on this, mostly a non-issue. From the TOS,
"...information, text, graphics, or other materials uploaded, downloaded or appearing on the Services (collectively referred to as “Content”)."
So it looks like photos you upload to Twitter (your profile pic and background image) can be used by them, but your linked photos are not uploaded to Twitter so they don't count as "Content" in the TOS.
The only gray area I see is photos appearing in the media pane, since the definition of content includes "appearing on the Services," so avoid using twitpic and the like and there is no issue.
tl;dr +1 to @michaelowens' point
Posted by: aaron.pk |
October 18, 2010 2:27 PMSo, if my photo is hosted at my paid Flickr account and it's labeled "All Rights Reserved" but I send a link to my photo to Twitter... who owns it now?
Posted by: Erin |
October 18, 2010 2:32 PMSeriously? This is a surprise to anyone? People share pictures on Twitter (and third party pic services) because they want the world to see it and SHARE it. Professional photos aren't posting their masterpieces on TwitPic.
Posted by: Russ Hill |
October 18, 2010 2:39 PMMichael Owens said much what I came to say so I won't repeat him.
Based on the false logic of this article, you are implying that if I share a link to a NY Times article, Twitter can use the content from that article to their hearts content. Obviously false.
Anyone can put anything they want into a TOS but that doesn't mean its legal.
Posted by: Jmartens |
October 18, 2010 2:43 PMI am not an expert on this topic, but I believe companies (like Twitter) need to have clauses like this in the TOS to protect themselves from copyright violations. They need the freedom to copy, modify, and reproduce contributed content as well as the right to move it around in on their servers. Technically wouldn't Twitter be violating copyright if the original author didn't approve of how their content was being used, displayed, or modified by Twitter? I was given this notion from different company's rep that deals with online content distribution. Although, the way companies word their TOS make many people worry about losing control of there IP.
Posted by: bobsbag |
October 18, 2010 3:32 PMI don't believe this is as casual as some of the comments indicate; nor, is the Post so off-track.
Twitter are acquiring both photo and video developers to bring this all in-house.
To @bobsbag's point -- yes, Twitter need some non-exclusive publication right, within the boundaries of their service (even extended to the future to some degree); or, even a self-extending license based on a User not deleting files. What Twitter do NOT require is an unrestricted License coupled with the ability to sell, transfer or in any manner profit from the direct licensing of content (they can sell ad space around it and use it for promotional purposes).
Now, yes, anyone would be a fool to post anything on nearly any "free" service out there if they intend to use it commercially themselves. But, I'd look to Flickr's T&C for a better model than what Twitter provide. There are a slew of alternatives out there, only a high paid lawyer will tell you they "must have these draconian T&C."
Posted by: bob r. |
October 18, 2010 5:33 PMObviously false.
Anyone can put anything they want into a TOS but that doesn't mean its lega
Posted by: ogame |
October 18, 2010 8:30 PMSorry but their is no way that this can be legit or enforced. adding a URL to a permalink that contains an embedded image and/or download links to higher quality versions of that image (or other media) does not give Twitter the rights defined in the ToS. Even if this were the legal intentions by Twitter's lawyers and business executives, I have to assume that this would not hold up in a court of law... that is if the terms are not properly modified before a case were to ever get that far.
As for the issue of displaying media on the #NewTwitter Right Side Column used for presenting supplemental meta data, media and eventually ads..... This is not really an issue since only official content partners can use this real estate and those services ToS already apply. I have been waiting for over a month (contacted contentpartnerships@twitter.com) to learn more about the content embedding situation. I'd assume that their would be a whitelisting process and then twitter would utilize common tech to fetch and display media from approved domains (oembed, link rel & meta tags). Ideally, Twitter would also pull in License info when specified and content creators would use preview/watermarked versions of their media for display inside Twitter.com while reserving the high quality media as separate embeds/links on the URL/page.
Posted by: sull |
October 18, 2010 9:19 PMThe problem is people don't try to understand legalise, and try to understand the tech terms for the same. Now lets look at the part of the ToS he has quoted.
use, copy(copy from photo sites to display them within twitter, pic may be copied to cache), reproduce(retweet), process, modify and adapt (reduce 2mb pic to may be 100kb before displaying it), publish (just in case someone decides to print a twitterfeed from a browser?), transmit (send across the internetz), display (duh!) and distribute such Content (retweet!)
"You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use"
You know, people use Twitter API and I think that's what they are talking about here. So please stop freaking out, really!
If there's a newsworthy pic you have taken, the agencies will contact you and not twitter. Do they really think Twitter would employ somebody to handle silly requests from media like this? Really?Posted by: | Balu | |
October 19, 2010 12:08 AMNon-issue.
This is a standard language to protect company from people who would upload stuff onto a content distribution service and then sue the same service for copyright infringement. Check Yahoo's, for example:
"With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted or made available."
Posted by: twitterer |
October 19, 2010 12:30 AMWell, Twitter can use the photos, and they can even sell them further. So if they appear on magazine covers, tough luck.
However, for use in advertisements, pictures of people need a model release. So there are limits to what the images can be used for. But in general, yes. Twitter (and Facebook) can do pretty much what they want or dare with the content they are sent.
Most of the legalese is there to make the actual service possible, but eg. Twitters ToS goes beyond that.
Posted by: Tarmo Toikkanen |
October 19, 2010 12:39 AMThis might be beneficial for twitter but I don't think that general public would like this. This seems disturbing to any pro photographers who tweet their photographs.
Posted by: street bike accessories |
October 19, 2010 2:18 AMSeriously now, if you share your photos via Twitter or any other social media sites, you lose its rights exclusively and can be picked up by anyone and use it anywhere. If you have photos you don’t want to be used all over the internet, don’t share it or publish it anywhere. Once it is published, it’s gone unless you have stated on your own website against using the photos for other purposes other than yours.
Posted by: Steve Jobs |
October 19, 2010 9:18 AMThis is clearly a load of nonsense. Michael Owens above has debunked this misleading information nicely but I'll add some food for thought: if an article from the New York Times appears in the Twitter media pane can Twitter re-publish and sell that article? I think not. Nor do they "own" your photo. Photofocus did not "consult it's lawyers," Scott Bourne asked his buddy Larry to scan the TOS. Larry is obviously not an entertainment lawyer and knows little about content licensing. This scare mongering was well deconstructed by petapixel dot com yesterday, It's sad that this noise is still floating around and considered legitamate information.
Posted by: Daniel K. Berman |
October 19, 2010 9:39 AMThese are all great comments, and I'm glad to see people unpack this item -- though it's interesting to see where you all agree and disagree. The critiques of our coverage are compelling and much appreciated, though it's important to see that question mark in the title. I put it there for a reason.
I don't think Twitter is "evil" nor do I think that the wildest interpretation of what can be enforced (or not) with the ToS changes are necessarily true. What is important is that a photo blog had consulted their lawyers about it. And lots of people (still) have questions about it. The coverage is the conversation, and we can all only weigh in until our questions are answered. PhotoFocus' means of getting these questions answered was to ask their counsel. And that's significant.
Posted by: Violet Blue |
October 19, 2010 4:10 PMIt we view this to the point of twitter then it's quite beneficial for them, they can do what they want with other photos but I don't think that public would like this.
Posted by: flash banner |
October 19, 2010 11:06 PMMy only worry is people read articles like this by looking at the headline and a few paragraphs only. The notion then starts rumours that twitter owns you and your data and your pictures/video and we will soon have a sequel to the movie social network.
I see you suggest you don't think twitter is "evil" but I can guarantee you most eyeballs on this page will walk away thinking exactly that.
A
Posted by: ashul |
October 20, 2010 2:56 AMI agree with @MichaelOwens comments.
Thanks for the article and interesting commnets.Posted by: Penny |
October 20, 2010 11:50 AMHow is this news? I remember the TOS for facebook saying the exact same thing. Yes, I read the TOS.
Posted by: Dan |
October 21, 2010 10:32 AMI should have looked at the author of the original post. Much ado about mostly nothing. Twitter may eventually start a hosting site for pics and will get rights to things posted there but, as others have noted, just because a ToS says something doesn't mean they can actually get away with it. And I don't think Twitter is evil (certainly not even close to the evil that is Facebook), if I did then I'd have stopped using it long ago.
Posted by: Erik O |
October 21, 2010 10:43 AMNot sure what everyone is surprised about. Most major social networking or blogging platform gain a royalty free right to your photos if you post them. For example, Tumblr, Posterous, etc all gain a royalty free right to any photos you post. The lesson? Don't post photos on the internet unless you are okay with people or companies using them for free. I am surprised people get upset about this, it's 2010 and I thought we all knew this by now.
Posted by: Mike |
October 21, 2010 5:10 PMI dont find this a big shocker - read the tos of most companies and you find this type of proviso. Usually its just ot cover themselves and to provide them with the final word if they wanted to push it - in reality, how many photos would this affect? On the bright side, I could use with some extra exposure so it could work out good for some photogs!
Would it just be the rights to the low res, watermarked image?Posted by: Grant Stringer |
October 22, 2010 1:44 AMThe moment you upload and shared your photos in twitter you have an idea already that it might be use by the third party and not only by you. It's obvious I guess not only in twitter but in other social sites that your photo for that matter when you made public any one can have access on it and can use it. The best way to alter that is not to share at all or try to upload something you know it's okay to let go. I don't give a time to see their provision because it's really obvious though.
Posted by: daniellehudges |
October 23, 2010 12:41 AM
Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>
He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.
Shepard Smith Inks New Fox <b>News</b> Deal – Deadline.com
EXCLUSIVE: Fox News Channel's signature news anchor Shepard Smith has signed a new multi-year deal to continue as the channel's lead news anchor as well as anchor of FOX Report and Studio B. Smith's most recent pact with Fox News inked ...
Fantasy Football <b>News</b> Roundup, Week 8: Does Jon Kitna Have Value <b>...</b>
Checking in on the fantasy news of the day for Week 8.
bench craft company complaints
bench craft company complaints
Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>
He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.
Shepard Smith Inks New Fox <b>News</b> Deal – Deadline.com
EXCLUSIVE: Fox News Channel's signature news anchor Shepard Smith has signed a new multi-year deal to continue as the channel's lead news anchor as well as anchor of FOX Report and Studio B. Smith's most recent pact with Fox News inked ...
Fantasy Football <b>News</b> Roundup, Week 8: Does Jon Kitna Have Value <b>...</b>
Checking in on the fantasy news of the day for Week 8.
bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints
So, why did this particular ad hit a nerve with the online audience, and what was Target really going for?
I think that the internet DIY set reacted to making fun of a costume that fits their ethos perfectly. Last halloween, for example, one DIY dad became a YouTube hit when he posted an awesome homemade Iron Man costume he made for his kid. Is Target's message really that the kid would have been better off wearing a storebought version? If so, citizens of the internet (and makers in particular) are right to be a little ticked off.
As for the non-DIYers, I think that what made them upset was the way Target tried to manipulate kids by playing the dual role of the bully who makes fun of your costume and the cool parent who just wants to help you fit in, unlike your weird, lame, Iron-Man-suit-building mom.
That doesn't work, though, because the parents who will be paying for the costumes are the ones who teach their kids that bullying and peer pressure are wrong, and that creativity is good. The bigger, more popular kid who mocks your costume is the bad guy in every cartoon and after-school special. Why would any kid root for him? And why would parents root against their own nostalgia for (sometimes embarrassing) homemade Halloween outfits? (And if this ad was made to be seen by kids, it sure was shot poorly.)
That leads me to a distasteful theory about who Target was, well, targeting with this commercial. It's not aimed at internet geeks with the time, money and technical skills to make amazing Iron Man costumes for their kids. They aren't going to go to Target for a costume anyway. It's aimed at parents who don't have that time, money or expertise, and who don't want their kids to be singled out as weird or poor. Did Target pick a black family for the ad because they think African-American parents fit that profile? That would be the grossest type of marketing, but I think it's possible.
It doesn't matter if you can't make (or afford to make) your kid a costume, though: the ad still fails because the homemade costume it shows is cool. That mom did a great job with it, and clearly put in some time and effort, so there's nothing for her kid to be embarrassed about. If Target wanted to invoke shame and peer-pressure to make parents feel self-conscious about their income or costume-making skills, they should have at least shown a costume that was actually bad.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
bench craft company complaints
Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>
He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.
Shepard Smith Inks New Fox <b>News</b> Deal – Deadline.com
EXCLUSIVE: Fox News Channel's signature news anchor Shepard Smith has signed a new multi-year deal to continue as the channel's lead news anchor as well as anchor of FOX Report and Studio B. Smith's most recent pact with Fox News inked ...
Fantasy Football <b>News</b> Roundup, Week 8: Does Jon Kitna Have Value <b>...</b>
Checking in on the fantasy news of the day for Week 8.
bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints
Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>
He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.
Shepard Smith Inks New Fox <b>News</b> Deal – Deadline.com
EXCLUSIVE: Fox News Channel's signature news anchor Shepard Smith has signed a new multi-year deal to continue as the channel's lead news anchor as well as anchor of FOX Report and Studio B. Smith's most recent pact with Fox News inked ...
Fantasy Football <b>News</b> Roundup, Week 8: Does Jon Kitna Have Value <b>...</b>
Checking in on the fantasy news of the day for Week 8.
bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints
Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>
He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.
Shepard Smith Inks New Fox <b>News</b> Deal – Deadline.com
EXCLUSIVE: Fox News Channel's signature news anchor Shepard Smith has signed a new multi-year deal to continue as the channel's lead news anchor as well as anchor of FOX Report and Studio B. Smith's most recent pact with Fox News inked ...
Fantasy Football <b>News</b> Roundup, Week 8: Does Jon Kitna Have Value <b>...</b>
Checking in on the fantasy news of the day for Week 8.
bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints
