About Copyright, ownership and privacy

Who steals from whom? If you post a screen cap, videos or photos taken from the internet, does it make them yours? If you use a transcript or a rundown from Anderson Cooper 360 is the content your brain child or from CNN's producers? To whom all the screencaps, videos and photos of Anderson Cooper 360 belongs? Without doubt the screencaps and videos are the property and copyright of Time Warner, Turner and CNN. They hired a crew, invested thousands of dollars a minute just to produce that single shot you claim its yours without any effort from your part....That they don't mind people use it, at least for now, well what the heck its free promotion.

On the other hand. If you take your own camera, video recorder or paper pad and produce something all by yourself... then you can claim ownership. But if you care about it, don't make it public. Because once its out there its considered for "Fair Use" or it might become raw material for Digital Arts.

The fact is that Blogs don't play by the rules... just ask Perez Hilton... when we started this blog we went all the way to contact professional photographers that have worked with Anderson Cooper in order to beg them to give us some take outs or unpublished materials. We were lucky that at least one of them sent us a couple of images that were from a magazine that they never used. We were bursting with pride, until one blog lifted it and sent a copy to another one who gave all the credit to the blog that lifted it without our consent. When we rightfully wanted to clear up the situation, we were told that we were the ones who stole the image from "her friend". And the official anti Freaks campaign began... we became the blog that shall not be named, linked nor referenced. But even them don't have any problem lifting info from us.

I came across this article that addresses some issues we have seen in the recent past, for those of you who doubt companies screen super secret or public online communities, personal blogs and websites, reality is THEY DO. So be careful with your information and remember, that online is a VIRTUAL REALITY NOT LIFE. DON'T TAKE YOUR ONLINE PERSONA ( OR PERSONAS) TOO SERIOUSLY. And if you do, then its time to get a real life.

Private' online photos really aren't

By WAYNE PARRY, Associated Press WriterThu Jul 12, 7:16 PM ET

It's not just Jersey girls who get tripped up by embarrassing Internet photos.

Whether trying to become the next American Idol, Miss America, or just get an office job somewhere, people are starting to take steps to ensure that photos and personal information they post on the Web doesn't end up coming back to bite them.

The latest high-profile victim is Amy Polumbo, who was named Miss New Jersey last month, only to be hit with an alleged blackmail attempt by someone hoping to make her resign by threatening to release embarrassing photos of her.

The pageant board decided Thursday that the photos — which were in poor taste, but none featured any nudity — did not warrant stripping Polumbo of her crown.

"This was meant to be private," the 22-year-old told NBC's "Today" show on Thursday. "It was supposed to be between my friends and I."

But there's no such thing when it comes to photos posted online or e-mailed to others. Fellow Jersey girl Antonella Barba became worldwide news earlier this year when racy photos of the "American Idol" contestant surfaced during the competition.

"I used to say 'Cover your tracks,' but it really should be, 'Don't make tracks that need to be covered,'" Barba said Thursday. "Once anything is online, it's free rein.

"I feel so bad for her," said Barba, who has returned to college in Washington, D.C. to make up classes she missed while on the TV show. "I've been in the same situation she's been in. It disgusts me, people's interest in the dirt and trying to bring somebody down."

Polumbo's mother, Jen Wagner, said her daughter was just like millions of other young people who thought that just because their Facebook or MySpace page was set to "private," their photos would remain that way.

"They don't realize how many people can eventually see these photos," she said.

The photos of Polumbo came from her Facebook page, which has since been taken offline.

Embarrassment isn't the only consequence of personal photos surfacing. Many employers troll social networking sites like My Space, Facebook and others when checking out a job applicant or keeping tabs on employees.

Steven Jungman, director of recruiting for Houston-based ChaseSource LP, told of a young woman his firm helped land a job with a company working on a sensitive project.

"This was a project that had to be kept secret, that if the competition found out about it or the media wrote about it before it was rolled out, it would be very bad for business," he said. "It even had a secret nickname.

"Every day, twice a day, the company did a ... search for that title, just to make sure nothing was getting out about it," Jungman said. "One morning, an interesting link came up, to someone's My Space page. It went, 'My name is so-and so, I'm working on such-and-such for so-and-so.' And right next to that were photos that would make Anna Nicole Smith blush, and Paris Hilton go, 'Whoa!'"

Two days later, the woman was fired.

Other tales abound of job applicants getting passed over because their online pages showed them smoking marijuana, passed out after drinking, or flashing too much skin.

Theresa O'Neill, a career counselor at Rutgers University-Newark, urges students to take down their online photos while looking for a job.

"Think of it as being in a very large, public place like Yankee Stadium, taking the microphone and broadcasting your personal information to 50,000 people there," she said. "If you don't want everyone in the stadium to know the details of your personal life, then keep them to yourself."

At least some people are listening. A survey last year by the Web site CollegeGrad.com found that 47 percent of recent graduates had changed or planned to change their Web pages because they were looking for a job.

Barba survived on "American Idol" for a time after the photos of her began circulating, before being voted off by viewers.

She has steadfastly declined to speculate on how the photos of her became public and says she's not planning any legal action.

"I don't have the time and energy to go after someone the way they went after me," she said. "We just want to prevent this from happening to someone else."

New gay 'outings' sign of gossip culture

These people are far from civil rights champions, they are simple blunt opportunists that makes profits from other's private life and pain. Parasites. Ill intentioned. Mean spirited people that strive on the humiliation of their targets. The only thing that they want to improve is their ego and checking accounts.

By JOCELYN NOVECK,

AP National Writer1 hour, 13 minutes ago
When the comedian Bill Maher went on "Larry King Live" and alleged that some top Republican operatives were gay, it was too much detail for CNN, which edited the remarks out of later broadcasts and off the transcript on its Web site.
But the remarks couldn't be edited out of cyberspace, where they remain available, along with virtually everything else these days.
Maher's comments last week, and a series of recent coming-out announcements by Hollywood figures responding to persistent rumors, show just how much the Internet has changed the rumor mill, and consequently the process of "outing" celebrities.
Where anti-gay sentiment used to fuel these revelations, these days they are more likely to be merely a byproduct of a voracious Web-based gossip culture where no part of a celebrity's life is off limits — or, in the case of politicians, an attempt by one side or the other to score political points.
Either way, the information, true or not, is out there for everyone to see.
"The reality is that the kinds of gossip and celebrity rumors that used to spread by phone, around the water cooler or over dinner are now ending up online where anyone can see them," says Glennda Testone, senior director of media programs for GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. "It doesn't mean that they're more credible, just that more people can see and spread them."
In the recent political case, Maher was arguing that a number of "people who run the underpinnings of the Republican Party" are gay, even though they don't support pro-gay positions. He said he wasn't going to name names, but then began to.
Despite CNN's actions to remove the remarks from circulation, several versions were available — including on Youtube.com, the repository of all events in our culture.
Many major gay rights groups oppose outing, saying it's a personal choice and should remain so. But there is a difference of opinion when it comes to the idea of outing political figures perceived as harming gay interests.
"When someone is in a position of power and they are using that power to hurt gay people ... it's perfectly appropriate that they be outed," says Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We don't do it, but we have no problem with it."
Foreman notes that the type of "outing" happening these days shows, in one way, that social progress has been made. "The stigma around being gay is gradually diminishing," he says. "At one point it was a huge scandal to say someone was gay." Now, he says, what fuels "outings" is something else: "It's not, 'This person's gay.' It's, 'This person's gay and can you believe what they're doing with their power?'"
Or, in the case of the entertainment world, merely a prurient interest in every aspect of a celebrity's life, from where they get their coffee to the results of their pregnancy tests to what baby clothes their kids are wearing.
"I don't think it comes as a surprise to see gossipmongers speculating about celebrities' sexual orientations," says Testone, "particularly when there's little about celebrities' private lives that these folks don't gossip and speculate about." She adds that truth is often a casualty: "When it comes to some of these Web sites that thrive on celebrity gossip, the rumor is often all that's needed."
Rumors are what prompted three recent Hollywood figures to come out publicly, all to People magazine. The most recent was Neil Patrick Harris, the former title character of "Doogie Howser, M.D." and now starring on the CBS comedy "How I Met Your Mother." Earlier this month he told People's Web site he was gay, saying he was responding to "speculation and interest in my private life and relationships."
A few weeks earlier it was "Grey's Anatomy" actor T.R. Knight, who said he was addressing "any unnecessary rumors that might be out there." Knight made it clear he would have preferred to keep his personal life private, and added he hoped "the fact that I'm gay isn't the most interesting part of me."
And before that it was Lance Bass, the former 'N Sync star, telling People he'd decided to "speak my mind" because rumors about his sexuality were starting to affect his daily life.
While gay groups applaud anyone's decision to come out, they are critical of the pressure on them by purveyors of gossip to do so.
"Celebrity outing can be very problematic," says Damon Romine, entertainment media director of GLAAD. "While this kind of gossip and speculation about a celebrity's orientation might lead some people to come out of the closet, it may drive others even further in."
"Ultimately," he added, "coming out is a personal process, one that ideally happens when celebrities make the decision not out of fear or intimidation but because they want the fuller, richer life that that openness provides."

Respecting Privacy Guidelines

By Bob Steele

When does the free flow of information that serves the public good outweigh the rights of individuals to personal privacy? That is a balancing act journalists regularly face.

Sometimes that question is applied to public officials who are accused of wrongdoing that involves their personal behavior.

Sometimes the privacy issue involves celebrities who seek media attention and bask in the spotlight, only to reject news coverage when it might tarnish their images.

And sometimes the privacy concerns apply to average citizens who are suddenly caught in the news by virtue of a tragedy or their connection to an otherwise newsworthy event.

The decisions individual journalists and news organizations make on these matters can have profound consequences. The challenge for journalists is to be professionally skilled and appropriately aggressive in seeking meaningful information that serves a legitimate public need to know, while being respectful and compassionate to those whose personal privacy may be intruded upon.

Journalists should ask themselves some important questions as they balance this public need to know with an individual’s right to privacy.

What is my journalistic purpose in seeking this information? In reporting it?
Does the public have a justifiable need to know? Or is this matter just one in which some want to know?
How much protection does this person deserve? Is this person a public official, public figure, or celebrity? Is this person involved in the news event by choice or by chance?
What is the nature of harm I might cause by intruding on someone’s privacy?
Can I cause considerable harm to someone just by asking questions, observing activity, or obtaining information even if I never actually report the story?
How can I better understand this person’s vulnerability and desire for privacy? Can I make a better decision by talking with this person?
What alternative approaches can I take in my reporting and my storytelling to minimize the harm of privacy invasion while still fulfilling my journalistic duty to inform the public? For instance, can I leave out some "private" matters while still accurately and fairly reporting the story? Or can I focus more on a system failure issue rather than reporting intensely on one individual?

About the Author:

Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values and Senior Ethics Faculty

Leads the Institute’s initiative in strengthening sound values in the practice of excellent journalism. Teaches practical applications to values challenges. Advises media leaders and coaches journalists on real-time values and ethics dilemmas. Connects Poynter with senior executives on issues of journalism and business values. Facilitates strategic thinking and planning sessions.
Directed Poynter's ethics programs for 14 years. Led ethics, values, and critical thinking workshops for more than 75 newspapers, television stations, and media groups. Researches, reports, and writes about values issues and the tough choices faced by media leaders. Author of numerous articles, columns, case studies, guidelines, and book chapters on journalism ethics and on values and leadership. Co-authored discussion guides and ethics workbooks for ASNE and RTNDF. Ten years of experience as reporter, executive producer, and news director for television stations in Maine and Iowa. B.A., economics, DePauw University; M.S. television-radio, Syracuse University; Ph.D., mass communications, University of Iowa, with dissertation on journalism ethics.

Of Tabloids and Rumors

I hate to push Jade's post down, but I thought this article was timely. Normally I don't follow celebrity gossip because I don't care, but the tone behind this article fits the current situation.

Vince Vaughn to tabloids: Watch it

NEW YORK (AP) -- Paging all tabloids: Be careful about what you write about Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston.

According to a statement released by a London law firm, the 36-year-old actor would be filing a "legal complaint" against a tabloid trio -- the New York Post and the Britain-based Daily Mirror and The Sun -- that said he was seen kissing a "mystery blonde" at an October 8 charity event in London and had called it quits with Aniston.

"Ms. Aniston and Mr. Vaughn had not ended their relationship either at the material time or since ... The suggestion that he was having a passionate embrace and kiss, or has ever been unfaithful to Ms. Aniston, are false," the statement said.

Aniston has also gone public about their couplehood -- albeit, in a kindler, gentler way. On Monday's "Oprah," the 37-year-old actress revealed that she and Vaughn are still together.

When Winfrey asked if she and Vaughn were "broken up," Aniston replied, "No, no."

If no settlement is reached between Vaughn and the tabloids, the case "is expected to go to jury trial in London's High Court" next year, the statement said.

Vaughn's spokesman, John Pisani, did not immediately respond Tuesday to an e-mail by The Associated Press seeking details about the lawsuit.
*****

I think a lot of times people don't realise how their comments could hurt. However unintentional it might be, those "innocent" statements, taken out of context, can damage relationships, careers, and make someone's life hell.

It's also disturbing that some believe that because a person is famous, he or she doesn't deserve a private life. This belief takes away the person's humanity and ultimately objectifies the person. Whether that famous person be Anderson Cooper or anyone else, he or she deserves the ability to keep some parts of his or her life out of the public eye.

Raping Anderson Cooper, again and again

I am sick of all the speculation over the private life of Anderson Cooper. Maybe those obsessed with it are more "sick" than me. Other than mine, I don't really care much about who sleeps with whom. That kind of American Obssesion only help to distract public focus of the things that really matter. Just check today's most popular news... Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton eating together wins over a landslide to the North Korea story.

Today I was censored, again, by a blog administrator. Me and my big mouth! In no way I'm re-printing the original post of that site because its content goes against the editorial lines of THIS blog, but the money quote was:

"Today is a free comment day. Only one rule, it's gotta be about Andy and only Andy or at least closely related to Andy, 'cause all I want today is Andy, Andy and more Andy. (P.S. I've been listening to Ta-Dah while writing this post.... She's my man, And we got all the balls we need....)"

Talking about Hezbollah and media manipulations...

My deleted answer:

"Do you have any proof, other than rumors, speculation, and unreliable sources or a direct answer from him that can prove your statement?I think the speculation is completely rude and out of order. It is nobody business. It is not news or for public consumption. Unless he is a pedophile or a rapist. His sexual orientation, whatever it is, is for his own pleasure and with whom he wish to share it. Two's company three is a crowd. And the last time I checked, the privacy of a bedroom was still protected constitutionally. It is very sad that after all the kudos he received for the Congo coverage, particularly for the stories of the rapes, he has to tolerate the RAPE OF HIS PRIVACY. Again and again. What does people gain with this? How this affect the world? Are people sleeping better and more safetly after Thomas Roberts announced he was gay? The world is still the same. And we are not making it better violating Constitutional or Human Rights."

At our website: www.freakspeaker.com we did an indepth analyis over censorship and blogs. When The Search For Entertainment Crashes Against Constitutional Rights, in where we explore different angles of the blog business, In Gossip Blogs: Freedom of Speech or Blunt Opportunism, we profile Nick Denton and his blogosphere empire, the product of Appreciation vs Obsession, Stalking and the Dan Rather case, where his assaultant was convicted for murdering a NBC stagehand in 1994.

Being a blogger or a webmaster doesn't give you a free pass for publishing everything. It is ruled by the same responsibilities that other media outlets have.

In order to help the blog community we have two important resources at our website ( www.freakspeaker.com) the
Legal Guidelines For Bloggers And Webmasters, the BBC's guide, How to Avoid Libel and Defamation and SHOULD I BELIEVE IT?: A GUIDE TO CRITICAL EVALUATION OF BLOGS, IMAGES AND NEWS.

Some quick FACTS:

Do blogs have the same constitutional protections and responsibilities as mainstream media?
Yes. The US Supreme Court has said that "in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities."

What are private facts?
Private facts are personal details about someone that have not been disclosed to the public. A person's sexual orientation, a sex-change operation, and a private romantic encounter could all be private facts. Once PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BY THAT PERSON, however, they move into the public domain.

What is defamation?
Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.
What is a statement of verifiable fact?
A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse.

What is "Libel Per Se"?

• Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
• Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
• Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
• Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.

What is a "false light" claim?

Information presented in a "false light" is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above.

We would really like to know your opinion about this. Do you really think it is cool to invade Anderson Cooper's private life, if it is fair game... or are me on the right track.

Freak Back!

To Post or Not to Post

Censorship on blogs--what's your take?So where should the admin draw the line? In the name of good taste or out of fear?Naturally I agree that as an admin you have a responsibility to your audience and you hope no one is offended by your blog's contents or tone. But where does free speech end and blog security (for lack of a better word) begin?Should I be able to go to a blog and post rumors about someone with no consequences? Are these rumors still protected as free speech? And what are the motives in spreading these rumors?Things to ponder.
Posted by courtney