Boingboing runs advertising, which is sold because it links interested people to interesting stories. They don’t need to share their profits with Stu, because they’re not making money off his pictures—they just happen to be part of the story, and a means of enticing people to view his work. It would be different if BB ripped off all the photos. Plus, the original story includes a link to the NY Times that has the full story and all the pictures, who *do* make money off the story, and who *do* pay Stu. Fewer eyeballs = fewer dollars for Stu.

Can you imagine walking into a paint store and asking for paint samples, only to be told that if you want them, you’ll have to buy a bucket of paint? The store makes no money giving away samples, but it makes its money back (often many times over) when they have a sold a bucket of paint.

Yes, Stu reserves the right to be an ass, but that doesn’t mean others can’t ridicule him because of it just like I’m free to tell everyone not to visit your paint store because your customer service stinks.

Would you rather they just “disappeared” the story? There’s no commentary by Cory, and no editorializing. They took it down because of the letter, which is (I assume) faithfully reproduced verbatim.

Where do you get “spitefully” from?

Stu is a jerk who doesn’t appreciate free publicity and so he’ll be remembered for that instead of his photos, which is as it should be.

Warning: Nobelprize.org wants freebies

Warning, Nobelprize.org is out mining for free pix of Nobel Laureates for their website. They asked for my Aung San Suu Kyi images, pointing out how they were a lowly ‘non-profit’. I sent them my rates, plus a memo asking if they also asked for free lunch when they ate at the Swedish Deli, plus this link:

http://philmfreax.com/info/pricing.html
21 Oct 2009 18:10 | 26 replies

Hey, Stuart, if you’re worried about starving in your old age, if you’re ever down and out and in my vicinity, I’ll treat you to a meal & beer. But you’ll have to listen to a lecture on fair use while you eat.

Angry at us for publishing a take-down notice we received? It’s futile, so you may as well chill out.

Silly! The New York Times had no problem with it (we asked.) But the NYT wasn’t (in this case) the actual proprietor of the image. So we took it down when asked by the photographer. There’s not a lot of point to the post without it, unfortunately.

My opinion of it is my own, and I can say what I like.

Reframed as a practical question: How would one know, looking at the name Petra Franklin Lahaie, to refer to her by Franklin?

Not to mention: poor kid! “I didn’t have a yard to grow up in, my parents chose bragging rights to their friends over my childhood”. What a miserable place to grow up. Maybe they named their kid “Rapunzel”.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/08/07/realestate/0809-deal-slideshow_index.html

I actually like this one better, though. I wonder how much it would cost?

I think the photographer is an idiot, but that’s his right.

I also think that BB could push the issue, if they wanted to do so, by posting a smaller or quality-degraded picture instead. That would make this case fall much more solidly under Fair Use.

One could argue that what BB posted was only a small excerpt of the complete article, so Fair Use should apply either way. I think that argument might hold with respect to the NYT article itself, but from the photographer’s point of view, each photograph is a work of art in itself, so reposting just one photograph is essentially reposting an entire work of art. So how do you “excerpt” a photograph? I think that showing just a thumbnail photograph that’s only good for making you want to see the full-size version should be considered Fair Use.

Of course, that is *IF* BB really felt like taking this to the courts, and spend their time and money of litigation, as opposed to bringing us more yummy interwebs goodness…

That said, hadlock is probably right that heating/cooling the space is probably near impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_heating

They put in a lot of work to kick it into shape.

I hope that they get to keep it for a good long time, and aren’t kicked out by some developer who’ll rent it out to someone who’ll visit it three times a year – as one of their nine multi-million dollar homes.

coop