Front Page  »  

New Times, old photo?

May 14, 2010

In a much to do about nothing scenario, New Times co-publisher Alex Zuniga sent out e-mails that said both CalCoastNews and Arroyo Grande High School had broken copyright laws because they had put a New Times photo of the high school on their websites.

Meanwhile, school officials argue that their photographer took the picture and not the New Times photographer who has since published it as his work.

The controversy began when the New Times asked CalCoastNews to remove the photo from their site.

“I thought you should know about an unauthorized image that you are currently using with the Arroyo Grande athlete story, Zuniga said in an e-mail to CalCoastNews. “Somehow someone figured it to be a copyright free image for some reason. Obviously, it isn’t. So, if you could please let them know about that and have them replace it or taken down soon, I’d appreciate it.”

CalCoastNews responded by saying the image was from the school’s website and is a legal use.

“That would be true if the Lucia Mar School District owned the photo, but they also are using the New Times copyright photo without permission,” Zuniga responded,. “I have asked them to do the same thing (remove it from the website) with the image.”

Lucia Mar School District officials said they took the photo down while they worked to verify the creator. They plan to put it back up because they have since discovered it is not the property of the San Luis Obispo New Times.

Meanwhile, Zuniga said the school district has now agreed the photo is the property of New Times.

“We were able to talk with Alan (the head of the IT for the website) and the photographer who was initially thought to have taken the photo,” Zuniga said. “Both were able to clearly confirm that the photo in question is not theirs. Alan has taken the photo down but we’ve given them permission to use the photo in an existing slideshow, assuming they can technically get a photo credit on it.”

Update: The last quote from Zuniga was added on May 15. CalCoastNews removed the photo.


Loading...
Subjects:
Related:


54 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This got me thinking about a couple things.


First. If CCN really wants to STICK it in the eye of N.T. just go out to Arroyo High, get the same angle, and photograph it yourself and then put back up. Then N.T. can be the sissy cry babies all day long.


Two. The way I look at it though is that we (the people of California) could say to both CCN and N.T. the heck with both of you, it is our properity (the people of California) and neither one of you can photograph it if you don’t play nice.


0

This is pretty funny. I see a lot more negs. on this article then on most. Hmm. I bet the majority of thumbs down are New Times staff. Just like the cops flood articles related to them, I bet a lot of these are New Times staff.


All I have to say is welcome. Glad to see you are reading something better than your own rag.


0

Your right BTDT, This has primarily drawn the attention of those from the New Times. There hasn’t been a great deal of interest from the general readership. This has been pure entertainment. The NT sure had themselves a little conniption over it though.

Jordan J is correct when he said that the Shredder has taken a few pot shots at CCN and so I agree that what goes around comes around. All in good fun.

The difference is that NT takes their shots with nothing to base it on, which is why they have to do it as an opinion piece through the Shreder. Karen waits for the right moment where she can leave her opinion out of it and just present the fun facts. I’d say they are no match for her in this game. LOL


0

New Times e tal -Get a life! If you put this much energy into your articles you might once again be a publication I could look forward to reading. For the past 2-3 years there has been no substance in the publication. Cal Coast News is the only source of real information in this county. The Tribune and New Times now publish pablum/biased/safe articles.


0

Here is what I don’t like about Octavian’s RANT:


“1) Cal Coast News accuses New Times of stealing a picture from a high school web site after the New Times asks Cal Coast News to stop using a pilfered New Times photograph.”

FACT: CalCoastNews did not accuse New Times of stealing anything. CalCoastNews reported that Arroyo Grande Administration said the photo was their property and not the property of New Times.


2) “Cal Cost groupies (a gullible group it seems) accept what the article says as gospel ”

FACT: Why shouldn’t we accept it, it was an accurate account of the events. If you mean that many posters appeared to believe AGHS owned the photo rather than NT, how is that CCN’s fault? Aren’t we entitled to our opinions?


3) “Is there a retraction? No, Cal coast news doesn’t do retractions.”

What would you like CCN to retract? They have updated the “attraction” and informed their readers of the latest events, that doesn’t mean they reported the earlier events inaccurately and should now retract the earlier facts. AGHS has conceded. The photo has been removed and Karen has reported that AGHS has confirmed the property as belonging to NT. What more do you want? What can she possibly retract?


0

Oactavian – There was absolutely nothing inaccurate in Karen’s reporting. She didn’t report one single thing that was not TRUE. She didn’t accuse NT of anything. Karen was in the middle of two reputable agencies both claiming copyrights to a photo that each believed they owned. Karen simply penciled out a funny piece on the controversy which CCN found itself embroiled in and how it unfolded. This has been extremely comical from start to finish. As it turns out AGHS was wrong and NT was correct. Do you feel better now?


0

Cindy, Seems to me that CCN chose to take a polite, professional email request public and publish an article that was meant to be “funny” at the expense of New Times. Don’t you think that it would have been better simply to take the photo down and take the time to get the ownership facts crystal clear and right? And even then, even if the facts had come out in CCN’s favor–which they didn’t–why use them to try to lampoon a competitor?

That being said, I’m not signing on to all of Oactavian’s note, which seems harsh. CCN goofed and now looks a little silly for making it a matter of public discussion.


0

I have seen the Shredder take jabs at CCN and Karen on more than one occasion. I took all this in good humor, it’s was never a big deal, as what goes around comes around and they snipe at each other now and then. It’s called a symbiotic LHR. They are both interesting, informative,edgy media sites. I enjoy them both tremendously, yes that’s a fact.


0

From the update at the very bottom of the article, the photo of the high school REALLY DID belong to New Times all along and has now been pulled from CalCoastNews. Great. Glad they did the right thing.


Interestingly enough, the photo has been replaced with the Eagle photo that also appears to be from the AGHS site … but without any attribution!!

Given the hullabaloo over the last photo, it might have been nice CalCoastNews to add a watermark to the Eagle photo to the effect of: PHOTO COURTESY OF ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL.


0

LOL. The eagle photo is a copyrighted photo on Flickr.


0

This is the sort of thing that infuriates me about this site-


1) Cal Coast News accuses New Times of stealing a picture from a high school web site after the New Times asks Cal Coast News to stop using a pilfered New Times photograph.


2) Dave (Congalton?) calls for the firing of a New Times photographer,- takes down that post- then makes fun of a New Times’s editor’s religion, then deletes the post entirely


3) Cal Cost groupies (a gullible group it seems) accept what the article says as gospel


3) Now it turns out that Cal Coast accusations were bogus- Dave and his fellow bloggers were the ones in the wrong.


4) the problem here is regarding what your “reporter” hears as news,- you took what was gossip as the truth. This article was a complete distortion of the truth – you turned the whole truth upside down, accusing someone of what you were actually doing yourself


5) You quietly remove the page from the front of your site


Is there a retraction? No, Cal coast news doesn’t do retractions. Who deserves to be fired now using your own standards, Dave?


Have you no sense of decency? How many times have you done this with other articles and other people that you have not told us about?


Do yourselves a favor. Raise your standards. Don’t print gossip and groundless accusations and ,for heavens sake, don’t steal other people’s work. You can get away with a lot because of where you are- if you were in a large media market you could not survive with such low journalistic standards.


0

Thanks, Octavian for the ethics lecture. We’re just trying hard to make sure we get in the Shedder next Thursday so they have someone to go after other than Pat Hedges.


0

Interesting little story (enough to drag me into the comments section on this beautiful Saturday morning ; – )


I used a New Times pic once for one of my stories at this link:


http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/she-is-los-osos.html


The way I handled it was by adding the words “Photo: Courtesy of New Times” to the picture, and then, after I published it, I sent the link to the editors of New Times, to let them know I was using the photo, with the words, “Photo: Courtesy of New Times.”


They never said anything, so I assumed they were o.k. with it… which I HIGHLY appreciate.


Maybe CCN could start going that route when they use photographs that they did not take — you know, a quick attribution to where the photo came from.


Glen Starkey does that all the time, even when he’s simply using a band’s publicity photo.


I just went and looked: “Photo Courtesy of the SLO Jazz Fed”


The AGHS pic above doesn’t have a “Photo courtesy of…” line.


Even if it did come from AGHS, it could have read: “Photo courtesy of Arroyo Grande High School”


CCN wrote:


“a much to do about nothing scenario”


I’m not so sure about that.


1) Alex’s e-mail seems pretty casual (heck, even nice and polite). It doesn’t really strike me (at least) as “much to do.”


and;


2) Even though this story involves just one pic of a local high school, this overall subject — crediting the creator of an original photo, or story, or whatever — is far from “nothing.”


Interesting little story, though.


0

I apologize to the photographer, whom ever he might be for my insensitive statements about his work. I was weed whacking and it dawned on me how I would feel if someone talked about my work like that, especially if it was something like photography, where I earned my living through the appreciation of my product.


0

Mark James, That was nice of you, so I take it that you don’t really think it’s a “shitty” picture ;)


0

all i want to say is REALLY? why post a comment like this . the second part…. really , how old are we again?


0
1 2 3