Photos shouldn't be stolen

I'm all about sharing content online. With one caveat. Link back and attribute that shared content to the original creator. I've been very stringent about this area with the content I share via MinnPics. The photographers who take those photos work hard and are proud enough and generous enough to share their content with the world and everyone should respect that work.

But what happens when the shared content online lands in a print publication where the publication earns money from someone's free content? If you're south metro (Minneapolis) blogger Bill Roehl, you send the offending This Week Newspapers (and parent company ECM Publishing) an invoice for $300 for using the unattributed photo. But being skinflints who seem to be in the business of devaluing the work of others while profiting from it, they ponied up a mere $50.

This isn't the first time something like this has happened and, because of unscrupulous and uncaring business people, it definitely won't be the last. I have seen it happen within my own office. Someone will demand a particular image for a client and while we do our best to use something from one of our vast subscription image services, we have very little pull in the situation and when push comes to shove the demanding party usually succeeds in pilfering an image from someone's website.

The obvious problem with this is that the image from whatever website was chosen may (or may not) be copyrighted by that particular website. It may have been stolen from another website by a flat out shitty web designer. We go round and round about how Google image search isn't an art source full of images free for the taking. Those images belong to other people and not everything you view on your monitor is yours to download and re-use. The second problem with using content residing online is that the resolution is about 1/4 of what is optimal for printed materials so while it is "free" the quality is basically shit so you've broken a law or two and shortchanged paying customers by providing lower quality images.

Another possibility is receiving a client's okay to use an image that resides on their website. They demand it and know that because it's on their website, they own the image. Or at least they think they do. This happened a few years ago with a client who chose an image (shitty as it was) from their website for a print publication. The problem was than an unscrupulous web designer had stolen this particular image from another website (a large fitness club rhyming with wifetime) and we were stuck in the middle with a rather strongly worded letter full of legalese. While this taught a couple people a lesson, it didn't percolate down to the rest.

The lesson here is to attribute people properly and if you're unsure about an image, ask questions or simply don't use it. If you don't like hassles, be honest and quit being thieving pricks. Yes, I'm looking at you This Week Newspapers.

Now that I'm off of my soapbox, head over to the Creative Commons obeying MinnPics and shower down kind words on the fabulous photos showcased there. (And if you're in the south metro this week, it's the final week of exhibition of the artwork from the Savage Art Show. The photo I entered is on display at Associated Bank in Savage, MN)

Only a prick would ban dildos

After reading this Slate story on the illegality of "toys of sexual gratification" (you know what I mean) in states such as Texas (wow, what a shocker) and Mississippi (color me surprised) to name a couple, I got to snooping about dumb laws still on the books in Minnesota.

I only found two that were peculiar to me. Apparently both the act of oral sex and sleeping naked are just cause for legal action in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Why is that? Were old-timey Minnesotans straight-up prudes or did a couple of lawmakers have a grudge to settle with someone? What would cause a politician (likely sporting a stove pipe hat) to think that sleeping without 'yer wool jammies was cause for some jail time? Did his wife have a case of ice ass or had he caught a glimpse of his next door neighbor getting a late-night cup of water from the backyard well?

As for the oral sex one, maybe said politician's wife had a fondness for performing the act but she also had the unfortunate habit of involving her teeth as well. What better way to avoid some awkwardness than flat out banning the very act where the end result would have been the very reason to invent the Band-Aid?

But back to Texas. Are the prudes in the land of cowboys really so insecure that they think their wives may be wooed away by a piece of carefully shaped plastic? Seriously Texans, I've heard ads on the radio right here in the Twin Cities for honest to gosh stores (The Smitten Kitten) selling "fun toys for her" or some other slyly worded marketing line. That fact alone should convince folks in The Lonestar State to throw caution to the wind and allow "pleasurable toys" to be sold. If for no other reason than the sales tax alone.

Think of all the lonely ladies wearing Wrangler jeans and girly cowboy hats that would stroll through the doors of their friendly neighborhood "marital aids" shop for a little something to tide them over while their big burly man of a man spent a couple long weeks riding the range roping steers.

Just think, too, about not having to explain to her cowboy husband all the odd out-of-state charges to their Lonestar Bank Visa for items that would make the Wrangler-wearing cowgirl blush. Factor in the convenience and it's a no-brainer. If only women in these states would finally be given the right to vote.

I have to wonder if I've overlooked any stupid laws. Have any of you ever been cited for something so stupid it made you ask the officer if he was serious? Have you frequented Minneapolis' "Smitten Kitten"?