6 ms·

https://mobile.twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/769636034749558784 https://mobile.twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/769636034749558... it appears the journalist works

https://mobile.twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/769636034749558784 https://mobile.twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/769636034749558... it appears the journalist works for both de volkskrant and al-jazeera. scrollytelling is mad that they haven't got paid twice.

caf 10y ago
Do you suppose the journalist got paid once or twice?
frankydp 10y ago
Yeah that twitter conversation seems to lend credence to the idea that the Dutch paper or the writer redistributed the story and attempted to bring the presentation with it. I would be curious to see the license that scrollytelling uses, as redistribution is such a key functionality of the industry.
- frankydp 10y ago
  Some other thoughts and speculation. If the Dutch paper did redistribute/re-license the story to AJ, and if that is in fact a violation of the scrollytelling license, then they(the paper) should be the customer that scrollytelling should be name/shaming and DMCAing. It is also likely that AJ views this(DMCA/blog post) as a upstream licensing issue, and the fact that they have a business relationship with the Dutch paper may lead them to take that up with the paper and not respond to scrollytelling. As, from AJ's point of view, they have already payed a license for the content in this scenario. EDIT: If scrollytelling does not have a straightforward and integrated solution for redistribution licensing then this was bound to happen and probably has before, they just didn't notice because it wasn't an outlet the volume of AJ.
wila 10y ago
They are upset that their code has been used in production without their consent. I'd say rightfully so. Also note that the twitter post is from August 28 and the blog post that was written is from today (September 18) So it seems that Al Jazeera was not that interested in resolving the issue.
- icebraining 10y ago
  So it seems that Al Jazeera was not that interested in resolving the issue. Or they just didn't see a random tweet that happened to mention their handle. The post doesn't mention any direct communication from Scrollytelling.
  - frankydp 10y ago
    The original blog post does say that scrollytelling sent a DMCA to AJ. But, that was probably handled with, "what link is that DMCA on?", "Oh we payed for that license, ignore it and tell de Volkskrant"
  - SyneRyder 10y ago
    The post does mention a DMCA request, that Al Jazeera also didn't respond to. Those are meant to be dealt with (at least with a reply) in a 24 - 72 hour timeframe. Except: it seems unlikely to me that Al Jazeera English is hosted in the US, which would mean a DMCA request is not legally binding for them.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      BTW, what makes a DMCA request binding for a company: does it have to host its services in the US, or would it be sufficient that it has a legal entity in the US? I can imagine that many companies could have an office and a legal entity in US while the actual service is run somewhere else, and I'd think that DMCA would still be enforceable towards the US legal entity.
      - SyneRyder 10y ago
        Good question! I don't know the answer, but I did find a forum comment by a host with servers in the Netherlands, Bulgaria & Ukraine who say they comply with DMCA requests because they are also a registered business entity in the US: https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/415046/#Comment_415046 https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/415046/#Commen... [Of course, taking legal opinion from a random forum comment is probably a bad idea...]
mosselman 10y ago
What I find bad form is to immediately take the discussion public. He/They could have approached the journalist privately first.
- Nelson69 10y ago
  But then they wouldn't be getting all this attention...
- smitherfield 10y ago
  That was one of the first lines: > We contacted the author of the piece, Hidde Boersma, who promised to resolve the situation.
  - toyg 10y ago
    This was added after the blog author was called out on misrepresenting the truth. In the first version, they did not mention the fact that the original writer had resold the piece to AJ, implying AJ were just ripping them off.
- mcphage 10y ago
  > What I find bad form is to immediately take the discussion public It's been a couple of weeks—how long do you think they should wait, while their costs keep mounting?
  - danso 10y ago
    Since they didn't mention even an estimate of the server costs, it's safe to say that it's probably not large enough to cause a stir over, at least in comparison to the cost of what they'd charge for using their CSS and other front-end code. They could've just denied access to the assets so that the AJ webdevs would have to recopy-refix them, while at the same time continuing the legal press. A couple of weeks is not a long time when going through the legal system. I'm not saying that winning a lawsuit is the ideal situation. I'm saying it leaves open the possibility that someone with actual power at AJ notices the problem, gets things fixed, and says, "Hey, this is a cool product, can we talk about a long-term deal for future stories?". Now they not have virtually no chance in getting AJ as a customer, which is too bad because AJ actually has money for these kinds of deals. But even if scrollytelling didn't want to work with AJ out of principle, they've now unnecessarily turned off other big media clients. Big media clients, i.e. traditional outlets with the morals, lawyers, and funds to pay for proper distribution contracts. These companies generally have lawyers who do not like dealing with vendors who litigate over Twitter.
tilsammans 10y ago
Well, this is our product. Wouldn't you be? In addition to copying the code, they left some original asset urls in there as well. Which means that those come out of our bandwidth bill. So yeah ... we're a little mad. Not terribly so, though. Life's too short.
- toyg 10y ago
  But your post makes it look like AJ just came and ripped it off, whereas the original journalist was just selling it around and you knew it. That's really poor form. By all means publicize it if you think you're in the right, but don't "selectively report" facts on the ground. For a company working with journalists, I'd expect more integrity.
  - Retric 10y ago
    > working with journalists, I'd expect more integrity. I don't know if it was intended, but that line is really funny.
    - toyg 10y ago
      You must demand integrity from journalists; it doesn't mean you will get it, but you certainly should have expectations of decent moral fortitude, and complain loudly if that doesn't happen. There are journalists fighting the good fight all over the world (Greenwald etc). They shouldn't be demeaned just because they have colleagues like Judith Miller.
- pwdisswordfish 10y ago
  You could have done this: http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1011 http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1011
- morgante 10y ago
  You absolutely should have included that detail in your article. It completely changes the story and it's highly unethical to exclude it. It's still wrong for Al Jazeera to use your code without licensing it, but you need to let your readers have all the facts. Without that detail, I was rather curious why de volkskrant wasn't also upset.
thisisit 10y ago
This conversation paints a different picture: 1. Did scrollytelling talk to someone privately before the tweet either volskrant or al-jazeera? Looks like they did and thing were being worked out before the put out a public tweet. 2. In the updated conversation it seems the reporter doesn't think any thing was wrong here and it was not his responsibility, which seems odd after said he was working on it back on 28th Aug. So it looks like there was messup on both sides. Though there are some things which are still not clear: 1. What were the specific terms of contract scrollytelling had? Did it in any form bar sharing of content? 2. Who was the initial owner of the contract - volkskrant or the reporter? If it was volkskrant, they have to talk to them first about allowing this to happen.
lucb1e 10y ago
Well it's out there anyway, whether they like it or not, and they've made their point by now... now if someone is looking for the content and they probably don't speak Dutch, might as well make use of the situation?
shortformblog 10y ago
How is Scrollytelling in this business without realizing that news outlets frequently syndicate their content in this way? Why put the reporter in the middle like this? It's bad form.
- danso 10y ago
  News outlets syndicate content under certain terms and conditions. Even if it's the reporter's fault for offering the code assets, it still required Al-Jazeera time and effort to rewire it for their own site, at which point someone should have noticed the copyright notice.

caf 10y ago

Do you suppose the journalist got paid once or twice?

frankydp 10y ago

Yeah that twitter conversation seems to lend credence to the idea that the Dutch paper or the writer redistributed the story and attempted to bring the presentation with it. I would be curious to see the license that scrollytelling uses, as redistribution is such a key functionality of the industry.

frankydp 10y ago
Some other thoughts and speculation. If the Dutch paper did redistribute/re-license the story to AJ, and if that is in fact a violation of the scrollytelling license, then they(the paper) should be the customer that scrollytelling should be name/shaming and DMCAing. It is also likely that AJ views this(DMCA/blog post) as a upstream licensing issue, and the fact that they have a business relationship with the Dutch paper may lead them to take that up with the paper and not respond to scrollytelling. As, from AJ's point of view, they have already payed a license for the content in this scenario. EDIT: If scrollytelling does not have a straightforward and integrated solution for redistribution licensing then this was bound to happen and probably has before, they just didn't notice because it wasn't an outlet the volume of AJ.

wila 10y ago

They are upset that their code has been used in production without their consent. I'd say rightfully so. Also note that the twitter post is from August 28 and the blog post that was written is from today (September 18) So it seems that Al Jazeera was not that interested in resolving the issue.

icebraining 10y ago
So it seems that Al Jazeera was not that interested in resolving the issue. Or they just didn't see a random tweet that happened to mention their handle. The post doesn't mention any direct communication from Scrollytelling.
- frankydp 10y ago
  The original blog post does say that scrollytelling sent a DMCA to AJ. But, that was probably handled with, "what link is that DMCA on?", "Oh we payed for that license, ignore it and tell de Volkskrant"
- SyneRyder 10y ago
  The post does mention a DMCA request, that Al Jazeera also didn't respond to. Those are meant to be dealt with (at least with a reply) in a 24 - 72 hour timeframe. Except: it seems unlikely to me that Al Jazeera English is hosted in the US, which would mean a DMCA request is not legally binding for them.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    BTW, what makes a DMCA request binding for a company: does it have to host its services in the US, or would it be sufficient that it has a legal entity in the US? I can imagine that many companies could have an office and a legal entity in US while the actual service is run somewhere else, and I'd think that DMCA would still be enforceable towards the US legal entity.
    - SyneRyder 10y ago
      Good question! I don't know the answer, but I did find a forum comment by a host with servers in the Netherlands, Bulgaria & Ukraine who say they comply with DMCA requests because they are also a registered business entity in the US: https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/415046/#Comment_415046 https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/415046/#Commen... [Of course, taking legal opinion from a random forum comment is probably a bad idea...]

mosselman 10y ago

What I find bad form is to immediately take the discussion public. He/They could have approached the journalist privately first.

Nelson69 10y ago
But then they wouldn't be getting all this attention...
smitherfield 10y ago
That was one of the first lines: > We contacted the author of the piece, Hidde Boersma, who promised to resolve the situation.
- toyg 10y ago
  This was added after the blog author was called out on misrepresenting the truth. In the first version, they did not mention the fact that the original writer had resold the piece to AJ, implying AJ were just ripping them off.
mcphage 10y ago
> What I find bad form is to immediately take the discussion public It's been a couple of weeks—how long do you think they should wait, while their costs keep mounting?
- danso 10y ago
  Since they didn't mention even an estimate of the server costs, it's safe to say that it's probably not large enough to cause a stir over, at least in comparison to the cost of what they'd charge for using their CSS and other front-end code. They could've just denied access to the assets so that the AJ webdevs would have to recopy-refix them, while at the same time continuing the legal press. A couple of weeks is not a long time when going through the legal system. I'm not saying that winning a lawsuit is the ideal situation. I'm saying it leaves open the possibility that someone with actual power at AJ notices the problem, gets things fixed, and says, "Hey, this is a cool product, can we talk about a long-term deal for future stories?". Now they not have virtually no chance in getting AJ as a customer, which is too bad because AJ actually has money for these kinds of deals. But even if scrollytelling didn't want to work with AJ out of principle, they've now unnecessarily turned off other big media clients. Big media clients, i.e. traditional outlets with the morals, lawyers, and funds to pay for proper distribution contracts. These companies generally have lawyers who do not like dealing with vendors who litigate over Twitter.

tilsammans 10y ago

Well, this is our product. Wouldn't you be? In addition to copying the code, they left some original asset urls in there as well. Which means that those come out of our bandwidth bill. So yeah ... we're a little mad. Not terribly so, though. Life's too short.

toyg 10y ago
But your post makes it look like AJ just came and ripped it off, whereas the original journalist was just selling it around and you knew it. That's really poor form. By all means publicize it if you think you're in the right, but don't "selectively report" facts on the ground. For a company working with journalists, I'd expect more integrity.
- Retric 10y ago
  > working with journalists, I'd expect more integrity. I don't know if it was intended, but that line is really funny.
  - toyg 10y ago
    You must demand integrity from journalists; it doesn't mean you will get it, but you certainly should have expectations of decent moral fortitude, and complain loudly if that doesn't happen. There are journalists fighting the good fight all over the world (Greenwald etc). They shouldn't be demeaned just because they have colleagues like Judith Miller.
pwdisswordfish 10y ago
You could have done this: http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1011 http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1011
morgante 10y ago
You absolutely should have included that detail in your article. It completely changes the story and it's highly unethical to exclude it. It's still wrong for Al Jazeera to use your code without licensing it, but you need to let your readers have all the facts. Without that detail, I was rather curious why de volkskrant wasn't also upset.

thisisit 10y ago

This conversation paints a different picture: 1. Did scrollytelling talk to someone privately before the tweet either volskrant or al-jazeera? Looks like they did and thing were being worked out before the put out a public tweet. 2. In the updated conversation it seems the reporter doesn't think any thing was wrong here and it was not his responsibility, which seems odd after said he was working on it back on 28th Aug. So it looks like there was messup on both sides. Though there are some things which are still not clear: 1. What were the specific terms of contract scrollytelling had? Did it in any form bar sharing of content? 2. Who was the initial owner of the contract - volkskrant or the reporter? If it was volkskrant, they have to talk to them first about allowing this to happen.

lucb1e 10y ago

Well it's out there anyway, whether they like it or not, and they've made their point by now... now if someone is looking for the content and they probably don't speak Dutch, might as well make use of the situation?

shortformblog 10y ago

How is Scrollytelling in this business without realizing that news outlets frequently syndicate their content in this way? Why put the reporter in the middle like this? It's bad form.

danso 10y ago
News outlets syndicate content under certain terms and conditions. Even if it's the reporter's fault for offering the code assets, it still required Al-Jazeera time and effort to rewire it for their own site, at which point someone should have noticed the copyright notice.