|DNAinfo.com Twitter Feed screen shot.|
Editors Note 1:20 pm - John Versical brings up a good point, this is a question more than anything about the usage of photos than an official accusation of copyright infringement. What is the service that Loyola Student Dispatch provides besides copying and pasting sections of news articles, pictures and then reposting them?
Even if they are cleared by the original sources they are only official regurgitators then. They are watering down the news by being middle men. It does look odd however to post a photo that isn't yours without a subtitle giving the provenance. Yes there is a grey line between copyright infringement and fair use?
|Loyola Student Dispatch screen shot with unlabeled photograph which|
they probably didn't take unless they made a special trip to the Vatican.
If you have your own news story then it makes sense to tweet it. If its not your news story then what is the point? You are just regurgitating it. It makes sense when the source of the news like Alderman Joe Moore's office releases tweets. But if its just your face and a sentence and a link to the news story, is there a point to that? Why doesn't DNAinfo.com have Twitter feeds coming in from the sources rather than the regurgitators?
There are websites like Chicago Curbed that at least have an opinion about whatever they are reposting and they post their little opinion piece on it and then link to the story where you must go to the other site to read the whole story. That is what should be done here. Chicago Curbed is an example of what a hub for news should strive to be. They create their own news stories as well and highlight other people's news stories and photos via flickr and they give them credit for it. Just tweeting or retweeting stuff is meaningless.
What if Chevanston decided to run their own pseudo story with Benjamin Woodard's photos and didn't give him credit? Well there would be hell to pay! (as well there should be).