In regard to the blog post on your site – ‘Did Mayor Boughton steal my photograph?’
The answer is NO.
Mayor Boughton is far too busy with the important business of leading the city and tackling tough issues to peruse the internet gobbling up images of….himself.
Thus, he hires professional firms to assist him – and in this case – my firm, yn2media.
Now with regard to the image in question – we are investigating where and how we obtained it for www.SupportReform.org – in fact it could have been from a simple image search – and could have possibly originated from your site – and if so, I apologize for not granting attribution, regardless of the source.
While attribution is not legally required in this instance – since it would be covered by section 107 of the US Copyright Law and is fully in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 – It is not the practice of yn2media to utilize images and fail to grant attribution.
In fact, the main images at SupportReform.org were purchased and the owners paid royalty fees.
While we may represent different ends of the political spectrum – I suspect our concern for original content, maintaining its integrity and granting rightful attribution is equally great.
Therefore, I have asked our design department to remove the image until and unless its origin can be clearly determined.
It is my hope that this action and communiqué have addressed your concerns.
If you would like to discuss this issue further, in person, please feel free to call me direct at xxx.xxx.xxxx ext xx.
Sincerely, Jon K. Fagan
Seems like a somewhat fair response but it still doesn;t address HOW my photo was used on a site which paid royality fees for the pther images used on the site.
I would of wished Jon was less defensive and would of just cleared up the matter as a simple attribution could of done the trick but hey, what can you do. Some people think this is an anti-Boughton site which is not the case. Just becsuse I don't agree with a good portion of his policy doesn't mean that I'm in some way anti-Boughton nor anti-Republican (take a look at my archives and check out the way I ripped the Democrats during the last election and you'll get the picture).
Now, I know many people down at City Hall check this site out so I'm going to be cool about this for now and ask someone to kindly tell the Mayor to take my photograh off of his site or obey the rules of my site and give me credit for my work (photo courtesy of Hat City Blog).
In fairness, here's my response to Jon:
Dear Jon,
Thanks for your prompt reply. As a designer, you would know that picking up images from a simple image google search is a big no, no and would NEVER be the practice of a design firm.
Also, this has nothing to do with a political viewpoint nor is this an anti-Boughton site, this is about using someone's work (in this case mine) without giving the photographer (in this case, me) attribution.
Also, I'm sure the mayor had nothing to do with the image BUT it is a site that he hired you guys to create. Since he obviously approved the content on the site, he would bears some responsibility to the content of the site. For example, if you placed a misleading statement or an outright lie that Boughton did not say on the site (and he didn’t catch it before it was published), people would initially criticize and hold Boughton before the design firm.
In any case, this is not the point. My site makes it pretty clear as All original video/audio/graphical/text works is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License and even if you received the work from a image search, your firm could not use it without either paying the photographer or receiving permission to use the work. You statement about paying for royalty photos reinforces my statement.
Please remember, this would episode would not of been a problem if your firm would of simply ask for my permission and/or gave me attribution. If you didn’t take the photo, you have to give someone credit for the work, it’s that simple.
Again, thank you for resolving the matter and I look forward to hearing your follow-up to how my image was used on the site.
Well, I think we got that cleared up...now lets move on.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
Dear HatCityBlog:
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
