Category Archives: What The Hell?

My Thoughts On “Big Data”

Leave a reply

When you hear the term “Big Data,” what are your thoughts?

Oooh… big and scary, right?  Big data is some special kind of data that contains a “super-special” kind of information that…

BULLSHIT!

It’s data, nothing more, nothing less.  Big data is a term thrown around by geeks and media types so they can get more eyeballs to their discussions.

There is no such thing as a special kind of data that is “big”… this term is what I call substance – less (as in, lacking all substance).

Data, the “stuff” being stored and transported on computers (and technically, offline as well)… can be about you, or not.

But let’s talk about the data that IS yours… your posts, your personal information, your internet browsing history etc…

I don’t care what all of the legal “mumbo-jumbo” says in various privacy terms established by Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc…

Your data is yours, and you (we) need to take back ownership of it.

Technology will help with that in the coming years, but for now, you need to make clear what companies can do with your information, and if they won’t comply… stop using that company’s services or software.\

That means deleting Facebook accounts if you feel your privacy is being violated, Facebook isn’t that important, and I assure you, if you want to reconnect with people from your past, there are other ways to do it.

But I’m not just picking on Facebook here, every media company or software company makes a sort of “deal” with you, especially if their product or service is FREE to use.

They trade your data for use of their product or service in some way.

If you don’t like that deal, don’t use that product or service… and be assured, your life will probably not be harmed by making that decision.

For now, until technology helps us do this automatically (which it will), we have to “vote” with our use of said services.  If you “vote” to keep using said product or service, don’t bitch when your privacy is violated past your expectation.

Big data… a marketing and media term only, it’s all data folks… nothing more.

Nintendo Of America With A BIG, Fat Fail

1 Reply

If you’re on Twitter, and you check out hashtag #nintendofail you’ll begin to see a series of posts developing over a recent move (some people would call it a “dick” move) by Nintendo of America.

I can’t believe I’m typing this, but Nintendo can’t stand the fact that kids and adults alike are creating their own “play through” videos of Nintendo games, posting them to YouTube… and because some (perhaps most) of these accounts are “monetized”… these folks are making a SMALL amount of money off of the ad clicks generated by these videos.

Nintendo couldn’t stand it, and are standing firm on their “these games are ours” copyright-oriented ground… and pulled the most “old media” type of action.

They took the revenue being made by the play through creators for themselves in a partnership with YouTube. Sad.

The story is here along with Nintendo’s rather stern and not very fun statement.

Bad move by a gaming company… do they not see the value of the FREE marketing these play throughs were providing for them?

That, and I think their bottom line wasn’t hurt a bit from these play throughs.

I will edit this post as I get new information.

 

My Privacy Is Mine, Your Privacy Is Yours… Own It

Leave a reply

 

The above Tweet links to a talk Danah Boyd gave in 2010 about privacy.

As much as some techies and geeks want to dismiss it (calling it “dead”), privacy is an important topic… one that needs to be debated out to the n’th degree.

Folks, we need to own our privacy… and quit dealing it out to Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other companies without knowing what the “deal” is.  If you like the deal any of these companies offer in exchange for use of their particular media tool, then by all means take it.

If you wonder about the deal being offered, DON’T use the tool until you can be comfortable using it.  If you have problems with the “deal” either stop using the tool, or don’t use it in the first place.  And keep in mind, any of these companies will continually change the “deal” being offered.

Your privacy is for sale people… to the most – targeted bidder.  Any company that says otherwise had better be able to provide proof beyond “PR” type responses.  Show us you’re not selling our information to the advertisers, and the more the better, and you’ve got one point down.

Quit assuming we want to “opt-in” and instead present it as a well-explained option.

Not all of us understand your pages and pages of geek-speak.

(I understand a great deal of it, but sometimes…)

And folks reading this, you need to examine the “deal” media companies are offering you online… in depth.  Yep, that requires more work than just “clicking to agree” and hoping for the best… but it’s your life out there, online.  Don’t expect these media companies to respect it, they give you everything you need to know… it’s just that some of it isn’t in the limelight, easy for you to see.

There are a TON of related topics here, I will expand on this, and I am touching on this in my upcoming book… Slow.

But for now, let’s take a harder look at what we’re offering of ourselves online, and establish our privacy boundaries… it’s ok for you to do this, no matter what the geeks might say ;)

 

Be REALLY Careful Where You Get Your Images

4 Replies

Online images and photographs, and the appropriate use and licensing of those images is an important topic.

Recently, my friend and fellow copywriter Ryan Healy wrote a blog post covering a series of letters he received demanding payment in settlement for use of images that claimed he allegedly violated copyright law.

Read the linked post at http://www.ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/ to get his explanation of what happened.

In short, folks… if you use images of ANY type online, in blog posts, articles, on websites… whatever… you have to be extremely careful you understand the rights surrounding the use of images.  You also have to be careful from whom you purchase those images, and who controls the rights to those images.

I’m not an attorney, so consult one if you feel you need to… this is that important.

Now for my opinion on the topic…

In short, there are a few companies Ryan listed in the blog post I linked to above where he recommends you do NOT shop for images.  I will be following his recommendation.

EDIT:  I’ve gotten a few emails asking those recommendations be posted here, so I will quote Ryan’s post where he placed those recommendations in a nice listed format:

A List of Photo Resellers to Avoid

If you disagree with the use of settlement demand letters that ask for extortionate amounts of money from innocent infringers, then you can vote with your dollars and take your business elsewhere.

The following companies are known to issue tens of thousands of settlement demand letters every year, many of which are sent to innocent infringers:

  • Getty Images
  • iStockphoto (owned by Getty)
  • Masterfile
  • Corbis Images
  • Jupiter Images
  • Superstock

Regardless of the outcome of my particular case, I will no longer support these companies. I recommend you avoid them also.

That being said…

I think photographers who publish their images online with the expectation to profit from said images deserve all the profit and credit from these images that the law allows.

But the law, in my opinion, needs to be clarified and more specific so NO ONE can set damages received for inappropriate use of these images (not the accuser or the accused).

Instead, the law itself needs to get really clear about what damages can be awarded, so clear that there is NO argument about who pays, and who gets paid… then what is paid when something like Ryan’s situation happens.

Here’s an idea that is circulating in my head, and it is by no means complete:

  • When a photographer sets a price for their image they need to be clear in their pricing… and if there are royalty payments, those need to be crystal clear as well.
  • These figures need to be listed clearly somewhere where the photo is being sold or published for use (not all images are sold for profit, but for purposes of law, these figures STILL need to be published to establish value).
  • If someone uses a photo without proper paid license, or does not obtain proper documented permissions from the photographer, then this published value becomes the basis for damages set.
  • The published value needs to be set ONLY by the photographer, and changed ONLY by the photographer, and MUST be set in order to claim damages.
  • The damages for inappropriate use are set to a specific (and reasonable) multiplier of the base figure set ONLY by the photographer.
  • Also, the photographer cannot sell the photo for profit at a different rate than would be expected to be paid if someone simply used their photo inappropriately (e.g. they would price it at a sale price, and a “value establishing” price, and both are the same).
  • And finally, a watermark establishing licensing rights, or use rights would need to be placed on the base image uploaded by the photographer in order to claim damages (if someone pays for a license, this watermark would be removed… so it’s easier to determine if the images are used correctly).

Obviously, this isn’t a perfect system… but the discussion around this sensitive issue will continue, and is an important one… but the bottom line is…

Be very careful about your use of images and photos (e.g. don’t just search Google blindly and use images freely).  Also be careful from whom you purchase images, keep your documentation on file (offline) for proof etc…

For me, from this point forward, I will either be using a Creative Commons search to find images licensed for use without the baggage of the license (see the linked website for details)… or taking my own photos for use myself.

It’s easier that way… sheesh. :)

The Media Manipulation Problem

Leave a reply

There is a problem with manipulation of the media in this connected society we live in.  If we don’t do anything about it… or hide our heads in the sand… there could be dire consequences (there already have been).

In my last post I shared a Google+ Hangout video where there was a very relevant discussion of the problem with our current digital media system… made obvious by a book written by Ryan Holiday titled “Trust Me, I’m Lying.”

Ryan’s motives were questioned in that video… but those are irrelevant to the problem that needs to be solved.

Here’s the short version of the problem as I see it…

The transaction of media has several parts, a reporter, a source, and the consumer.  In my opinion, anyone or anything involved in that transaction is responsible (in different ways of course) for the outcome of said piece of media.

Without going into a full-on journalism class (which I am NOT qualified to teach), here are those responsibilities from my point of view:

The reporter is responsible for being honest, ethical, and gaining a credible source, vetting that source, then reporting accurate and unbiased media.

The source is responsible for being honest, ethical, and being a reliable source of accurate information as it pertains to the media being reported.

The consumer is responsible for taking all media they consume with a “grain of salt” as Grandpa used to say, and if they share said media, do so with the full understanding of the facts reported in said media (they should “vet” the media itself).

But there is one more piece to the puzzle…

Any connection tools used in the transaction of media are responsible for educating BOTH the reporters AND the sources on their proper roles in the process, and ensuring that responsibility is carried out to the fullest capacity… period.  An example of this type of tool is a popular service named Help a Reporter Out (HARO).  This tool was highlighted in the video I shared in my last post.

The education could be carried out by content, and possibly by some sort of qualification process for both reporters and sources.

Ryan wrote a much-needed book on media manipulation, and it started a very important conversation, regardless of his motives, which to me was in fact to sell books at the same time as preparing a valuable message.  What is most important here is will anyone in PR, journalism, or even blogging carry that conversation forward fully?

I’m in. :)