Farmer Seth

You guys seriously make me ashamed to be a journalist. You don't need any shenanigans from me to make yourselves look like idiots. You do a pretty great job on your own. I'll leave you to it.
— June 8, 2010 3:12 p.m.

Farmer Seth

Jay-Once again, you're passing the buck. That's always your argument: "It's not my fault. It's the Reader that handles that." Don't you care enough to check your facts and make sure that the artists who "provide" the photography at least get credited for their work? You get paid for what you do. Why shouldn't they? The last piece you did on me was filled with inaccuracies and when I pointed that out to you, you passed the buck then as well. You didn't even contact me for the story and it was about me! Even the guy who wrote the song about me (which you were writing about) called you out on your bulls*** reporting. I honestly believe that you've never read any of my stuff aside from a few negative local music reviews and a few that were convenient to your arguments that I'm "mean spirited". While you were spinning gossip and rehashing Locals Only stories, you probably didn't notice that I was doing vastly more positive articles on local bands than negative ones. If you didn't think what I was doing was at least worthwhile, why would you write about me so much? Sure, I may have an opinion, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone complaining that I get the facts wrong which certainly can not be said for the Reader's music "reporting" or lack thereof. Absolute. Lazy. Copycat. Drivel. In the case of the photograph, the fact that you have no idea on the legalities of the matter only proves further how unqualified you are to be a reporter and how shady The Reader's editorial policy is. That photograph is the artistic property of someone else and The Reader's publishing of it is illegal. I'm sorry, but there is no arguing around that. And as much or as many times as you just try to point out how lame I am as a writer or how liberal CityBeat is or whatever rouse you guys want to use, you can't or you just simply refuse to just come out and say, "Yeah, you know what? The Reader messed up on that one. I'll let them know that they should run a correction." You owe your readers and the photographer a correction in the paper. What's more, you owe the photographer money. I've already contacted him to let him know he should bill The Reader forthwith.
— June 7, 2010 8:24 p.m.

Farmer Seth

Gringo-No, you're missing the point. Who lied? As far as you know, that could have been my intention all along. I might have changed my mind about moving. I might still be going. I might have been f***ing with you guys. But you'll never know, because the interview was conducted almost a month ago and is only now running in the paper. Don't you dare accuse me of lying. It's that kind of conjecture that gets The Reader's reporters in trouble in the first place. I cannot believe you guys! You sit here and honestly argue that your paper has done nothing wrong. I'm not arguing about the f***ing story! I'm arguing that The Reader swiped a pic that they had no right to use and to add insult to injury, they ran it without giving the photographer credit. The blog you refer to is funny and satirical and I gave him permission (albeit, after the fact) to use that pic. What The Reader did is illegal!!! I'm not going to explain it to you all over again as I had to here: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2010/feb/24/bl…
— June 7, 2010 8:22 p.m.

Farmer Seth

I do have an issue with that guy taking the picture and using it on his blog, but as you said, it's just an "idiotic blog," and I do not hold him to the same standard that I would an actual newspaper. That may be somewhat hypocritical, but the fact that a supposedly reputable news organization like The Reader makes the same mistakes that an "idiotic blog" does really doesn't make me look like the dumbass here and you can spin it any way you want but you know that your boys f***ed up. In fact, you guys didn't even make the same mistake as the blogger. The Reader's f***-up was worse. The Reader took a photo off a blog and just assumed that he took it without asking him or the subject of the photo. On no part of that blog does he indicate that he took the photo and it's asinine to think that he actually had the gumption to take such a photo. Moreover, it's fairly easy just to email me and say, "Hey Seth, who took this photo and do you mind if we use it?" I would have said yes although, as I mentioned, I do not own the rights to that photo as it was taken by a professional photographer at a party so I would have had to get the photographer's permission first. Either way, no one contacted me for a photo and the fact that you just pulled a photo that is somebody else's property and then credited the wrong person is just downright lazy, not to mention illegal. And I love how you guys never answer the question. ANSWER THE QUESTION!! What makes you think that it's okay to simply take a photo of me that you have no right to use and not only publish it but don't even credit the person who originally shot the photo? We had the same argument when it came to the GossipScene girl and you guys kept playing stupid and tried to pass the buck. And don't preach that nonsense like, "Oh, well you let a blogger use it so why not us?" The difference is that I have a sense of humor when it comes to that blog. I do not have a sense of humor when it comes to journalistic indolence.
— June 7, 2010 6:04 p.m.

Farmer Seth

Once again Jay, you avoid the question and my original point of contention. What makes you think that it's okay to simply take a photo of me that you have no right to use and not only publish it but don't even credit the person who originally shot the photo? I don't need to go out of my way to make you guys look like idiots. You do a pretty good job doing that yourself. I am a journalist, albeit one with an opinion of which I happily share with CityBeat's readers. When I do features on a band or artist I take the time to get the facts correct and make sure that the photographers are credited. I don't cut corners or print gossipy fallacies like the Blurt section seems to do on a regular basis. And, I actually live in the city that I write about (same can't be said for you). I may have an opinion, sometimes even disagreeable ones, but it's always clear when I'm editorializing. I'm of the opinion that a scene thrives on disagreement and criticism and I've never been one to simply say that every thing or every band is great just to be supportive. I'll leave that to you guys. What's sad is you don't even do that very well.
— June 7, 2010 12:36 p.m.

Farmer Seth

By the way, in order to further prove how ridiculously inept and unprofessional the editorial staff is at The Reader, you used a photo of me that is owned by a professional photographer (Alan Smith). Not only did you use it without asking my or his permission, but you credited the photo to a blog that simply pulled it off my old MySpace account. Is it really that hard to simply email me to ask for a photo? Or just simply ask me who took the photo? This is Journalism 101, people! Artists get screwed enough as is and you guys can't even pick up a phone or send an email?! Jesus, what absolute laziness!
— June 3, 2010 3:11 p.m.

Farmer Seth

Buckets and buckets of FAIL! http://www.sadtrombone.com/
— June 3, 2010 2:49 p.m.

That's So Un-Punk

Aww, Jay told Rosey on me. That's so un-punk.
— February 25, 2010 11:17 p.m.

What's with the Paparazzi?

Pete-Thanks for being the bigger man in this and admitting your faux pas. As for "fair use," as I mentioned in the post above, it's hard to prove this because a publication would have to prove that they did not benefit or profit from running the photo. In the case of editorial, that is extremely difficult because a paper sells ads.
— February 25, 2010 11:05 p.m.

What's with the Paparazzi?

No, Pistol Pete. You're a dumba**: http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html A sample: Q. How do I copyright my works? A. A copyright originates at the moment a work is created. For a written work, the copyright comes into existence as the words are typed, printed, or saved to a computer disk. For a photograph, the copyright is created at the moment the image is developed. If a photograph is taken with a modern digital camera, the copyright originates at the time the image is saved on a computer disk or on a hard drive. As long as the work exists in tangible form or can be understood or reproduced with the aid of a machine, it is copyrighted. Q. Do I have to file anything in Washington, D.C., in order to get a copyright? A. No. A copyright is secured automatically when a work is created. This concept is frequently misunderstood. Some people still believe that there are formalities required in order to create a copyright. This is not true. Under the latest version of the Copyright Act, neither publication nor registration with the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is required in order to secure full copyright protection. When a work is created, it is automatically copyrighted.
— February 25, 2010 10:32 p.m.