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

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.

What's with the Paparazzi?

No, Pistol Pete. You're a dumba**: 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.

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!