Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why You Should Never Lose Your Digital Media

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the lost-and-found dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 671

kkrista writes "What would you do if you found someone's digital media card from their camera in your taxi? One such individual has decided to provide the world with 227 days of entertainment. I Found Some Of Your Life will post a photo a day and accompanying fictional narrative for the next 227 days using the photos found on a digital media card left in a cab. Is it pure genius or pure evil? Who cares? Just be thankful they're not your photos."

cancel ×

671 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wait a minute (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10294976)

Those ARE my pictures! Please Slashdot them so no one can see them! Thanks.

Thank you sir, may I have another photo published? (4, Interesting)

SYFer (617415) | more than 9 years ago | (#10294978)

It's truly one of the great blogs of all time, IMO. Ya just gotta read it from the beginning [blogspot.com] to savor it fully. Soon however, perhaps even tonight via this very thread, the gig, as they say, will be up.

One of "Jordan's" Slashdot-reading frat brothers (probably the goofy EE major who got in on a legacy bid) will spill the beans. I'd love to be a fly on the paddle-festooned wall for that moment.

What will happen next? The blogger has been careful to conceal his or her identity. What are the legal issues? Can the blog continue? Does the blogger face any liabilities?

If "Jordan" and his chums play it one way, they could be minor celebrities for a while--perhaps concealing their knowledge of the blog's existence to let the thing reach critical mass. Jordan could be the next Mahir! "I am Jordan! I high five you!"

On the other hand, they can probably bring terrible, expensive legal might to bear. What will blogspot do? What will become of America's new best-loved blog?

This little dramady is just beginning! heh

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (5, Insightful)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295033)

I'll leave the legal issues for the lawyers to handle - but more importantly, is it ethical?

If you found someone's driver's wallet with their driver's license and credit cards, would you go ahead and impersonate them or steal their identity? It would be an identity theft - in some ways, I think that is exactly what this guy is doing.

I shudder to think what will happen if the real guy finds out. I for one know that if my pics were put up on the net - I would certainly get very mad, very pissed and would sue this guy to kingdom come.

Leave the fun and coolness part of it - it's just not quite right, it's unethical and wrong. I do not know about anybody else, but in my book what this guy is doing is simply wrong.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (5, Insightful)

zors (665805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295068)

I can understand being mad, wanting an apology, and wanting the blog aken down, and maybe criminal proceedings if any laws were broken. But why do people think they deserve money for something like this? What have they lost? Mental suffering? Bullshit. People are just greedy bastards.

/Rant

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295131)

The point isn't that they should receive the money. The point is that the person who's being an antisocial asshole deserves to LOSE it. After that, the person he wronged might as well get it.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295155)

/Rant

OK, stop this Fark bullshit.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (0, Offtopic)

el-spectre (668104) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295203)

this is not a fark thing... it's been around for as long as HTML (almost always "rant" "whine" or "flame"), and used (correctly) as an "end tag"

hence, "/rant" means "I'm done ranting"

Fark folks use it for any damned thing
/like
//it's
///the only way to end a fucking post...

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295221)

But why do people think they deserve money for something like this?

Distributing copyrighted works without permission, especially unpublished copyrighted works straight out of a camera, can result in severe statutory damages.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (4, Interesting)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295222)

The point is that what this person is doing is wrong. Taking another's property (no matter where you found it) is simply illegal. And using it in any way that the person would not approve of is definitely wrong (and now you would be telling me that the person who posted this stuff would not mind his pics being posted?).

It's not being greedy - for having done something like this, I'd like to see the other person suffer. The idea of sending a man to prison is not to make others feel happy - it's to make HIM feel bad and pay for his crime. Whether or not it works is a different issue, the idea is that you are punished for your actions.

Duh, I can't help it if you have an idea that taking a person to court is merely for my monetary benefit. That's YOUR flawed thinking, nowhere in my post did I suggest so. I merely said I'd sue this person for his wrongful act.

Is there anything in wanting to take a person to court because s/he posted my pics? And ofcourse, the brilliant Slashdot mods will moderate it down because nobody ever stops to think for a moment what the post really meant.

Sheesh.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (3, Insightful)

spoco2 (322835) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295080)

"would you go ahead and impersonate them or steal their identity?"
No, and neither is this guy... he has there, for all to see, the disclaimer that this is all 'MADE UP', that what is being said is not the truth.

It's almost as if the card was meant to be left there, what with exactly one year of photos on it... almost like it was an arts project.

Or not.

It is amusing though... and from what I've seen, there's nothing there to be really worried about if they were your photos. Plus, he's now got them on the net in a professional manner for his friends to see. (and it's not like he could get off his arse to do so himself if there was a year's worth of shots on there)

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (2, Insightful)

photonagon (721776) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295082)

Comparing posting pictures on the internet to stealing one's identity is kind of a stretch. One is blatently illegal, and as stated in parent, the legality of this is unknown.

Even on an ethical level, many people post personal pictures on a website/blog, though I don't think they go around impersonating themselves or others.

Illegal? Probably not. Immoral? Maybe. A cruel or at least embarressing joke? Yes. Made me laugh :)

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295083)

Well, it would be at least 200 violations of copyright for starters and depending on the location it could be a violation of privacy laws. But, then again, the USA doesn't have any privacy laws that protect normal people.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (5, Informative)

llin (54970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295065)

If you read this comment [blogspot.com] , you'll see that someone already found one of the people in the photo a while ago. The conclusion of the discussion at the time was that the participants should be allowed to 'discover for themselves.'

Hopefully the meta-drama will half as fun as the blog so far :)

(Yeah, it's pretty wrong. But hilarious.)

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (4, Informative)

tempest2i (763762) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295169)

Here you go people.

First a picture from "I Found Some of Your Life"

Dianne [blogger.com]

Now a picture from KappaDelta

Lindsey [vanderbilt.edu]

That's basically the comment that got deleted.

And those are the same person!

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (0, Redundant)

Technician (215283) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295089)

What are the legal issues? Can the blog continue? Does the blogger face any liabilities?

Who cares? He drives a Taxi. It's not the greatest income in the world. I doubt he has many assets worth trying to win in a judgement.

If I found a memory card and did the same thing, I'd probably claim I was in a low income position to avoid a lawsuit also.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (1)

here4fun (813136) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295114)

Who cares? He drives a Taxi. It's not the greatest income in the world. I doubt he has many assets worth trying to win in a judgement.

The medallions (license) they have to drive the taxi cab can cost close to a million dollars in some cities. They are next to impossible to get. So he does have something to lose.

And this does smell of something illegal... or in his best case scenareo, of something that will bring about a lawsuit where maybe he can claim stupidity and that there were no losses suffered by the plantiff.

Re:Thank you sir, may I have another photo publish (1)

rizzo420 (136707) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295211)

i didn't see anywhere on the site that said he was the taxi driver, just that he found the card in the taxi. how many taxi drivers do you know that are smart enough to create a blog, making the images smaller for display, and witty enough to go and make up a story on it? come on now...

as for the medallions... they are hard to get and expensive in NYC.

Am I the only one that thinks this? (2, Interesting)

JWeinraub (773433) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295182)

I for one think this whole thing is bullshit. I believe he actually does own the memory card and pretending to have nicked it. What kind of person has the time to play with someone elses memory card? If I found it, I'd just put all of them up at once in a web gallery for all to see. Why the silliness?

Re:Am I the only one that thinks this? (2)

Bricklets (703061) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295214)

I for one think this whole thing is bullshit. I believe he actually does own the memory card and pretending to have nicked it. What kind of person has the time to play with someone elses memory card? If I found it, I'd just put all of them up at once in a web gallery for all to see. Why the silliness?

This coming from someone who wastes time posting on slashdot. ;-) But it looks like the pictures are of someone attending Vanderbilt, not exactly an unknown school. The guy will find out about this blog soon enough (or in your case, he get exposed soon enough)

Quoth I Southpark (4, Funny)

muntumbomoklik (806936) | more than 9 years ago | (#10294980)

"Hey Cartman, isn't that your mom?"

I'm jealous (5, Funny)

wrinkledshirt (228541) | more than 9 years ago | (#10294985)

Actually, I wish my life were interesting enough right now that somebody would want to build a website based on my photos.

Day 1: This is wrinkledshirt on Slashdot.
Day 2: This is wrinkledshirt on Slashdot.
Day 3: This is wrinkledshirt cursing spymac mail.
Day 4: This is wrinkledshirt cursing Slashdot for not posting his spymac submission.
Day 5: This is wrinkledshirt on Slashdot.
And so on...

Re:I'm jealous (1)

System.out.println() (755533) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295165)

Day 3: This is wrinkledshirt cursing spymac mail.

I hear you... I gave up on spymac mail quickly. Get gmail instead.

So THAT'S where I left it... (1)

theraccoon (592935) | more than 9 years ago | (#10294986)

But they are my photos, you insensitive clod!

Re:So THAT'S where I left it... (5, Funny)

xstonedogx (814876) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295028)

We have irrefutable proof those are not your photos:

There are girls in the pictures.

You bastard (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10294988)

Gimme my card back.

I love sites like these (5, Interesting)

British (51765) | more than 9 years ago | (#10294991)

Found photo sites are the best.

http://www.spillway.com/ is still the king of "found photos on the Internet."

AHHH! (0, Troll)

pigfukr (627336) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295091)

GOD! Blogs are fucking gay!

I have about as much interest in reading them as someones diary.

Then again.... if the diary talked a lot about porkin' then it might be okay.

RSS Feed (4, Informative)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 9 years ago | (#10294994)

They have an RSS feed [blogspot.com] , so if you have your shiny new mozilla 1.0PR, then you can easily make it a live bookmark [mozilla.org] .

Just click on the lightning bolt in the bottom left corner of the browser. It's really neat :)

Sorry to all of those who have been using RSS feeds forever.. I just got hooked :)

Speaking of RSS (OT) (1)

System.out.println() (755533) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295146)

For those of you on OS X, there's a very nice client called NewsFire [macupdate.com] with a clever, clean, pretty interface. It's the first RSS viewer I've actually enjoyed using.

The Required... (1)

machocomacho (760106) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295000)

All your pictures are belong to us!!!!!!

Wait a second.... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295003)

That's MY memory card!

Keep in mind (5, Insightful)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295012)

Keep in mind that there have been hoax blogs before. Did they really find the camera card? Do you believe every blog is true? [themorningnews.org]

No. (0, Redundant)

mfh (56) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295053)

Do you believe every blog is true?
No. There is no way to tell if this one is or is not true, and it doesn't matter. It's still just another rag on the net... nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Keep in mind (3, Insightful)

lspd (566786) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295062)

Keep in mind that there have been hoax blogs before. Did they really find the camera card?

Either (a) it's a hoax, or (b) the author doesn't realize this is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Re:Keep in mind (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295067)

Yes.

If it is on the net it is true.

You must not question the net.

The above statements are false.

You insensitive clod! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295015)

Is it pure genius or pure evil? Who cares? Just be thankful they're not your photos.

Those ARE my photos you insensitive clod!

Re:You insensitive clod! (1)

erikharrison (633719) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295167)

You know something? I was scanning through the posts thinking "noone's said it yet. Fuck, I'll have to do it myself"

And then the Anonymous coward saved me from a pitiful karma bomb.

Thank you Anonymous Coward! For saving my soul from temptation, and making Slashdot the epitome of wit and erudition that she is today!

Heh. (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295018)


> Just be thankful they're not your photos.

Fortunately he didn't find the card with pix of his wife.

Presumed copyright (4, Insightful)

wheelbarrow (811145) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295019)

What are the copyright issues here? I'm assuming that by default the pictures are protected by a copyright belonging to the owner of the memory stick. If I am right, this could be a problem for blogspot.

Re:Presumed copyright (2, Funny)

sik0fewl (561285) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295185)

Unless finding it in the back of a cab counts as a "transfer of ownership".

Haha! That si teh funnyiest! (-1, Flamebait)

B747SP (179471) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295020)

Hey, way cool blog, what a great idea, I guess the person who owns the CF card can suffer in their joCks, nothing they can do about...OMFG! THAT'S MY SISTER! AND HER BOYFRIEND AND OMFGOMFGOMFG THAT'S ME! I'LL SUE! THOSE BASTARD, WHY I OUGHTA....

Haha! That si teh funnyiest! (-1, Troll)

B747SP (179471) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295098)

Hey, way cool blog, what a great idea, I guess the person who owns the CF card can suffer in their joCks, nothing they can do about...OMFG! THAT'S MY SISTER! AND HER BOYFRIEND AND OMFGOMFGOMFG THAT'S ME! I'LL SUE! THOSE BASTARD, WHY I OUGHTA....

Indeed. (4, Funny)

ktakki (64573) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295022)

Just be thankful they're not your photos.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Regards,
Arthur Goatse.cx, Sr.

Re:Indeed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295103)

I'd sue the taxi company.

This is bullshit and completely unprofessional.

Re:Indeed. (1)

Ghostgate (800445) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295125)

I think we all agree, Arthur.

God, no life (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295026)

Man people should just put the gun into their mouth and pull the trigger. If you have this much free time to comment on someone's pictures for OVER 2 MONTHS just do us all a favor and do it. Scratch that itch on the roof of your mouth with a 9mm.

And no, it's not even remotely entertaining to read.

Kappa Delta (3, Interesting)

bluewee (677282) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295027)

At first I thought they looked like frat boys, and sorority girls, then I saw the white shirt dude's tag:
google: Kappa Delta [google.com]

Re:Kappa Delta (0)

mingot (665080) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295246)

Those girlscouts are throwing up gang signs! What's going on here?

Actually it's purely illegal (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295031)

The taking of the card itself is theft. If you find something on the sidewalk, in a cab, etc that does not belong to you, you do not have the right to take and keep it. It is still property of the orignal owner. To keep it is theft, pure and simple.

However this is also a case of copyright infringement. Works are automatically copyright to you upon creation, no registration is required. So these photos are the copyright of whomever shot them. To post them on the Internet without their permission is infringement.

If I was the person who this happened to, I'd go after the blogger with a vengence. Instead of being a good citizen and either handing it over to the police or trying to track me down and instead of just being neutral, and leaving it, they decided to be malicious.

Personally, I hope they go to jail.

Wouldn't this be more Open Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295040)

The original owner yields control of the content to somebody else who distributes it to anybody who wants it?

Not at all (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295084)

An author CHOOSES to open source something. They actually make a specific declaration, in the form of the GPL. The choose to grant you a license to redistribute their work. That wasn't done here, the bloggers stole a card and then published the contents without the creator's permission. That's copyright infringement.

This is one of the things that bugs me about /. the hacker, or script-kiddie (which a large number of /. posters seem to be) mentality that if you CAN do it would should be allowed to. That it's ok to break in and copy someone's code and put it on the net, or to hack an insecure box and use it as your personal playground.

No, it isn't.

It's the same as the physical world and goes back to basic kindergarden eithics: "Don't touch what isn't yours without the permission of who it belongs to." This is as true for vitrual stuff as physical stuff. It isn't any more legal or morally justified to steal a CF card and publish the pictures than it is to steal a wallet and use the cash to buy yourself stuff.

Even if you don't believe in copyright, you can hardly justify the theft of the card. That's real, physical property and they deprived the owner of it.

What about model releases? (4, Insightful)

fmaxwell (249001) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295100)

It's also a bad idea because he has no model releases from anyone in the photos. Any one of them could bring a lawsuit against him.

Possession is 9 10ths of the law (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295105)

This was left in a Taxi, and most Taxi companies have a disclaimer that they are not responcible for your stuff. Generally speaking, a good company has a lost and found, and will be nice enough to hold on to your goods for a set period of time, and then get rid of them. I don't see this as being a case of theft if the cab company took it upon them selfs to hold on to the stuff for the required period.

Now copyright infringement is a diffrent story, but that would be a civil matter not a criminal one. If they are making a profit from someone else's work, i.e. digital photographs, that would be a legit complaint. But theft, well that's far fetched.

Re:Actually it's purely illegal (1)

ed4fa0c8 (667387) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295132)

Heh. Note your signature: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue."

Re:Actually it's purely illegal (1)

Milkyman (246513) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295157)

The guy says he found it in a cab, he didn't steal it.

Re:Actually it's purely illegal (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295161)

"The taking of the card itself is theft. If you find something on the sidewalk, in a cab, etc that does not belong to you, you do not have the right to take and keep it."

in most states, you do. If I find your wallet I am under NO legal obligation to return it to you.

"So these photos are the copyright of whomever shot them."
and that person has carelessly tossed them aside. This is why people register works. So they have proof.

However, there are several circumstance that must be in place before a photographer owns the copyright to something they shoot.
Why do you think people have to waive that rights when they hire a photographer.

There is on reason to go to jail for this. Sheesh, if somebody was defamed then it should be a civil action.

Moral Copyright (1)

wheelbarrow (811145) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295231)

It is interesting that everyone here is gleefully talking about legality of copyright and how there probably is no real legal recourse for the victims.

For me, personally, it is a matter of personal integrity. I know that I do not have the permission of the photographer. It is still up to him to choose to give it or not. The fact that I do not have any means of discovering who the photographer really is does not matter. I don't have his permission and therefore I am honor bound not to post them in the blog we are talking about here.

You guys splitting legal hairs are missing the point. Everyone in this case is free to do as their conscience allows. If you are a decent person, you won't post these photos in a blog.

Those are the only options? (1)

Ghostgate (800445) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295168)

Personally, I hope they go to jail.

I think that's a little extreme, don't you? I mean, I remember when jail was for the murderers and rapists, not for the people who post other people's vacation pics on the internet... would that punishment really fit the crime (if a crime has been committed)? Come on now.

Re:Actually it's purely illegal (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295194)

The taking of the card itself is theft. If you find something on the sidewalk, in a cab, etc that does not belong to you, you do not have the right to take and keep it. It is still property of the orignal owner. To keep it is theft, pure and simple.

Objection to this argument: maybe the person who found it did what was legally required. Could have just copied off the photos and then turned it in. I don't see anything on the site about it. Furthermore, I don't know what is required in NY for this to be theft; it's possible that you would simply need to make it available in the form of the Taxi company's lost and found or whatever. So as long as he doesn't take it and use it for himself, or sell it, or otherwise convert it for his own use, he could be okay.

"However this is also a case of copyright infringement. Works are automatically copyright to you upon creation, no registration is required. So these photos are the copyright of whomever shot them. To post them on the Internet without their permission is infringement."

It'd be really hard to argue damages though. It's quite clear from looking at the photo album that the person is not a professinal photographer, so they wouldn't have been able to sell anything.

The MAXIMUM he'd have to pay would be statuatory damages of $150,000 plus costs and attorney's fee, assuming he isn't making money off of this. This is pretty unlikely however, and the maximum he would likely have to pay is $30,000.

Then there's things that could make it less... probably the court wouldn't award that much, the plaintiff would be willing to settle for even less than the expected award, etc.

It's not pocket change, but it probably isn't a life-destroying judgement either.

Re:Actually it's purely illegal (5, Insightful)

Starji (578920) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295199)

You might be going in the right direction, but I think your feelings in this are a little extreme. First off, how the hell is he supposed to find the guy this belonged to? The card was found in a taxi in NYC. Going to the police wouldn't do anything as they would be more concerned with catching murderers and rapists than returning somebody's momentos. Leaving it in the cab wouldn't do any good either, as it would end up in the hands of another rider later on, or pawned off as soon as the driver found it at the end of the day. The only feasible way this would get back to the owner in a physical manner would be to give it to the driver of the cab and hope he puts it in lost and found. This would of course require the owner to call that particular cab company to see if someone picked up a memory card for a camera.

Secondly, the copyright infringement case would be difficult to make. Granted he is infringing on someone else's copyright, but he is not doing it for financial gain. I don't even see ads on the page (aside from a blogger banner at the top). Also how would somebody assess the value of these pictures. Criminal offenses for copyright infringement don't occur until the infringer has caused a significant amount of financial damage (a few hundred thousand dollars IIRC). I would be hard pressed to believe these pictures are worth that much.

If I was the person who lost the card, and I found out about the site, and if I were angry about it, I'd get a cease and desist letter sent and prove that I was the owner of the card. It's likely the blogger would close the page and return the card. The end result of this is the guy who lost his card would get it back, and the site would go down if the owner chose to do so. This would not happen if the site was not getting this much publicity, and may infact become the best chance for the owner to get his card back, along with some measure of internet immortality.

Personally, I hope the owner of the card gets it back and doesn't mind seeing the blogger continue his series.

Re:Actually it's purely illegal (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295218)

The taking of the card itself is theft. If you find something on the sidewalk, in a cab, etc that does not belong to you, you do not have the right to take and keep it. It is still property of the orignal owner. To keep it is theft, pure and simple.

Where did you get that idea?

Possession of stolen property is illegal, even if you weren't the one who stole it. But if someone gives up possession of it, by accident or purpose, there's no theft involved. Many people do what they can to return it to its original owner. But there's no obligation to do so. Kindness is not - and should not be - required by law.

Amsterdam.. (1)

kiwioddBall (646813) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295032)

Shame the guy commentating hasn't been to Amsterdam - there was so much potential - there are photos of them inside those little booths in the red light area and all the comments say something inncoent about standing in a doorway! Potential ruined :(

Re:Amsterdam.. (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295139)

I probably have some idea, but what are those booths actually used for?

Evil... (4, Insightful)

jargoone (166102) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295034)

Not really evil, because the pictures don't really contain all that much. But still, if something like this happens, you should treat it like finding someone's credit card or driver's license. If you can find the owner, the owner would appreciate having it back. If you can't find the owner, laugh with your friends if you want, but don't post it.

Pure Copyright Infringement (3, Informative)

VidEdit (703021) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295035)

The idea of posting someone's photos, without permission and one at a time, is funny but wrong. It would be one thing if they just posted a few so the owner could know who had them and how to get them back, but that is not what is happening. Plus, the photos are automatically copyright by the person who took them. The blogger does not have permission or fair use rights to post all of the photos to the internet for their own amusement.

Re:Pure Copyright Infringement (1)

C10H14N2 (640033) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295058)

Very wrong, very unfunny and the pictures were basically TGI Friday's birthday shots. Oh, how amusing. Just shows the baseness and utter lack of a life of the poster. How the !#ck did this get to the front page?

Re:Pure Copyright Infringement (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295151)

Because it shows the utter lack of a life of most /.ers

Re:Pure Copyright Infringement (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295143)

It's not really their pictures anymore, is it?

"Plus, the photos are automatically copyright by the person who took them. "

not true.

"fair use rights"
I would say finding photos in a cab allows you to do what you please.
Unless there regisitered, losing the original is akin to giving them away.

Camera in the woods (4, Interesting)

phreakv6 (760152) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295039)

Sounds very much like the Camera in the woods [gtaforums.com] which turned out to be a hOaX with most of the pictures photoshopped with aliens and stuff

Re:Camera in the woods (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295118)

Damn, those are some creepy photos.

Where's the evidence that says it's a hoax?

Got me over excited (1)

photonagon (721776) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295050)

Is it pure genius or pure evil? Who cares? Just be thankful they're not your photos.

Pure evil? Thankful they're not mine? I was expecting some pr0n. Oh well. Hillarious none the less.

this is way to much work (0, Flamebait)

adaminnj (712407) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295051)

Unless this person is trying to get into the writing industry this is way to much effort.

Or this is just mental masterbation in a public forum.

It got on me via slashdot.

I hope I don't get a mentail desiese. I read this with out protection

Support Free Trade Campus [freetradecampus.org]
get a free account Now!

Boring! (2, Funny)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295052)

Everyone has their clothes on! That sucks!

Wow. (1)

dancingmad (128588) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295064)

This is...so evil...and amazingly funny...amazingly funny and evil...funnily evil and amazing.

I am truly speechless. As wrong as it is, it is still so damn funny. Doesn't seem like those girls would be reading /. though.

One can dream, one can dream.

too happy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295066)

Why they're smiling on every photo ? Fucking pisses me off! Were they creating a portofolio for a golgate ad ... sheesh! Get a bad day for once, faggots!

It sure would be more interesting... (1)

ErichTheWebGuy (745925) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295070)

... if some of the pics were nudeies!

Awhile back... (5, Interesting)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295086)

the Walmart photo website had a digital senior moment, and exchanged all of my photos with some random family's photos. My photos were of no consequence, (copies of product photos for work) but the photos they were replaced with were a window on a very poor family who lived in a trailer, had a t-topped Firebird up on blocks, and were suffering from poor dental hygiene.

There were about thirty-some shots that were all stereotypical 'poor southern family'. Very odd, and a little sad, until you realized that they were genuinely smiling in every picture.

Interesting stories played out in my head about this family until I got my boring pics back.

Re:Awhile back... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295133)

Yea, I remember your pictures, they were boring.

Oh, and that Thunderbird in the yard runs Linux. Oh yea, I went there...

Interesting idea. (1)

Elvii (428) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295087)

Thou I must admit I don't really care if pictures of me got out. What you'd see is a lot of work on speakers, trying to patch in outboard sound processing gear, altogether too many Behringer speakers, a boring office, and quite possibly me banging my head against walls when nobody tells me anything and changes up the program all the time. Yes, pro audio can be unfun sometimes :)

Thou, with a class renunion coming up soon, I'm betting there are some pictures I won't want out real soon now :)

My God... (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295099)

I can't believe it, a group of posters who have less to offer humanity than your typical /. poster. Anyone who posts that much to a blog needs mental health.

This happened to me, sorta. (5, Interesting)

John Courtland (585609) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295101)

I was in Baton Rouge, LA. My car was having some problems with the AC and I stopped in at a Ford Dealer (Autobahn Ford) to get my R-12 recharged. Someone there took my Canon Powershot S30 with my IBM CompactFlash 384MB drive. Fucking redneck assholes. I should have beat the shit out of the inbred fucks working there, but that's a different story for a different day.

Regardless of how pissed I am at losing a $400 camera to a couple of asshats, I had some photos of my then girlfriend in various comprimising positions. To keep this brief, if I saw photos of her on the internet, bad things would happen to all involved. I wouldn't be surprised that if some of the images on that card are more personal, and if the owners get a glance, someone is gonna get hurt bad.

Re:This happened to me, sorta. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295170)

sure, but starwars kid is funny. always is if it happens to someone else. think of it this way, if your precious personal naughty pics show up on the web, you can brag to your mates that you used to date a porn star.

Absolute Scumbags (3, Insightful)

LinuxBlah (781822) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295106)

What would you do if you found someone's digital media card from their camera in your taxi

I would do what I would expect any decent person to do....give it to the driver and tell him someone left this behind. I can't image the sense of violation the owner will feel once identified. The scumbags putting these up for the world to see will face civil culpability almost certainly. IMHO they also belong behind bars, but I doubt this will happen. Now I eagerly await the flurry of posts along the lines of "Hey, they forgot the memory card so they deserve their private photos posted on the internet". This is Slashdot after all.

I disagree (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295120)

It is no longer there pictures. the pictures now belong to the person who found them.

Do I find it decent? no. It certianly is not criminal either.

Re:I disagree (0, Redundant)

fmaxwell (249001) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295176)

It is no longer there pictures. the pictures now belong to the person who found them.

Do I find it decent? no. It certianly is not criminal either.


Yes, they pictures are still the property of the person who took them. He has copyright on those photos. Posting them is a violation of copyright law. It also puts the person posting them at risk of being sued by any person in those pictures since he has no model releases from any of them.

White (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295115)

Can those people be any whiter?

the girls are fat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10295123)

all those girls are fat, and those dorks are goofy looking. That one blond was the best looking of that bunch but nothing spectacular. I give the site a C-.

that sorority girl loves linux?! (4, Funny)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295130)

ok look at this picture [blogger.com] . The girl in the left side with the with skirt has a tag that says says that she loves linux! It has 3 pictures of tux! oh wait... it seems it says "I love delta delta delta".... or is it?

Like Homer Simpson says... (5, Funny)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295142)

It's funny because you don't know the person.

The Victims (5, Informative)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295147)

One of the comments posted on the blog identified this sorority [vanderbilt.edu] as the source from another picture of one of the girls that was posted on their site.

Expanded beyond photos, this happens a lot... (1)

bscott (460706) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295166)

Years ago at the Aspen Comedy Festival, I was using one of the communal Internet computers (all Macs in the room, that year) and found a floppy disk which happened to belong to Dave Chappelle. I learned this by checking the contents, which included notes on the bits he wanted to do on a forthcoming Leno appearance.

I can't remember why I didn't try harder to get it back to him, nor have I met him since, but I didn't publish the stuff anywhere. So... ho hum.

I think I get it now - it's only a good story if you blab to the world!

You really buy it? (0)

hobbsbutcher (753062) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295172)

This website is so suspicious, it should have a CBS logo on it somewhere.

Not an accident? (0)

EuroChild (523969) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295175)

It's interesting that the explanation mentions that all the photos were taken over the space of EXACTLY one year and then left in the back of a taxi. Perhaps it was kind of a "message in a bottle" sorta thing. Think about it - surely if the real owner had a digital camera, he would have taken more than 227 photos and at least would have deleted the older ones. Just a thought...

Huge copyright issues and no fair use at all. (5, Insightful)

dameron (307970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295180)

In preparation for opening a website lampooning politicians (DailyHaiku.com [dailyhaiku.com] , I asked a friend who is an intellectual property lawyer for some advice on what would constitute fair use for the photos we were planning on appropriating from the AP and other such sources.

His advice was pretty telling. While we had a good fair use argument, he indicated we would most likely run into legal problems anyway with model releases for people who weren't public figures, and even some politicians (like Arnold Schwarzenegger [dailyhaiku.com] hotly contest their public figure status regarding copyright.

As it is we had to go strictly with photographs in the public domain (and thankfully almost everything the federal government produces counts) or expressly granted for general use.

Posting entire found pictures (actually an entire collection), especially if used with a profit motive, with no permission from the photographer and the subjects is just asking for an incredibly brutal pounding in court.

-dameron

Still waiting for my C&D from Dick Cheney...

his problem (1)

virtualone (768392) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295216)

this guy has definately too much .. bandwidth.

I'd be more thankful (1)

mattboston (537016) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295234)

if they had naked picture of that person's wife or girlfriend. :)

Brilliant Ploy (1)

Zancarius (414244) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295236)

Actually, this is an amazingly brilliant ploy: You lose a memory card to your camera, some idiot picks it up and decides to post its content on the 'net, you find out, submit the story to Slashdot, and suddenly the perpetrator's bandwidth costs skyrocket and (maybe) the site goes down!

Alas, the bittersweet taste of vengeance.

Arg! Navigation, please! (1)

pascalpp (684288) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295242)

Does anyone else find it impossible to navigate this blog in sequential order from the beginning? Where the hell are the next/previous entry links? Am I missing something?

but it's not all the pictures (1)

Doppler00 (534739) | more than 9 years ago | (#10295247)

"Well, after four (4) posts, it is abundantly clear that this project is boring. In an attempt to remedy the situation, from here on in I am going to bring you only the most interesting pictures..."

So it sounds like the author gave up with the project. Oh well, it's still kind of interesting.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>