How the Jolie-Pitts save the world

August 14, 2007 at 9:20 pm | Posted in Celebrities, News | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , ,

It seems the Jolie-Pitts have decided to extinguish global famine by adoption. The Daily Mail reports they’re set for adopting baby No. 4 (5, if one counts biological children…).

TIME Inc. s*cks / Lose the right to your picture through adoption 28/40

March 24, 2007 at 9:43 am | Posted in TIME, Web 2.0 | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

I did partake in the the craze about Brangelina’s latest addition to their family by posting of a picture of Pham Quang, now know as Pax Thien. This morning I found an email in my mailbox and this notification on the post’s site:

This blog post has been marked private by staff in response to a DMCA notice. Please remove the Time Inc copyrighted image before making this post public again. Please see our DMCA process and contact us if you have concerns.

How bizarre. Can they claim that? Technically, I did not take their picture at all, but simply entered the URL of _their_ picture in the image tag. I suppose they wouldn’t complain about me providing a text link to their website – technically, there is hardly any difference between the two methods. The image tag retrieves the image from their server to display on my website, the link opens their page first before it displays the image. If they don’t want such a thing to happen, they should develop a script that generates the images in such a way on their site that one cannot easily retrieve their URL.

Furthermore, I entered a total of two links (!) to their website. In academia, that would be properly referenced and no copyright theft. In doing so, I also generated traffic to their website, for free – but they obviously have no understanding of the workings of the web 2.0.

And generally, isn’t it questionable whether_they_have the rights to Pham’s picture? The individual automatically has the right to his/her picture – this only changes once somebody becomes a person of public interest. Does being adopted by a celebrity automatically mean that you lose the rights to your picture, that you become a public persona? I’m highly critical of that.

Anyhow, the conclusion of that is: No more links to TIME Inc. publications. They s*ck anyway.

Today is the 28th day of Lent.
Time to close down Guantanamo.
Add a banner to your blog too.

End Guantanamo

First picture of Pax Thien Jolie, but on this blog no more

March 16, 2007 at 12:38 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments
Tags: , , ,

You’ll have to Google the images yourself, as Time Inc. asked me to remove the IMAGE LINK FROM AND TO THEIR WEBSITE. Quite stupid of them if you think of the amount of traffic that generated and at particularly low costs. In theory, it’s questionable, whether_they_have the rights to Pax’s picture. Does being adopted by a celebrity automatically mean that you lose the rights to your picture? If anybody threatened anyone here, that should be publishers who snatch away a child’s privacy at such a young age. What I wrote was:

Makes you wonder whether being puffy-lipped is a must be for an adoptive child to be added to the Jolie-Pitt brood.

I also wonder why it is so difficult for celebrities to give their children an inconspicuous name (did you know that children with odd names are more likely to develop a neurosis than the Johns and Helens out there?) – or why they cannot just leave the names the way they are, if it’s an adoptive child. Why should Pax better than Pham, or Thien better than Quang?

Let’s hope that Pax is not going to be called Pox one day by one of his playmates.

No more links to any TIME Inc. owned celebrity sites who don’t know f*** about the working of the web.

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.