I think that the email was technically addressed to www.plansiete.com. That said, you would think that i09 would take down his pictures as well.

*shrugs*

 Reply

Where does it say that Bacallado is asking io9 to take down the pictures? Nowhere. But really, who gives a shit who the fucking email is addressed to. io9 should take down the pictures regardless if the email was addressed to them or not.

 Reply

The images are part of a legitimate news story under io9's mandate—big director with some big SF hits—and the whole point of the post is that if these really are just the illustrator's personal work, then why is such a fuss being made over them? Why is Plan.Siete being asked to take the interview down?

It really may be the case that Bacallado is just trying to alleviate confusion, but there's definitely reason to question his story. As such, it's nice to see a media outlet not caving and agreeing to stuff information back in a box. This, uncomfortable as it may be, is exactly what journalism is supposed to do.

 Reply

The whole point is that the drawings are NOT Gawker Media's or io9's content. They're the artist's content... or at least, that is my understanding.

 Reply

You're assuming that the artist is acting in totally good faith, but again, the story is fishy. That doesn't mean he might not be telling the truth, just that a good journalist wouldn't take him at his word. With all due respect, he did let the images out into the world on his own—it's not like an io9 operative stole them off of his hard drive.

As far as copyright law goes, I'm no expert either, but here's my best understanding (and anyone who knows better, feel free to chime in): Whether you can legally use copyrighted material or not in a news story depends on things like newsworthiness, the pertinence of the copyrighted content, and how much of it you use. No, you could never get away with reprinting whole books, because any judge worth their salt would say you were full of shit (which you would be). But you can reproduce passages of books—book reviewers do that all the time.

Here, I think the newsworthiness and pertinence is indisputable. Of course, a judge might feel differently, but the ultimate point is that (as sanctimonious as this sounds) io9 would actually be failing in their journalistic duties by taking Bacallado at his word despite the strange circumstances and immediately pulling the pictures.

I can see how it seems wrong—it's certainly not really polite, but then, if it's done right, journalism should often be at odds with politeness—but there really is a bigger philosophical question at stake here: Is keeping information that was already public still public important enough to fight for? I totally think it is.

 Reply

(Also, Jonay Ballacado is threatening hard legal action: [eocula.com])

 Reply

Actually after your previous comment, I myself started thinking -- depending on what was said in the interview, maybe the artist did put himself out there in a position where keeping his work posted on io9 was justifiable, from a "moral" perspective if not a copyright-legal one. But then I realised I couldn't tell *what* was said in the interview, and so returned to my earlier stance, that since he is the artist, and asked, there is at least a strong argument to be made for taking the images down. :P

 Reply

(Still fishy, though. If it's not connected to the movie, why get the interview taken down, and why the rush to get the pictures down too, instead of just sending a note of clarification?)

 Reply

@rek: It was both awesome that someone stood up to the Scientologists and just awesome entertainment.

 Reply

also, [sic] is not an acronym and does not stand for anything. it's an actual latin word.

 Reply