From the LAT TOS:

Copyright. All information, content, services and software displayed on, transmitted through, or used in connection with latimes.com […] including for example news articles, reviews, directories, guides, text, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips, video, html, source and object code, trademarks, logos, and the like (collectively, the "Content"), as well as its selection and arrangement, is owned by Tribune Interactive, Inc. ("TI"), and/or its affiliated companies, licensors and suppliers.
[…]
You may not republish any portion of the Content on any Internet, Intranet or extranet site or incorporate the Content in any database, compilation, archive or cache. You may not distribute any Content to others, whether or not for payment or other consideration, and you may not archive, modify, copy, frame, cache, reproduce, sell, publish, transmit, display or otherwise use any portion of the Content. You may not scrape or otherwise copy our Content without permission.

@raincoaster Thanks for the alert. After reading the thread, I must say that I don't understand what the blogger is attempting. (cont)

definitely appreciate it. surprised someone having problems taking an image from our site and uploading to WP

not that we approve of such behavior.

Indeed. Heartening to see WP mods stepping in to educate people about copyright issues. have a good morning/day.

Add in things like TLDg and IPv6 and the web isn't going to be the same in a few years.

This is a form of suppression of access - but who is being specifically suppressed is rather deliberately vague.

I can find a photo to fit the story (actually, I can supply my own photographs to the story.) But why they're going through such lengths to suppress a photo that they've included in their article makes me wonder if they actually had the permission of the subject of the article to take the photo in the first place.

Whatever. I'm through with this discussion. It has been an experience.

Malaika

I disagree, but whatever.

As far as I am concerned, I've learned some things about how electronic mainstream news sources can prevent the public from accessing information.

The LA Times article experience shows how a relatively minor technological tool (a newspaper) can be 'coded' to limit or stop public access within a 'news' setting: electronic, hard copy, and/or otherwise.

Coding this article to retain the photo is a relatively small thing for a major mainstream news source. Yet if they will do this, what else will they code, i.e. determine that we should not access or even know about?

This conversation is finished from my end.

Malaika

They are broadcasting the file type in a form that seems suspicious to us, so we can't accept it.

Ultimately, the issue is on their end, but it's definitely not censorship.

Thanks all. This conversation makes more sense. So in reference to the original topic, it is the LA Times that is actually doing the censoring, not WP.

It is also reassuring to know that it isn't some weird technical thing that I'm doing incorrectly.

Malaika

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef01774467847d970d-640wi

I can see how that would trigger error messages. They must be using some kind of server-side code to host their own images (and to prevent reposting/hot-linking).

The issue is how they're broadcasting the image's file type.

If you download and upload/insert the image yourself, you won't have any trouble, though that might get kind of shaky as to the legalities. Their publishing license may allow it since you're linking back, or it may not.

http://en.support.wordpress.com/images/

MK

And the following is the link to the Los Angeles Times article which posed a 'security' question after I'd uploaded the LINK and the photograph into WP: NOT the entire article. I made NO attempt to do that.

This is the 3rd time this has happened to me, but each time was not the LA Times, and one time there wasn't even a photograph.

MK

"Illegal immigrant journalist avoids deportation over traffic stop"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-jose-vargas-illegal-immigration-20121008,0,1904881.story

No. Again. I do not ever attempt to re-publish an article in its entirety. Check my blog, if you choose not to believe this. I capture the link and then a photograph if there is one.

The latest article had FB, Pinterest, Twitter, G+, WP, Diggit, and one other social media sharing option embedded.

And I ALWAYS post a link back to the original article and give such credit whenever I WP anything. Generally a link is the ONLY thing I WP. I cannot even remember a time when I've WP's an entire article!

So - I'm still unclear as to what is generating this 'security' message. But I will keep working on it.

To macmanx and notawoodpecker:

Sometimes when attempting to press an article w/ an included photograph, the links for pressing the photo are different. One icon you click on just pulls up the photos attached to the article, if it can. If clicking on the box icon doesn't produce a photo, WP will tell you that 'no photos were attached to the article' meaning it can't pick up the photo because it is embedded in such a way that it isn't possible.

Sometimes, though, when pressing an article, if you attempt once, then cancel the press, then go back again, the photo icon changes and you get a 'drag and drop' option, which sometimes will give you file information for the photo.

This second option is NOT the option I'm referring w/ the recurring 'security' problem. It is the first option - If I elect to use the social media icons on my browser as opposed to the ones embedded in the article, then it seems that is where the problem occurs, particularly if I decide to press the article from my browser and then share it - instead of pressing the article using the social media sharing embedded in the article itself.

I'm not stealing anything, nor am I trying to post any article that is not postable via the same social media links embedded in the article itself.

You can only repost a portion of the article, and you must include a link/credit back to the original.

However, if they don't want the article and/or the photograph posted, they should NOT include social media links inviting the public to do so.

They want the article to be shared via Facebook, Twitter, and such, not republished in its entirety. That's a violation of copyright.

They could have all sorts of coding buried in their articles that would trigger a security message here.

Are you attempting to copy and repost the entire article?

Again, I'm aware of copyright issues.

However, if they don't want the article and/or the photograph posted, they should NOT include social media links inviting the public to do so.

https://en.support.wordpress.com/accepted-filetypes/