Need help? Check out our Support site, then


WORDPRESS CENSORSHIP OF CONTENT THAT IS PUBLICALLY APPROVED

  1. 5:17pm

    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

  2. There is no censorship going here.

    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.

  3. 9 October 2012

    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

  4. That is a way of defining what is going on, if you choose. I do not agree. They've decided they want to limit the use of their intellectual property in a manner that is suspicious in a world wide web intellectual forum to which they subscribe.

    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

  5. There may indeed be some substantive server side reason for the file designations they use. As the image can easily be captured and uploaded if indeed the terms of use allow for that your claim is once again over the top.

  6. Not to go too far off-tangent, but I think you'll be seeing more of this kind of thing in the near future. News sites are switching to subscription based models. On the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal (among many others), you don't even get to read the entire story unless you're logged in with a paid subscription.

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

  7. Well, I've alerted the LA times to the fact that you're having difficulty embedding pictures from their newspaper in your blog, so perhaps you will hear from them here.

  8. Nice, rain! Might prove more eloquent than trying to convince someone who wants to give new meanings to the notions of copyright and content theft…

  9. On occasion I can be subtle.

  10. The LA Times replied on Twitter. Here is what they said:

    @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.

  11. So they don't approve of this but they tolerate it? That's milder than I expected!

    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.

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Topic