Reuse and doublepost

May 19, 2006 11:47 AM

As carter points out, this post appears to be a link to a site which, ahem, repurposes this photographer's images in order to sell porn ads.

Admins, might it be appropriate to edit the post to link to the proper site rather than reward what appears to be an unauthorized misuse of somone else's material?
posted by George_Spiggott to Etiquette/Policy at 11:47 AM (15 comments total)

Wasn't this site just posted a few days ago?
posted by iconomy at 11:50 AM on May 19, 2006

Oh, I missed that.
posted by OmieWise at 11:53 AM on May 19, 2006

The post has been deleted.
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:59 AM on May 19, 2006

Aw, hell. My incredibly wise and insightful comments were on the deleted thread. 'Tis the world's loss.
posted by sourwookie at 12:00 PM on May 19, 2006

"Deleted" yes, but this thread still links to it, and it still points to the hijack site. So we may not be driving as much traffic to the porn king, we're still going to be driving some.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:03 PM on May 19, 2006

Porn? If only I was that lucky. I got ads for real estate and how to be a section 8 landlord.
posted by Gamblor at 12:04 PM on May 19, 2006

ok, updated the url too...
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:07 PM on May 19, 2006

Thanks, Matt!
posted by carter at 1:52 PM on May 19, 2006

Don't forget, George, all deleted threads also get "no follow"ed too. So the only traffic we were sending them is Lofi users curious about a double post.
posted by graventy at 2:37 PM on May 19, 2006

Man, what a dickish thing to do (I mean the plagerist)
posted by delmoi at 5:10 PM on May 19, 2006

Sorry guys, my bad. My search came up with nothing. Guessed I wasn't searching hard enough :(.
posted by freakystyley at 10:41 PM on May 19, 2006

omg, I never even saw the porn/ads. I use Firefox with the Adblock extension with the filterset updater so I seldom come across ads in general. Had to view this page in IE to see the junk.
posted by freakystyley at 10:54 PM on May 19, 2006

Didn't see them either. There needs to be a filterset that only blocks out non-porn ads.
posted by Ryvar at 11:59 PM on May 19, 2006

That the ads were for porn isn't really the big deal -- it was the hijacking of someone else's material for the purpose of attracting revenue-generating traffic. This is miles beyond any reasonable definition of fair use and is one of the shittiest you can do on the internets. It'd be nice if links to such things were banned as a matter of policy. It's good to know that Matt agrees.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:09 AM on May 20, 2006

Yuppers, can't say that I object either... Thanks everyone for making MetaFilter a better place :P.
posted by freakystyley at 10:57 PM on May 20, 2006