
Any other week, I'd give this a click... hope you understand
I can almost hear Nina saying "Just click it, you soft git"
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 8:32,
archived)
I can almost hear Nina saying "Just click it, you soft git"

I'll tell you youngsters stories of the old days later
.
.
.
.
erm, If I remember any
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 8:52,
archived)
.
.
.
.
erm, If I remember any

(The Vietnam Restaurant, Swansea.)
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 8:59,
archived)

'chicken' noodles
'beef' curry
'fish' soup
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:03,
archived)
'beef' curry
'fish' soup


I feel under-dressed in the company of these lovely ladies
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:01,
archived)

I didn't have time this week to do a raccoon pic - this strip was drawn on Sunday. There'll be one on Monday.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:02,
archived)

Have people seen this?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280010/Olympic-mascots-Wenlock-Mandeville-internet-viral-treatment.html
Blatant Thievery.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 8:35,
archived)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280010/Olympic-mascots-Wenlock-Mandeville-internet-viral-treatment.html
Blatant Thievery.

That was quick. Usually takes a while when it's the Sun acquiring pics. Striking while the iron is hot and the mascots are new, I guess.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 8:37,
archived)

The Torygraph did this yesterday as well, but they had the good manners to credit the creators and link to their profiles as well as the site.
Also, someone really needs to tell the Fail what a viral is... or are these actually doing the rounds?
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 8:38,
archived)
Also, someone really needs to tell the Fail what a viral is... or are these actually doing the rounds?

The DM doesn't do science or technical terms with any degree of accuracy or credibility*. You could take a dictionary and relabel it "The Daily Mail Book of Things That Cause Cancer".
*They don't do anything with accuracy or credibility
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 8:44,
archived)
*They don't do anything with accuracy or credibility

Thank you for adding a comment to MailOnline.
Comments on this article are being checked in advance. We aim to publish as many as possible. MailOnline receives thousands of comments every day, so please be patient. If your comments do not appear, this may be due to the volume we receive or due to the content of your comment.
mine probably won't get displayed then
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 8:47,
archived)
Comments on this article are being checked in advance. We aim to publish as many as possible. MailOnline receives thousands of comments every day, so please be patient. If your comments do not appear, this may be due to the volume we receive or due to the content of your comment.
mine probably won't get displayed then

though they did once print one slagging them off for nicking pics off here.
They don't moderate ALL the comments sections. Normally, it's just those which are liable to generate potentially damaging comments (to avoid libel and stuff, cos technically they are publishing the comments, and thus liable for er... libel)
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 8:55,
archived)
They don't moderate ALL the comments sections. Normally, it's just those which are liable to generate potentially damaging comments (to avoid libel and stuff, cos technically they are publishing the comments, and thus liable for er... libel)

they were all in the standard last night too.
Just out of curiosity, why do people object to this? Isn't it a good thing to have your stuff appear in the media?
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:03,
archived)
Just out of curiosity, why do people object to this? Isn't it a good thing to have your stuff appear in the media?

Did they ask the permissions of the individual artists? Did they even ask rob's permission? Did they offer financial recompense or are they filling their columns with creative works they just lifted for free off the net and then tag it with their own tags/copyrights? Did they even credit the individual artists? (they credited the site, which is a start)
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:08,
archived)

But does anyone really expect to get paid for what they do here?
Just my personal opinion of course, but if it was mine, I'd cut it out, stick it on the corkboard in the kitchen and happily tell anyone who was interested that I got my tattyshop in the papers.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:13,
archived)
Just my personal opinion of course, but if it was mine, I'd cut it out, stick it on the corkboard in the kitchen and happily tell anyone who was interested that I got my tattyshop in the papers.

and I'm sure the people in the papers would like to do that too. Not getting paid for publishable-standard work just holds them back from fulfilling that dream, as well as setting a bad precedent.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:16,
archived)

but . . . it's a bit of a stretch to say people make a living posting on B3ta.
If they were lifting them from a site where the work was obviously for sale, then fine - there would be a case. But it's pretty obvious that b3ta isn't like that.
I congratulate all the people who got their stuff in the papers. I'd be very pleased. I wish I had their creativity.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:24,
archived)
If they were lifting them from a site where the work was obviously for sale, then fine - there would be a case. But it's pretty obvious that b3ta isn't like that.
I congratulate all the people who got their stuff in the papers. I'd be very pleased. I wish I had their creativity.

It's been an ongoing source of debate with Zoo/Nuts/The Sun also acquiring stuff. While I'd love to have my stuff published (I once got a msg from Nuts about Happy Fett), they do tend to be rather cheeky about it.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:19,
archived)

Personally I hate b3ta and detest my work being associated with it.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:10,
archived)

it's just laziness on their part.
It would take two seconds to send a message to the contributors, or even just add their names to the article.
It's as if they consider it fair game... "it's just those interweb weirdos, they won't care". It just shows utter contempt for us.
Compare their article to the Torygraph yestefrday (a paper I also detest) and notice the difference in attitude.
There also may be people who don't want their work displayed in the DM, due to the potential conotations of being connected to such a rancid publication.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:10,
archived)
It would take two seconds to send a message to the contributors, or even just add their names to the article.
It's as if they consider it fair game... "it's just those interweb weirdos, they won't care". It just shows utter contempt for us.
Compare their article to the Torygraph yestefrday (a paper I also detest) and notice the difference in attitude.
There also may be people who don't want their work displayed in the DM, due to the potential conotations of being connected to such a rancid publication.

Articles that quote usernames, rather than names, always look wierd to me.
I'm all for credit where it's due, but the average newspaper reader isn't going to be any better informed when they're made aware that something was done by 'Clive Dunn's right bollock' than they would by getting the boards address.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:19,
archived)
I'm all for credit where it's due, but the average newspaper reader isn't going to be any better informed when they're made aware that something was done by 'Clive Dunn's right bollock' than they would by getting the boards address.

it's about that one reader who works in the media and thinks, hey, I'd like to use that image, if only I could contact the copyright owner to pay him for his work and make using his image legitimate. Oh well, no credit means I can't use that image because I'm a law-abiding media worker. Tough luck clever photoshopy person.
Journos take the piss and hide behind their right to use images in news stories, thinking it means they can use anything in any article. It does not.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:35,
archived)
Journos take the piss and hide behind their right to use images in news stories, thinking it means they can use anything in any article. It does not.

Rule 9: No linking or copyright infringement
You must not insert links to websites (URLs) or submit content which would be an infringement of copyright.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 9:25,
archived)
You must not insert links to websites (URLs) or submit content which would be an infringement of copyright.

our internet hate machine seems to have worked. A couple of pics have been pulled, and a couple have b3tan names on them now. And b3ta gets a mention, although not credited as the source. It's just the images "have proved to be a hit on b3ta.com".
Of course, now when my comment gets approved, it's going to look stupid as I slag them off for not mentioning b3ta or giving credit.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 10:25,
archived)
Of course, now when my comment gets approved, it's going to look stupid as I slag them off for not mentioning b3ta or giving credit.