selfie – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Stories filed under: "selfie"

Elon Musk Finally Realizes That Verification Requires More Than A Credit Card, Planning To Make Users Upload Gov’t ID

from the id-this dept

As you’ll surely recall, Elon’s first big brilliant idea upon taking over Twitter was to conflate two separate offerings that Twitter had: Twitter Blue, a premium upsell with extra features (some of which were useful) with Twitter’s blue check verification program, which was created to help more well known users avoid impersonation. The original blue check system was far from perfect, but it was actually a verification program, in which Twitter went through something of a process to make sure an account actually belonged to the person who claimed to be behind it.

Elon merged the two, took away all the “legacy” bluechecks and basically gave them to anyone willing to pay $8/month. It hasn’t gone well. There have been multiple stories of impersonation, while the bluecheck now seems to symbolize foolish Elon Musk fans with poor decision making ability. Or, you know, neo Nazis.

Now, many months later, it seems that Musk is finally coming around to the realization that maybe “verification” requires more than a functioning credit card.

Of course, as per how things work with Elon, he’s choosing to do it in a sketchy manner. Engadget reports that ExTwitter is now experimenting with a new “ID Verified” option, powered by one of the many 3rd party services that provide ID validation, Au10tix, which makes users upload a government issued ID and a selfie.

Owji, who often uncovers unreleased features in X, first spotted an “ID verified” badge on Musk’s profile earlier this month. Now, he’s discovered an in-app message detailing how it works, suggesting that it may be getting closer to an official launch. “Verify your account by providing government-issued ID,” it says. “This usually takes about 5 minutes.” It explains that users will need to provide a photo of their ID and a selfie.

It seems X is partnering with a third-party “identity intelligence” company Au10tix on the feature. The fine print notes that information shared for verification will be seen by Au10tix as well as X. X will keep “ID images, including biometric data, for up to 30 days” and will use the information “for the purposes of safety and security, including preventing impersonation.”

There are a few of these services out there and… they’re not exactly known for being particularly reliable.

Still, it will be interesting to see how many of Elon’s groupies will be thrilled about having to upload a government issued ID to the company. They seem to trust him implicitly, but they also seem to be the sorts of folks who often don’t really like to give up their real identities.

Meanwhile, does anyone really feel comfortable that if a user who uploaded his or her ID to exTwitter does something to piss off Elon that he wouldn’t use information regarding their identity against them?

So, once again, Elon seems to have realized that his way of doing things doesn’t really work, which brings him all the way back around to the way that Twitter used to do things, but with an extra layer of stupidity/danger involved. It’s not the first time that’s happened, nor will it be the last.

Filed Under: elon musk, government issued id, identification, privacy, selfie, twitter blue, verification
Companies: au10tix, twitter, x

Publicity Rights For A Photobombing Horse? Owner Demands Cut Of Photo Prize

from the ownership-society dept

We’ve written many, many words on the ridiculousness of publicity rights, and how they’re frequently abused to stifle perfectly reasonable activities. But this latest example really takes it up a notch. The owner of a horse in the UK is apparently demanding some of the prize a man won in a “selfie” contest, because the horse made a key “photobombing” appearance in the background, that likely contributed to the victory:

That photo was taken by the 3 year old kid in the picture, Jacob Bellis, and that’s his father, David, holding him. Nice photo! The horse in the background is named Betty, and is owned by Nicola Mitchell, who sounds like a person who perhaps needs to calm down a bit. From The Guardian:

Mitchell said: ?I was really annoyed to hear he had won a £2,000 holiday and had used a picture of our horse without our permission. He should have asked for our consent. There should be some token gesture as it is our horse that has really won them the holiday,? she said.

Mitchell added: ?I didn?t even know that this competition was on. If I had known about it we would have entered and could have won as Betty is always sticking out her tongue.?

There’s plenty to comment on here. First, as you can see, the reward was a holiday trip, and not cash, though apparently there was some confusion over that. So it’s not like it’s easy to “split.” Apparently Mitchell first demanded “half” of the prize. Second, (and importantly) you don’t need permission to photograph someone’s horse, especially when done from a public path. So the whole “without our permission” thing is complete nonsense. A token gesture might be a nice thing to do, but it’s not clear the best way to seek a “token gesture” is to angrily demand half of the prize. Perhaps a friendlier “Hey, that’s my horse, and that’s awesome!” would have been a better approach that would have made everyone happy, leading the Bellises to think about maybe giving something nice in return. Like, a treat for the horse or something.

Finally, the whole “If I had known about it we would have entered and could have won” bullshit, the response is but you didn’t. So stop whining. Perhaps next time such a contest is run you’ll be paying attention and you can answer. The whole response smacks of serious sour grapes.

Thankfully, the Guardian quotes a lawyer who agrees that Mitchell has no legal basis to complain. Of course, not too long ago, we thought the same thing about a monkey in a selfie, and then… PETA stepped in. So far its attempt to extend copyright law to monkeys has flopped, but perhaps its next attempt will be extending publicity rights to horses. I imagine that will fare similarly poorly.

Filed Under: horse, jealousy, photobomb, publicity rights, selfie

Dumb Criminal Agrees To Take SnapChat Selfie With Robbery Victim, Is Caught Quickly

from the let's-chat dept

We used to do cover a certain type of story around here, where we informed our readers about some truly dumb criminals doing truly dumb things with technology. We stopped doing those posts more recently, in part because they were starting to feel stale and in part because we didn’t want to force our readers to confront the true levels of stupidity that exist on this planet. But, like a member of the Corleone family, they just keep pulling me back in.

Victor Almanza-Martinez is just an armed robber looking for love in all the wrong places apparently, as he and two others decided to rob four people of their belongings in California, but took a break from the robbery to exchange SnapChat information and take a selfie with one of the female victims.

It occurred at Lovers Point Park, according to the Pacific Grove Police Department. Victor Almanza-Martinez, 18, of Castroville, and two other men allegedly approached four victims and robbed them of their belongings, including keys to a 2013 black Chrysler 200. The suspects fled in the Chrysler, which is still missing, but not before Almanza-Martinez and one of the female victims exchanged Snapchat information and posed for a selfie together, police said.

I don’t understand anyone in this story. I can’t picture myself being robbed by even the most attractive armed woman on the planet and thinking: that’s someone I should really try to hook up with. I only hope that this young lady was using her feminine wiles specifically in the hopes of catching her assailants, but since there are no quotes from the woman indicating that, hope is all I have. And then I try to put myself in the shoes of Almanza-Martinez in the midst of committing a crime in which one of my victims asks if they could please get just a bit of super-incriminating evidence. Under what circumstances would I agree to this? None.

And, of course, the selfie turned out to be just the break the police needed to nab this idiot.

The selfie was apparently a break in the case, police said, adding that it helped them track down Almanza-Martinez. The suspect was subsequently arrested and charged with armed robbery, kidnapping, possession of stolen property, conspiracy, violation of probation and gang enhancements. Almanza-Martinez is being held at the Monterey County Jail with bail set at $170,000.

Dude. Learn to criminal better.

Filed Under: criminals, dumb criminals, robbery, selfie, victor almanza-martinez
Companies: snapchat

DailyDirt: Digital Photography Magic (aka Photoshopping)

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Altering a few pixels here and there in a digital photo can have remarkable effects. Sometimes the result is unexpected and hilarious, but sometimes it’s simply amazing what can be done to photos. Perhaps you’ve used software (eg. photoshop) to remove “red eye” from your favorite selfies, but there are some even more advanced algorithms that can make your photos look much better… than they otherwise would.

After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: algorithms, cameras, cgi, de-blur, filters, photography, photos, photoshop, photoshopping, reflections, selfie

Hubris Defined: Dumb Murderer Takes A Selfie With His Dead Victim

from the cheeeeese dept

I’ve never particularly been under the misguided notion that most of the criminals in this world are any kind of masterminds in their craft. Most criminals, as we’ve demonstrated again and again, are idiots. Some criminals are dangerous idiots. And some, well, some are so evil it remains only to be thankful that their stupidity helps us to keep their asses behind bars where they belong.

Take, for instance, the teenage murderous psychopath who thought snapping and sharing a selfie with the body of his victim was a sweet idea.

Maxwell Marion Morton, 16, is being held without bail in the Westmoreland County juvenile detention center on charges of first-degree murder, homicide and possession of a firearm by a minor in connection with the death of Ryan Mangan. Police said the photo they received shows Mangan as he was found at the crime scene. A selfie of a suspect with a dead victim is a first for county District Attorney John Peck, who has been a prosecutor for more than 30 years.

“I’ve never seen it before,” Peck said, “but it was a key piece of evidence that led investigators to the defendant.”

Now, I know what you’re all thinking: anyone who takes a selfie with the dead body of his victim is someone who wants to get caught, not an idiot. Well, you’d think that was the case, but it wasn’t. Morton had sent the pic via Snapchat, believing that the deletion feature would protect him, somehow. The person he sent it to, however, saved it rather quickly, and it ended up in the hands of the police.

“(Police) received a copy of the photo which depicted the victim sitting in the chair with a gunshot wound to the face,” a police affidavit states. “It also depicts a black male taking the ‘selfie,’ with his face facing the camera and the victim behind the actor. The photo had the name ‘Maxwell’ across the top.”

Morton also allegedly sent text messages that read, “Told you I cleaned up the shells,” and “Ryan was not the last one.”

So, sometimes two plus two equals a very evil and very stupid person. Usually these kinds of dumb criminal stories are somewhat funny. This one just makes me happy that a murderer is behind bars.

Filed Under: criminals, evidence, murder, selfie

Crazy Public Domain Monkey Selfie Trademark Filing Gets Crazier: Filed By Someone Pretending To Be Haim Saban

from the so-add-in-publicity-rights dept

So, we recently posted a bizarre story in the form of a law school exam question involving the attempt to trademark a public domain monkey selfie using a photoshopped Gap catalog image. If that doesn’t make sense to you, go read the original story. My fingers are too tired to re-explain the whole thing here. Just know that it’s as bizarre as it sounds.

And, now it gets even more bizarre. As we noted, the original trademark application appeared to come from Saban Capital Group, the company controlled by media mogul Haim Saban. Saban’s lawyers reached out to explain that… the trademark application appears to come from someone pretending to be Haim Saban or his company. Whoever it is (and we’ve reached out to them) has apparently set up a fake “Saban Capital Group” in the British Virgin Islands, and has filed over 200 trademark applications, some in the name of Saban Capital Group (and some as others). In retrospect, there are some hints that something is not right if you dig deep into the trademark application, including the hotmail email address and the fact that the application is signed by “Tiwhk.” Also, it’s being sent from Ann Arbor Michigan, rather than LA where Saban Capital Group is actually based. But, almost all of that can be explained away as just some old fashioned way of doing things and/or from a remote/subsidiary address or something.

And, really, who the hell files trademark applications in someone else’s name? The whole idea is bizarre, so it didn’t even cross my mind.

Saban’s (actual) lawyers agree, noting that the real Saban would not “actually do something as foolish as this,” and they have no idea who is actually doing it — but whoever it is has apparently filed over 200 trademark applications. The real Saban Capital Group’s lawyers say they’re investigating and suggest that the filer/s “appear to be infringers, or counterfeiters, or hoaxers or all of the foregoing” and they “intend to prosecute them to the full extent of the law.” I don’t see 200 applications, but there are a few others, such as this one, using Chinese characters, which the application claims means “Big Mouth Monkey” which they want to put on clothing (they show it on a pair of shoes). I have, in fact, confirmed that it does, in fact, say “Big Mouth Monkey” with someone who can read Chinese. So, at least that is accurate. And there’s this one for a stylized version of the name “Paul Homme” (I have no idea who that is). Or this one for “BIG FACE” (no further explanation needed).

Either way, I’ve emailed the Hotmail address behind these filings, but as of this posting have not heard back. The real lawyers for Saban seem perplexed by the whole situation as well — as do multiple trademark experts I’ve spoken to. No one’s quite sure why anyone would file trademarks under someone else’s company’s name, but it adds yet another element to the crazy law school exam question we had in the original post. Here might be a case where actual trademarks are being violated (that of Saban Capital Group). Hell, I would bet some high priced lawyers might even try to figure out a way to argue that publicity rights are implicated here, though I’m not sure I’d recommend that…

Either way, we’d like to apologize to Haim Saban and (the real) Saban Capital Group for implying that they would file a questionable trademark on a public domain monkey selfie for use on clothing (including wedding dresses) as demonstrated by a photoshopped Gap catalog photo. And, “Tiwhk,” if you’re out there, please contact us. We’d love to know your side of the story…

Filed Under: counterfeit, haim saban, monkey, public domain, publicity rights, selfie, trademark
Companies: saban capital group

Public Domain Monkey Selfie Now In A Trademark Application, Using Photoshopped Gap Images [Updated!]

from the spot-the-infringement? dept

Update: And this story gets even crazier. Please see this update in which the real Saban Capital Group claims this is being done by an impostor Saban Capital Group.

Okay. If you want a law school exam question, let’s start with this one:

A London photographer visiting Indonesia, leaves his camera on the ground, leading a macaque monkey to pick it up and take a selfie:

Despite protestations from the photographer (the monkey has remained silent), most experts agree that the photograph is in the public domain. Years later, Saban Capital Group, formed by former rock star/entertainment industry mogul Haim Saban (or not, as this update notes) has attempted to register a US trademark on this semi-familiar looking image:

The plan (according to the application) is to put this on all sorts of clothing, including (no joke), wedding dresses.

In order to show how Saban is using the mark in commerce, it has offered up this image:

Of course, it turns out that that’s really just taking the public domain monkey selfie and photoshopping it onto a Gap catalog photo (Saban does not own the Gap).

So, to recap: we have a (most likely) public domain monkey selfie image, which someone else is seeking a trademark on, using another company’s photoshopped photos. In this scenario, please describe how much the lawyers are going to bill to sort this all out?

Special tips of the hat to Eriq Gardner for spotting the trademark application and the folks at Five Useful Articles for noticing the photoshopping of Gap clothing (and for inspiring me to try to turn this into a law school exam question).

Filed Under: clothing, copying, copyright, haim saban, monkey, public domain, selfie, selfie monkey, trademark
Companies: saban capital group

How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'

from the no-monkeying-around dept

As we wrote yesterday, the infamous monkey selfie has returned to the news, thanks mostly to Wikimedia’s new transparency report, which discusses the supposed copyright claim over the following monkey selfie:

Unfortunately, as we noted, the original story in The Telegraph claimed that Wikipedia “editors decided that the monkey itself actually owned the copyright.” As we explained in great detail three years ago, this was false. The monkey doesn’t hold the copyright: no one does. It’s in the public domain. In fact, if the reporter had been careful, he would have noted that even Wikipedia properly notes that the image is in the public domain. It did not claim that the monkey owns the copyright.

However, since a major newspaper (falsely) wrote that Wikipedia had decided the monkey holds the copyright, the whole thing went viral all over again. All over Twitter I saw people claiming that the monkey held the copyright. Unfortunately, this is somewhat pernicious, starting with the Telegraph reporter, Matthew Sparkes, who made the false claim. As Sherwin Siy notes in a very good post, it’s very troubling that people now come to automatically believe that someone has to hold the copyright on a photograph. That’s just not true:

The claim isn?t that monkeys have IP rights?it?s that no one owns the copyright in the photo. A lot of people seem to take issue with this, insisting that, if the monkey doesn?t own the copyright, the photographer must?that someone has to own a copyright in the photo.

But that just isn?t true.

This is the definition of the public domain?things that are not protected by copyright. We?re used to thinking of the public domain as consisting of things that were in copyright and then aged out of it after a length of time, but that?s just a part of it. There?s also works created by the federal government, and things that simply can?t be protected?like ideas, methods of operation, or discoveries.

I think a big part of the problem here is that we’ve been trained incorrectly to believe that everything new must be covered by copyright. This is part of the most pernicious aspects of copyright maximalism today — the idea that everything is covered by copyright. Only a few decades ago, nearly all created works were not covered by copyright and were public domain, free to be shared. It was only with the 1976 Copyright Act that the US switched from an “opt-in” policy to a “nearly everything is covered” policy, leading many people to (wrongly) believe that with any photo someone must hold the copyright.

That’s a dangerous assumption for culture, highlighted by the fact that so many people default to insisting that someone must hold the copyright over this photo.

Meanwhile, for an even more amusing take on all of this, don’t miss Sarah Jeong’s defense of monkey copyrights satirical post:

It?s hard enough to eke out a living as an artist without the Copyright Office butting in and claiming it is literally impossible for you to own copyrights, just because you?re a monkey. What on earth is this ?Copyright Office?, anyways? What right do they have to say whether a monkey?s work is worthy of copyright or not?

According to Slater?s own account, the Indonesian macaques were ?already posing for the camera? when one of them started taking photos. Not all of them were good ? as it turns out, some monkeys are much better photographers than other monkeys. The ?monkey selfie? in question is a diamond in the mud: a truly remarkable portrait, perfectly focused and strategically positioned to capture a mischievous yet vulnerable smile. If that macaque had an Instagram account she?d have, like, a million followers.

But she doesn?t, and the sorry state of our copyright law ? as interpreted by the Copyright Office and exploited by Wikipedia ? is to blame. Due to the backwards treatment of animal creators everywhere, monkey art (and monkey photography in particular) continues to languish. How is an aspiring monkey photographer supposed to make it if she can?t stop the rampant internet piracy of monkey works?

That’s only a snippet. The whole thing is well worth a read.

Filed Under: copyright, monkey, ownership, public domain, selfie

Dumb Criminal Incriminates Dumb Self With Dumb Selfie [UPDATE: Or Not]

from the well-hello-there dept

As pointed out in the comments by Matthew S, this story has now been debunked. Turns out that the drapes in the background were different, and not in her house, as the woman claimed. It appears the photo got on her phone because they had mutual friends on Facebook, and the woman got confused. We apologize for posting this story based on the incorrect info. The original story, crossed out, is below.

So, let’s say you’re a creepy dude, the kind that likes to brazenly break into other people’s homes. Now let’s say that, in addition to being a creepy criminal, you’re also a complete idiot looking to get caught, the kind we’ve covered in the past. How exactly do you find the perfect combination of self-incrimination while maintaining the high level of creepiness you’ve spent so many years cultivating?

Here’s one Denver creep’s attempt to show us the way:

> The victim told police she had no idea the man had been inside her home while she was there — until she checked her cellphone the next day. According to police, on Jan. 29 at approximately 9:20 p.m. a woman was putting her children to bed when an unknown man entered her home and used the woman’s cellphone to take a picture of himself.

Yes, apparently a gentlemen who is working entirely too hard on his Breaking Bad cosplay strategies (see video in the link) also decided to break into a house and take absolutely nothing other than a selfie on his victim’s cell phone. Of course, because this is apparently an attempt by the burglar to get himself caught, neighbors recognized him and are working with police to identify the man.

> “He doesn’t have glasses when you normally see him walking down the street. Maybe they’re a disguise. I don’t know,” said Gardner. When asked about the facial hair, Gardner replied, “Oh, that’s his, that’s him.”

As of the time of this writing, the man hasn’t yet been caught by police, but one imagines that is simply a matter of time. After all, our dumb criminal went ahead and provided the single thing smarter bad guys work as hard as possible to avoid: a picture of his face. That kind of dedication to getting caught deserves our respect and our applause.

Filed Under: crime, selfie