I'm sorry but I call bullsh*t on a lot of aspects on this story. I think this may have been true 5-10 years ago, but not now, not the way the Web works now. Everyone ignores those cross-link e-mails. Getting the amount of articles he says is NOT enough; you need more. You just don't get high-quality content for .05 cents a word. And that's just for starters. I know, why would this person lie? But really, for those of us who do the Web day in, day out, there's a lot that just does not ring true in this post.
This is quite different in Australia where notaries public are appointed either by the State Supreme Court or by an Archbishop. Almost all of which of which are solicitors or barristers, sometimes retired from practice.
You can't just file on behalf of someone else; copyright doesn't work that way. If you own copyright, you can sue. If you don't, you can't. If Zillow doesn't own the images, this is one and done -- she wins.
So much in here is interesting (and right), but the best part I think comes at the end: Zillow doesn't own the images. So whether or not you there's a legal argument for fair use, Zillow has absolutely no right to file a copyright case in the first place because they don't own the images. As the EFF rightly points out, there is no "super copyright" that Zillow can exercise here. Really good stuff overall on fair use, but love that nice whopper at the end.
The "super copyright" comment has less to do with their ownership of the copyright, and more to do with the rest of the context about the owners not being able to exert copyright claims due to fair use. (This of course is predicated on the assertion that the usage does fall under fair use.) The "super copyright" comment is alluding to Zillow attempting to assert something that even the original owners cannot (i.e. a "superset" of copyright rights).
Thank you for laying it out so well. I am a female executive and I am so sick of everyone saying that she's only getting criticized because she's female. So what, we can't get criticized if we do a horrible job? If we treat our employees unfairly? If we don't do what's best for our companies? She was a bad CEO and she deserved to be fired long ago.
> She was a bad CEO and she deserved to be fired log ago.
On what basis are you claiming that? Do you have any idea about how the other CEOs before her did?
Disclaimer: I worked at Yahoo for several CEOs, including Mayer. I think she was the best CEO at Yahoo in a long time. So please, enlighten me why my impression of her is incorrect.
These are all outsiders second-guessing and, in many cases, just making shit up.
I was there. I saw the sea change she brought into the company. Morale skyrocketed, after the company was just drifting around for years. Compared to Carol Bartz, she was a CEO extraordinaire.
I'm thinking I'm going to listen to the many, many outside experts, plus what I see myself reported by other insiders, vs. one anonymous insider I run across on a site who worked for her and appears to have bias.
That is your prerogative, and I wish you all the luck. I didn't work for her, I was 3 levels below her and experienced the sea-change when she came. After suffering through the likes of Semel, she was a huge, positive change.
Why not pay the reviewers? I don't understand this -- they're the most important part of the process. Pay the reviewers for their time and that might start to turn this around.
Did you watch the decisions she made as they came down? It was bad call after bad call after bad call. Pretty much no one thinks she did even a mediocre job.
I know someone who said they wanted to pick it up as a second job on evenings/weekends but after doing it for a few weeks and crunching the numbers when all was said and done they only averaged $5 an hour -- just wasn't worth it.
I've found that nothing works for me like a written list -- it's the act of writing out the to-do that helps me remember it for some reason (I usually don't have to look at it again if I've written it, but I won't remember if I've typed it -- I've tried a bunch of different formats). Plus I take a weird pleasure in manually crossing items off.
The Wall Street Journal employs highly reputable journalists with excellent sources. Basic journalism standards for this would require confirmation from three separate sources before publishing. And it's the WSJ -- they don't publish it on a whim, they publish it because it's news they believe to be true.
