GRITtv Link

The Yes Men, those impervious impersonators of the world's most toxic rich people, are up to their hijinks again. Word over the wire is that they're coming out with a new movie, The Yes Men Fix the World, but their funny-bone still seems to be intact: t hey promise that "this film has one of the very few underwater ballet scenes you will ever see in a political documentary." Take a look.

See last updates for SF MoMA response and others' reactions.
See very last updates for:

More proof that this is not a fluke, not a "Hawk" or "Blint" issue, but a disturbing national trend that should transcend partisan politics in my opinion.

Mr. Hawk recounted the events of Friday, August 8, 2008 on his blog.

Recently I blogged about my excitement regarding the San Francisco MOMA's decision to begin allowing photography in their permanent collection after years of maintaining a closed no photography policy. Directly because of this change in policy, I decided to purchase a family membership in order to support the museum, both with my artistic energy and financially. I was excited to begin spending regular time exploring and documenting the museum.
...
After purchasing my family membership and visiting the museum today I was forcibly thrown out of the museum by two museum security guards at the direction of the Director of Visitor Relations Simon Blint...

FriendFeed had three very impassioned conversations:

1. Thomas Hawk's FriendFeed discussion

2. Jeremiah Owyang's FriendFeed discussion

Thomas Hawk's skewering of Simon Blint: Thomas is a community leader (and photo site CEO) he needs to wield his power with responsibility. Tagging Simon Blint and "*sshole" has damaged his online reputation for years on end, and will likely impact job screenings.

3. Cyndy's FriendFeed discussion

When FriendFeed Creates a Mob

SFist covered the incident (thanks, Brock!)

...Hawk talked to Blint who (allegedly) told him "he did not care" and that he needed to "protect" his employees -- employees that might appear in my photographs." Hawk goes on to say, "I was not shooting with a tripod. I was not shooting with a flash."

Was Blint, in fact, being an *sshole? Was Hawk putting up a pissy fight, which led to his ejection? We don't know yet. But we think banning of any type of photography is inane, especially if you work in the arts.

But what say you? Should photographers be subject to this kind of harassment? Or does Blint deserve a serious tongue lashing?

BoingBoing didn't miss the story.

Robbo sez, "Thomas Hawk was forcibly removed from the San Francisco MOMA by two security guards at the direction of the over-zealous Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations. How ironic is that? Why? Taking photos in the atrium. SF MOMA policy on this? Their own web site specifically allows photography in the atrium. Hawk had also previously confirmed this personally with Thea Stein in the Marketing and Communications Department of the museum...

Consumerist covered it as well.

Despite What Their Website Says, Taking Pictures In San Francisco's Museum Of Modern Art Is Cause For Ejection

The Guardian covered it. Oh dear, it crossed the pond. Unexpected, to say the least.

The power of the Hawk is a problem for SF-MoMA
Throwing the esteemed Thomas Hawk out on his ear is not the way to win friends and influence people 

It was the top story on Digg.com on Saturday.

Takeaways (not done yet, in progress, subject to change)

• SF MoMA is apparently clarifying its policies, not re-banning photography (add links)
• Mistakes were made: Hawk & Blint (links)
• Blog & "web2.0" commentators are opinionated (links)
• Blog commentators are lazy (links)
• You can't win: online activism is ineffectual, or a mob (links)
• Character assassins often don't disclose personal motivations (profit motives)
• Allegations of pseudonyms being a cowardly shield, easily falsifiable here (links)
• Allegations of perversity, child abuse and privacy violations still pervade
• Even the least noisy conversations have a very wide difference of opinon (friendfeed links)
• Pervasive tendency is subjectivity, not objectivity; big picture reduced to a thousand tiny icons
• Definitions of public v. private space, rights and violations, still an issue
• If Photography is a privacy violation, why is there wide acceptance of surveillance cameras?

Some of my comments are gathered here:

Disclaimer:
I've concluded that I was confused as to whether "galleries" includes the permanent collection, or refers to the "special exhibits." My initial impression was that the change in policy would allow for photography of the stuff that's owned outright by the SF MoMA. Apologies for any confusion, and perhaps this would be a point of clarification, i.e. if photography of any "exhibited" piece is disallowed, say so. Perhaps discuss stairs, hallways, elevated walkways, etc., as these are not "galleries," may not be part of the "atrium" and yet provide unique vantage points from which to take photos (of the architecture.)

FYI, even though I understand it's not a Thomas v. Simon issue: an anonymous commenter claims to have worked with Simon before: "I worked with this douche at ZEUM one block down from SF MoMA. I can attest to his short temper and general lack of people skills. He found no trouble in bullying the teens who worked there."

"Director of visitor relations" is a poor match for his behavior. He should apologize, resign, or try to otherwise repair the situation. Since it's a PR-related job, he seems uniquely unfit and uneducated about the causes and effects of negative PR. He'll probably have a "rich learning experience" though.

dianachen and ScribeGuy, I'm glad you signed up to SFist just to comment about the incident. It's too bad Blint or other SF MoMA person hasn't spoken up. So, thanks for giving your opinions. Someone else who has worked with Blint did not have kind things to say. I find the less agreeable sites engage in character assassination on both sides. Perhaps you aren't finding the best conversations.

RobinSF, you are a piece of work. Photography w/o flash is allowed in the permanent collection, atrium is OK always, if you use a flash in the atrium it must be a hand held point-and-shoot. While the policy is imprecise and ambiguous, you manage to completely miss the intent. Can YOU read? Do YOU know flash photography can damage the pieces? Do you seriously think they are mandating the use of a flash in the atrium? Does the point-and-shoot restriction refer to the Atrium, or the use of flash? Go ahead, rant some more, it's entertaining.

Hartwell No Expert

Civil war has been declared and is being waged on YouTube and in the blogocube

UPDATE (Dec. 2008): I found a copy of the video at the center of this controversy. Judge for yourself! (Original music video using a Billy Joel song and various internet images)

• Video (2:45): Here Comes Another Bubble - The Richter Scales  (via "antifreeze")

This morning, residents of the Big Apple were treated to 1.2 million copies of a free newspaper:

UPDATE: November 07, 2008 This is not to be confused with the apparently for-reals Bouncy House and Life Cube.

(This is over a year old, but bears reiterating in light of recent Vivoleum prank)

The Yes Men were contacted to address the "Catastrophic Loss" conference at the Ritz-Carlton in Amelia Island, Florida, in May of 2006. They were contacted via their (now defunct) spoof website halliburton-contracts.com.

They attended, posing as representatives from Halliburton, and announced a revolutionary product called SurvivaBall™. 

More photos, video animations, and the presentation transcript are available here (it's hard to find.)

The Yes Men website
Democracy Now! coverage of SurvivaBall from Friday, May 12, 2006

Related Post: Unconventional Activism: Vivoleum™ (Yes Men, 2007)

Jack Boulware wrote this about his piece on his blog:

Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, I wrote down everything I saw or heard in the media, and fashioned a sort of poem. A month later, I read it at San Francisco’s Edinburgh Castle pub, and then recorded an audio version for Salon.com. It’s now been published as part of the Public House anthology.

I liked the essay quite a bit, and later I was making recordings of piano noise and effects, so it was an obvious choice. The audio fidelity here isn't great partly due to limits imposed by Vox. Now for our feature presentation:

Warning: explicit language

Let's give the imagery a rest, shall we?
Can we give poor Mr. Barber and his Adagio for Strings a breather as well?

 

Related Post: Unimpressive Journalism: Why ZDNet's Jennifer Leggio is Wrong (and why it matters)

Wikipedia in English
Wikipedia en français
Wikipedia en Español
Wikipedia en Italiano
Vicipaedia Latina 

Vicipaedia est opus commune, quo creetur encyclopaedia libera interretialis. Omnes ad contribuendum invitantur! Vicipaedia adhuc habet 22 408 commentationes.

Disclaimers:

• I don't know Jimmy Wales personally 
  
• It was alleged Jimmy Wales took money for making proposed Wikipedia edits
• Gossip on Jimmy Wales can be found on Gawker.com
• The inside joke referred to in the title is a meme from YouTube.
  

See also:

Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica 2.0 (Sydney Morning Herald)

Students Advised by Professors not to Use Wikipedia by Svetlana Gladkova of Profy

Wikipedia - Lamest Edit Wars Ever

Wikipedia censorship highlights a lingering sting in the tail - the Guardian

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Introduction

I hear a lot of misinformation about Wikipedia on the interwebs. I spent a good deal of time learning how to contribute, and this is my defense of the resounding success that I consider Wikipedia to be. For example: as a contributor, it guides you through an education in Wikis and writing as an encyclopedia editor.

My Wikipedia User Page   

First, a challenge to the legions of people I've heard make criticisms or offhand suggestions: Get thee onto Wikipedia, and make yourself heard there, or befriend a Wikipedia editor.

It's not that some of you could not hold the key to unique improvements to Wikipedia. You should however apply due diligence beforehand so as to be credible.

Scope of project

This project is encyclopedic in scope, obviously. In its brief life it has come to challenge the very best Encyclopedias. It continues to compare favorably to Britannica, and is ever adapting to new situations.

The physical and virtual embodiments of references like this have advantages and disadvantages, but the ubiquity of the internet gives Wikipedia the edge. I've heard Britannica is moving online and toward volunteer contributions.

The project is free from licensing restrictions — see Copyright page. That alone is a Herculean accomplishment.

The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free under the GFDL and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom.

Living document

Wikipedia is a living document. For example, Stephen Colbert's new term "truthiness" has an entry. In the spirit of good-natured fun, he challenged his viewers to modify his page more than once.

 

Anyone can contribute

 

But not everyone should. If you haven't the patience or inclination to learn the intricacies of contribution, that's just fine. I hope others will at least dip their toe into the water to see if contributing to the content is something they'd like to try.

Self-guided participation

Wikipedia has guidelines available to assist in learning policies on neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and biographies of living persons.

Wikipedia's List of Policies Page is required reading and can be considered a touchstone for how to manage a massive collaborative online effort.

Talk pages, revisions

Behind every page is a revision history, and many pages have a "talk" page where contributors work out their differences, with varying degrees of success.

You can always find established editors and ask questions on their talk page. Editor's duties include helping new contributors follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Please drop me a note on my Talk Page if you do join Wikipedia!

Edit fights, kerfuffles, lock-downs

Sarah Palin, the recently-announced GOP Vice Presidential candidate for 2008, has had a rapid Wikipedia makeover.  At the moment, that page shows a "lock" icon in the upper-right corner which links to the Wikipedia Protection Policy. There are a lot of goodies in Wikipedia's "Special Pages" page, including lists of "globally blocked IP addresses" for example.

 

Anonymous contribution, sock puppets

 

It is unusual to allow anonymous contribution, but I think it important enough to preserve in spite of the difficulties. I can't think of a better way to allow a whistle-blower to contribute to an article. The facts once connected can be vetted and the anonymity of the contributor allows it to happen at all.

Actually, to be clearer, Wikileaks.org is the place for whistle-blowers. My point still applies to anyone who has a (valid) Wikipedia contribution to make, but would not if they had to attach their name. I believe this is why anonymous contribution is still possible on Wikipedia, in spite of numerous problems stemming from interested, biased parties editing Wikipedia to distort facts and inject opinion.

Stephen Colbert's Wikipedia entry is a magnet for Wikipedia defacers. See the last 500 revisions of his page here.  Watch out for contributor's names in red; it indicates they have no user page. Others, such as user "Purplecowsthatcluckrcool" have been removed due to spam, abuse, defacement, or sock puppetry.

You dislike your Wikipedia photo

Cry me a river, why don't you. At least you are a living "person of note" who has a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is more focused on language, not media assets, of course. Still, it is possible to add photographs and audio clips subject to extensive restrictions.  You need to find media that the creator is willing to freely license for re-distribution.  Wikimedia Commons is the mechanism for this.  I can help, provided you give me the content, clear it with the creator, and provide me with contact info.

 

UPDATE: My favorite merry pranksters are to unveil an anti-war event of some sort before the election. They are soliciting funds and seeking participants in the New York City area. A new film is apparently on the way.

The Yes Men infiltrated the "Go Expo" conference in Calgary in June 2007, after being contacted through their fake Exxon website.  They announced a revolutionary new energy process and fuel product, accompanied by a slick presentation, back story, and props.  They were ejected eventually, but not before making their point.  The Yes Men are available for hire as educators in media literacy. 

Shows are Live and On-demand at the GRITtv Site
Get Grit TV Twitter updates by following @grittv

GRITtv airs Mon-Thurs, at 8pm & 1am ET, on Free Speech TV (DISH Network ch. 9415)

Laura Flanders is the host of "RadioNation" heard on Air America Radio and syndicated to non-commercial affiliates nationwide.

She is the author most recently, of Blue Grit: Making Impossible, Improbable and Inspirational Political Change in America (Penguin, 2008) and BUSHWOMEN: Tales of a Cynical Species (Verso, 2004), an investigation into the women in George W. Bush's Cabinet. Publisher's Weekly called Flanders' New York Times best-seller, "fierce, funny and intelligent."

She wrote on Hillary Clinton in The Contenders (Seven Stories Press, 2007) and edited The W Effect: Sexual Politics in the Age of Bush, in 2004 for the Feminist Press.

Before joining Air America when it launched in March 2004, Laura hosted the award-winning " Your Call," Monday-Friday, on public radio, KALW, 91.7 fm in San Francisco.

Flanders' TV appearances include "Lou Dobbs Tonight" and " Larry King Live " on CNN as well as "The O'Reilly Factor," and "Hannity and Colmes," (FOX News) "Washington Journal," "Donahue," "Good Morning America" and the CBC news discussion program, "CounterSpin."

Her writing appears in The Nation, Alternet, Ms. Magazine, and elsewhere and her op-ed pieces have appeared in papers including The San Francisco Chronicle.

Flanders was founding director of the Women's Desk at the media watch group, FAIR and for more than ten years she produced and hosted CounterSpin, FAIR's nationally-syndicated radio program.

Shie is also the author of Real Majority, Media Minority; the Cost of Sidelining Women in Reporting (Common Courage Press, 1997) about which Susan Faludi wrote, "If only there were a hundred of her." Katha Pollitt called it "Funny, angry, factfilled and brilliant."

UPDATE: Laura is in Denver broadcasting this week from the Democratic party convention.

Related Post: Unheard Radio: Radio Nation with Laura Flanders

UPDATE: Lessig was apparently successful in this suit. 

And another big win today for the Stanford CIS project

...a New York Supreme Court (that's the lower court in NY; the highest Court is the Court of Appeals) has denied Yoko Ono an injunction to stop the distribution of a film that uses a clip of Lennon's Imagine. Wonderfully, the Court explicitly refuses to follow the 6th Circuit's "no de minimus" rule sound recordings, and holds that there is fair use under New York's common law copyright regime...

I respect and admire both the individuals named here; I'm not a lawyer or biologist.
I did however leave a comment disagreeing with PZ on Lessig's defense of the Fair Use (of Lennon's "Imagine") claim made by the makers of "Expelled."

PZ's post "Yoko Loses:"

I had mixed feelings about Yoko Ono's lawsuit against Expelled — fair use is a desirable goal, but I don't think Premise Media was exercising fair use, since their movie wasn't about Lennon's music or ideas — so I can't say that I'm at all surprised or upset that the lawsuit is likely to go down in flames. I'm also not appreciative of the fact that Lessig thinks this is a "great success"; it is at best a mixed result, because while it may support Lessig's principled defense of fair use, it is also a case where he's supporting people who are promoting lies and ignorance.

It really doesn't matter much now, though. The propaganda movie is a dead issue, a complete flop, and it is not going to come back from the dead after a court decision that had no effect on its declining popularity is reversed.

My comment:

Thank you #1 and #5, I agree, and mildly disagree with PZ.

Questions asking "is this a Fair Use" are complicated enough WITHOUT attempting to make a value judgment on the work in question.

I too would like to see Fair Use expanded, but my reason for that position is that Copyright law has in my opinion been completely corrupted and made into a vehicle for monopolies, corporations and excessive profiteering.

Were the copyright term restored to the original 15 years then we would have a lot more time to argue whether this or that is really "Fair Use." But of course, you would rarely have a survivor inheriting "rights of authorship" and attempting to "protect" something they did not create (Yoko)

Another example is the owners of the rights to "Gone With the Wind" attempting to suppress publication of "The Wind Done Gone" a re-telling of the story from the slaves' perspective. (They failed to suppress, thankfully)

So, broadly, Intellectual Property Law is so completely broken, you almost have to become a lawyer to completely grok how perverted it really is in relation to its intent.

The Mouse is In Control. Disney is Dead. Hannah Montana is Fake.

This comment is (c) copyrighted (tm) trademarked and (r) registered.

Lessig Response:

nicely put. thanks.

You're welcome