I think Brian C.'s point is well taken. Alex Wild is a business man, in the business of photography and he works very hard in making certain his images appear high in search engine returns - fur the purpose of selling images.
Alex Wild used the wrong “C” word (for chump) to describe himself.
Dugald name is that of a cultural icon and his impact was broad.
Alex Wild attacked a DEAD MAN. One who can neither defend himself, nor explain. I am no lawyer but I do not think anyone has a claim for defamation once they die. Again, Wild attacked a DEAD MAN.
Creepy: is the right word for someone who attacks a dead man.
Scientific American is supposed to be about SCIENCE.
Wild’s attack was at the blog at Scientific American.
Wild is a photographer – and he conducts himself not as a SCIENTIST but as a vengeful child in business. He takes advantage of his position at Scientific American to identify a dead man. WHY?
The vindictive whinings of Alex Wild belong in the world of photography and there is a place that, it’s Photo Shelter.
Alex Wild’s place is not in science. There are many great photographers that focus (no pun intended) on the sciences but the point is THEY ARE PHOTOGRAPHERS AND SO IS WILD.
Clueless: is the right word for someone who masquerades as a scientist to expand his business.
Scientific American claims to be the oldest continuously published magazine in the U.S. which brings its readers unique insights about developments in science and technology for over 160 years. The magazine further claims a combination of unmatched credibility and authority …
In his blog at Scientific American Alex Wild says he is a photographer.
“This year (2012) for the first time, I am primarily self-employed as a photographer. My opportunity costs are higher: $45,000. $35k/year is what I made as a research postdoc at the university, and 10k/year is my previous annual photography income. The opportunity cost of transitioning to a full-time photographer is the amount I must make to recover my lost income. So, my total yearly expenses, as a full-time professional photographer, are $6,000 (direct costs) +$45,000 (wage) = $51,000.”
Chump IS the right word for Scientific American for falling for Wild’s claim to be a scientist.
Wild blogged: I … denied a scientist permission to use my photos of her ants in a paper headed for PLoS Biology. … The problem is that PLoS content is managed under a Creative Commons (=CC) licensing scheme. I don’t do CC. Overall it’s not a bad licensing scheme, but for one sticking point: CC allows users to re-distribute an image to external parties.
A scientist, a real scientist whose focus was science would not have denied the use of the image. “I don’t do CC.” NOT EVEN FOR SCIENCE.
Crazy IS the right word for letting Wild blog at Scientific American.
There are hundreds of talented scientists engaging in science for the purpose of advancement in science. Scientific American should provide a SCIENTIST, devoted to advancing SCIENCE the opportunity to blog.
Scientific American should not be in the business of promoting Wild’s photography business and attacking a dead cultural icon.
When Scientific American lets a photographer, whose business is photography and NOT SCIENCE blog they betray the reader and their own standards. Wild blogs about business advertising but isn’t this exactly what Scientific American is doing in letting Alex Wild, a photographer in the business of photography, blog at their site. Wild makes the case clearly himself at his own blog:
“I know how frequently infringement happens. I often find my images plastered across the home pages of pest control companies that just went ahead and lifted photos off my web page, or off someone else’s web page. I even get a few particularly brazen companies that ask for free use of images because they will be “educating” people about the services that their company provides (yes, and I also enjoy those nice educational segments about car insurance and light beer I see on the television).”