Replace Alex Wild at Scientific American with a REAL SCIENTIST.

Time for a Real Science Blogger at Scientific American

Alex Wild spends his time online harrassing others for claimed copyright violations.

Scientific American is supposed to be about SCIENCE. 

Read TechDirt's Article on Alex Wild's Troll Copyright Crusade: 

I hope that, on further consideration, he'll realize that this is something even more basic than artistic inspiration—it's a proliferation of knowledge about the natural world.

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.

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 harrass individuals in social media that he alleges infringe his copyright - while himself admitting that his images have been posted at Bing by license as "Free to Share."

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.

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.”

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.

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).” 

Until very recently Wild himself claimed his blog, "" was an educational blog and he claimed "Fair Use" while using the images of others.

Sign Petition
Sign Petition
You have JavaScript disabled. Without it, our site might not function properly.

privacy policy

By signing, you accept Care2's terms of service.
You can manage your email subscriptions at any time.

Having problems signing this? Let us know.