Paris Hilton faces a $95 fine after feeding pigeons on the streets of London - because Mayor Ken Livingstone has banned the activity.
The hotel heiress arrived in the British capital on Monday to promote her own brand of perfume, and wiled away her spare time throwing pieces of bread to the famished birds in Trafalgar Square. She says, "I'd live here if it had Los Angeles weather. I just love feeding the pigeons in Trafalgar Square; I could do that forever. I even prefer it to going shopping."
However, The Simple Life star has prompted Livingstone's spokesman to warn her of the financial penalty attached to her illegal act of kindness.
He says, "There's a bylaw that makes it illegal for any person to either feed any bird or distribute any feeding stuffs for birds unless approved by the Mayor of London."
--Can't say I enjoyed the pigeons in Trafalgar Square so much. Pigeons are dirty and the whole place smelled funny.
Posted by Lawren at May 19, 2005 08:11 AM
You Said
Dirty and smell funny? Sounds like Paris H. to me.....
Says:
Gary at May 19, 2005 09:02 AM
I worked in a federal building in Alabama several years ago that had lots of pigeons. A lady who worked in the building actually died from a disease attributed to those pigeons. Gross. I think the New Yorkers are right in calling them, "flying rats."
Says:
Nanc' at May 19, 2005 09:10 AM
Lawren, I struggle with myself about visiting your site. Really, I do.
On the one hand, I think you pick some really interesting photos and news stories to highlight so I enjoy coming by. On the other, it drives me BONKERS that you simply "lift" other people's words. Yes, I know, you provide a one or two word highlighted link to the article you're lifting from, but that's it.
My suggestion? One of two things: a)Try writing your own recaps! Still including the link... or b)Do as you do, but at the end, add (via TeenHollywood.com).
I think it's just horribly WRONG that you're plaigiarizing like this.
Says:
Katie at May 19, 2005 11:15 AM
Hmmm...
1) I'll honestly admit: I have NO time to do recaps. I barely have the time to do what I do now.
2) I'm no expert on plaigiarism, but I was under the assumption that the additional commentary, pictures, and the order in which the stories are presented makes it "my own." Yes, I use stories directly from other news sources, but I link to them to give them the proper credit.
3) I'll take your suggestions to heart, but can't promise any changes.
4) I do this for fun. Kind of a "pot pourri" of what's going on in the entertainment world. I by no means try to claim these stories are my own.
Says:
Lawren at May 19, 2005 11:21 AM
Lawren--Katie is all wet. Your posts are my sole source of information about the entertainment world. If not for you and Keith Olbermann (MSNBC Countdown), life would be pretty dull. Stay as sweet as you are!!!!
Seamus
Says:
Seamus at May 19, 2005 02:12 PM
Katie,
I couldn't help but notice your "critique" of Lawren's blogging style. In the same spirit of "constructive criticism," I like to offer the follwing:
First, you spelled plagiarizing incorrectly. You've added an extra "i" to it. Had you "lifted" it from Websters.com, you would have spelled it correctly.
Second, the aforementioned site defines "plagiarism" as:
1. To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.
2. To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another.
Accordingly, it seems to me that if Lawren links to the original articles, thereby crediting the author and not claiming it as her own, she is not plagiarizing. (or even plaigiarizing)
Third, what exactly would you glean from a re-capped, paraphrased article that you wouldn't get from the original, and how exactly would that make your experience more enjoyable?
Finally, I didn't see a link to YOUR blog in the post. I'm sure it was a simple oversight, but I'd love to see how not to do it "horribly WRONG."***
*** the phrase "horribly WRONG" is originally attributed to the comments of Katie, as contained in a webpost dated May 19, 2005 at 11:15 AM (I lifted them!)
Says:
Foush at May 19, 2005 04:11 PM
For text as long as Lawren is using quotes and citing to her original source she is not violating any copyrights. Her own commentary should fall under the Fair Use expection under copyright law. She isn't passing off this work as her own.
The linking to pictures is the one potential problem concerning distribution rights. The internet community is struggling with this issue and no clear answers exist yet. Since Lawren is hotlinking to the original picture she is probably okay from a copyright point of view. Of course hotlinking has different issues of network bandwidth and internet etiquette, but those issues are unsettled as well.
When in doubt Lawren just claim FAIR USE!!! That defense goes pretty far :-)
Says:
Brian D. at May 20, 2005 05:37 PM
Would you like an IP attorney's opinion to end this little spat?
Says:
Iceman at May 20, 2005 08:43 PM
By all means...
Says:
Lawren at May 21, 2005 02:03 PM