Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   new example of the silly licensing nonsense (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t957059-new-example-of-the-silly-licensing-nonsense.html)

sobriquet 01-29-2013 06:57 PM

new example of the silly licensing nonsense
 

Suppose I encounter an image somewhere:

http://imgur.com/gallery/IzXeagt

With some reverse image search, I can find good quality copies:
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...n7rf24mnxn.jpg

Yet one can also find a page that supposedly offers people to license the
image:
http://solent.photoshelter.com/image/I0000PthDBeASYVg

But suppose people are just interested in messing around a bit in
photoshop, one can't really expect them to buy a license to use that
image just so they can experiment a bit with it and to post the
result on a social media or filesharing platform like imgur, facebook
or piratebay.

You could argue that constitutes 'theft', but let's be realistic
here. If you search for an image, you encounter countless hits on
sites in many languages with an assortment of copyright claims.

http://m.gfan.com/android-3012546-1-1.html

So it seems people don't really have to worry about sharing an image
that is supposedly copyrighted (potentially in modified form), since
it seems unrealistic to expect that all those countless copies one
can find on the web are all properly licensed.

Hence I also like to create photoshop composites from images I can find via
images.google and I think it's a matter of artistic freedom to be able
to employ images one finds online in one's own creations, even without
mentioning the source. I just mention in the album info that I've found
the images online, so it's up to people if they like to figure out
where I might have found the images on the internet.

http://imgur.com/a/dTJmj#0

sobriquet 01-29-2013 07:13 PM

Re: new example of the silly licensing nonsense
 
On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:57:39 PM UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
> Suppose I encounter an image somewhere:
>
>
>
> http://imgur.com/gallery/IzXeagt
>
>
>
> With some reverse image search, I can find good quality copies:
>
> http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...n7rf24mnxn.jpg
>
>
>
> Yet one can also find a page that supposedly offers people to license the
>
> image:
>
> http://solent.photoshelter.com/image/I0000PthDBeASYVg
>
>
>
> But suppose people are just interested in messing around a bit in
>
> photoshop, one can't really expect them to buy a license to use that
>
> image just so they can experiment a bit with it and to post the
>
> result on a social media or filesharing platform like imgur, facebook
>
> or piratebay.
>
>
>
> You could argue that constitutes 'theft', but let's be realistic
>
> here. If you search for an image, you encounter countless hits on
>
> sites in many languages with an assortment of copyright claims.
>
>
>
> http://m.gfan.com/android-3012546-1-1.html
>
>
>
> So it seems people don't really have to worry about sharing an image
>
> that is supposedly copyrighted (potentially in modified form), since
>
> it seems unrealistic to expect that all those countless copies one
>
> can find on the web are all properly licensed.
>
>
>
> Hence I also like to create photoshop composites from images I can find via
>
> images.google and I think it's a matter of artistic freedom to be able
>
> to employ images one finds online in one's own creations, even without
>
> mentioning the source. I just mention in the album info that I've found
>
> the images online, so it's up to people if they like to figure out
>
> where I might have found the images on the internet.
>
>
>
> http://imgur.com/a/dTJmj#0


http://i.imgur.com/a7oQu37.jpg

NotMe 01-30-2013 02:41 AM

Re: new example of the silly licensing nonsense
 
"sobriquet"
<snip>
> So it seems people don't really have to worry about sharing an image
> that is supposedly copyrighted (potentially in modified form), since
> it seems unrealistic to expect that all those countless copies one
> can find on the web are all properly licensed.


Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the
work product.

> Hence I also like to create photoshop composites from images I can find
> via
> images.google and I think it's a matter of artistic freedom to be able
> to employ images one finds online in one's own creations, even without
> mentioning the source. I just mention in the album info that I've found
> the images online, so it's up to people if they like to figure out
> where I might have found the images on the internet.


Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the
work product.

BTW when a work is fixed in any media it's under copyright. Second to use
someone else work in a derivative work without authorization is a violation
of copyright.




sobriquet 01-30-2013 07:00 AM

Re: new example of the silly licensing nonsense
 
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:41:19 AM UTC+1, NotMe wrote:
> "sobriquet"
>
> <snip>
>
> > So it seems people don't really have to worry about sharing an image

>
> > that is supposedly copyrighted (potentially in modified form), since

>
> > it seems unrealistic to expect that all those countless copies one

>
> > can find on the web are all properly licensed.

>
>
>
> Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the
>
> work product.


Matters not if people have the slightest clue about the nature of
information technology.

>
>
>
> > Hence I also like to create photoshop composites from images I can find

>
> > via

>
> > images.google and I think it's a matter of artistic freedom to be able

>
> > to employ images one finds online in one's own creations, even without

>
> > mentioning the source. I just mention in the album info that I've found

>
> > the images online, so it's up to people if they like to figure out

>
> > where I might have found the images on the internet.

>
>
>
> Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the
>
> work product.
>


The rights to YOU have just been sold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yq7043awb4

>
>
> BTW when a work is fixed in any media it's under copyright. Second to use
>
> someone else work in a derivative work without authorization is a violation
>
> of copyright.


Copyright is bunk like infused water with supposed healing power.
People who sell infused water with purported healing power to
gullible and clueless folks are scammers on part with the corporate
scumbags who peddle this copyright and licensing bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomanda

They are nazi cockroaches of the worst kind who couldn't care less
about human rights like the freedom to share information.

sobriquet 01-30-2013 07:09 AM

Re: new example of the silly licensing nonsense
 
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:00:44 AM UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
> Copyright is bunk like infused water with supposed healing power.
>
> People who sell infused water with purported healing power to
>
> gullible and clueless folks are scammers on par with the corporate
>
> scumbags who peddle this copyright and licensing bullshit.
>


Typo in the above fixed for clarity.

Whisky-dave 01-30-2013 12:24 PM

Re: new example of the silly licensing nonsense
 
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:00:44 AM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:41:19 AM UTC+1, NotMe wrote:
>
> > "sobriquet"

>
> >

>
> > <snip>

>
> >

>
> > > So it seems people don't really have to worry about sharing an image

>
> >

>
> > > that is supposedly copyrighted (potentially in modified form), since

>
> >

>
> > > it seems unrealistic to expect that all those countless copies one

>
> >

>
> > > can find on the web are all properly licensed.

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the

>
> >

>
> > work product.

>
>
>
> Matters not if people have the slightest clue about the nature of
>
> information technology.
>
>
>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > > Hence I also like to create photoshop composites from images I can find

>
> >

>
> > > via

>
> >

>
> > > images.google and I think it's a matter of artistic freedom to be able

>
> >

>
> > > to employ images one finds online in one's own creations, even without

>
> >

>
> > > mentioning the source. I just mention in the album info that I've found

>
> >

>
> > > the images online, so it's up to people if they like to figure out

>
> >

>
> > > where I might have found the images on the internet.

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the

>
> >

>
> > work product.

>
> >

>
>
>
> The rights to YOU have just been sold.
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yq7043awb4
>
>
>
> >

>
> >

>
> > BTW when a work is fixed in any media it's under copyright. Second to use

>
> >

>
> > someone else work in a derivative work without authorization is a violation

>
> >

>
> > of copyright.

>
>
>
> Copyright is bunk like infused water with supposed healing power.
>
> People who sell infused water with purported healing power to
>
> gullible and clueless folks are scammers on part with the corporate
>
> scumbags who peddle this copyright and licensing bullshit.
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomanda
>
>
>
> They are nazi cockroaches of the worst kind who couldn't care less
>
> about human rights like the freedom to share information.


What about the human right not to have to share things?
I don;t want to share my physical adress with you or where I'm going tonight, or teh picture of my cat I took last night.
Now according to you I have human right so share what you own or have so pass over your computer so we can share it.
later in teh year a few of my friends and I are think of going to travel a littel so I demand my human right to share your living quarters i.e your house or flat they'll only be 3 or 4 of us sharing.






sobriquet 01-30-2013 12:32 PM

Re: new example of the silly licensing nonsense
 
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:24:28 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:
>
> What about the human right not to have to share things?
>



If you keep your pictures of the internet, they won't end up being
shared, copied or modified by others.

But it would be rather silly for you to claim that you have the right
to upload your pictures so they are available online while
simultaneously claiming that they remain your intellectual property and
that you get to decide that people are not allowed to share these pictures
with others.

If you don't believe me, try it out. Put one of your pictures online and
I will show you that once you've put your pictures on the internet,
it's beyond your control to decide who is or isn't allowed to copy
those pictures (potentially in modified form) or upload them
elsewhere.

> I don;t want to share my physical adress with you or where I'm going tonight, or teh picture of my cat I took last night.
>
> Now according to you I have human right so share what you own or have so pass over your computer so we can share it.
>
> later in teh year a few of my friends and I are think of going to travel a littel so I demand my human right to share your living quarters i.e your house or flat they'll only be 3 or 4 of us sharing.



DanP 01-30-2013 01:13 PM

Re: new example of the silly licensing nonsense
 
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:32:06 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:

> If you don't believe me, try it out. Put one of your pictures online and
> I will show you that once you've put your pictures on the internet,
> it's beyond your control to decide who is or isn't allowed to copy
> those pictures (potentially in modified form) or upload them
> elsewhere.


Just because you can it does not mean you are allowed. Check local legislation to clarify who is allowed.

I have a question to ask you, do you think you have a right to privacy online?


DanP

Whisky-dave 01-30-2013 01:45 PM

Re: new example of the silly licensing nonsense
 
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:32:06 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:24:28 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:
>
> >

>
> > What about the human right not to have to share things?

>
> >

>
>
>
>
>
> If you keep your pictures of the internet, they won't end up being
>
> shared, copied or modified by others.


OK then waht abourt the topless picturs of Kate milington they were all of the internet and she did't put them there.
What about medical records and other personal information, you're still pretty clueless about this aren't you.
Most people that don;t want their information shared don't put it on the internet, someone else does. Others want to share their work but don;t like he idea of others profiting from it, some might not like the way a picture is used.

How about you posting a picture of yourself them we can modify it and shareit.


> But it would be rather silly for you to claim that you have the right
>
> to upload your pictures so they are available online while
>
> simultaneously claiming that they remain your intellectual property and
>
> that you get to decide that people are not allowed to share these pictures
>
> with others.


That's what copyright is for. It allows the owner of the pictures to decideon who can view them. I've got pictures on my flicker site that I don;t want you or anyone else viewing without my permission and that is why you can;t see them.
So it is quite possible to put images or anything on the internet while notallowign everyone to see them, you proved that to yourself at least didn'tyou.





>
>
>
> If you don't believe me, try it out. Put one of your pictures online and
>
> I will show you that once you've put your pictures on the internet,
>
> it's beyond your control to decide who is or isn't allowed to copy
>
> those pictures (potentially in modified form) or upload them
>
> elsewhere.


Have done, but you don;t uinderstand now there are some companies that put things oin the internet that yuo can;t get to witout paying . Porn sites are the obvious example they don't want to or anyone lese seeing thses pictures unless paying for them, so I'm assuming you have some special method ofviewing them for free.
So how about you going ahead and proving your point.





>
>
>
> > I don;t want to share my physical adress with you or where I'm going tonight, or teh picture of my cat I took last night.

>
> >

>
> > Now according to you I have human right so share what you own or have so pass over your computer so we can share it.

>
> >

>
> > later in teh year a few of my friends and I are think of going to travel a littel so I demand my human right to share your living quarters i.e your house or flat they'll only be 3 or 4 of us sharing.


So share your details if you don;t that'll prove the point.



sobriquet 01-30-2013 02:35 PM

Re: new example of the silly licensing nonsense
 
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:13:54 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:32:06 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
>
>
>
> > If you don't believe me, try it out. Put one of your pictures online and

>
> > I will show you that once you've put your pictures on the internet,

>
> > it's beyond your control to decide who is or isn't allowed to copy

>
> > those pictures (potentially in modified form) or upload them

>
> > elsewhere.

>
>
>
> Just because you can it does not mean you are allowed. Check local legislation to clarify who is allowed.
>


But that is irrelevant if people can't effectively be prevented from sharing things online as they see fit.

>
>
> I have a question to ask you, do you think you have a right to privacy online?


That is a question that is impossible to answer because it very much
depends on countless factors.
My right to privacy doesn't detract from the freedom of others to take
pictures in public, even though that may imply I might be visible on some
of those pictures and technology that enables people to identify people based
on pictures they encounter online.

>
> DanP




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.