RE: Google removed the image viewing feature
February 17, 2018 at 6:33 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2018 at 6:41 pm by Shell B.)
(February 17, 2018 at 5:10 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: We're not talking about charging the artist. We're talking about people's right to share public knowledge. If you make it public, expect it to be shared.
Sharing something is different violating copyright law. You can share a link to my work any time. You can't steal it and credit yourself. Or just copy and paste it somewhere, especially for your own profit. We shouldn't have to expect someone to steal from us. People shouldn't steal, ideally. The onus is on them.
(February 17, 2018 at 4:59 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I can sympathize with you guys. But each and every "creator of original stuff" is faced with a predicament. Do I put my stuff out for public consumption and eschew the profits to make my work known? Or do I charge for the privilege and thereby speak to a smaller audience?
That depends on whether you're creating for your own gratification or you like doing what you do so much that you want to earn a living doing it. Still, it's not a predicament. You're not eschewing profits. When I put myself out there, I fully intend to, and do, make a profit. I simply don't want anyone else to make a profit off it too. It belongs to me unless I sell it to you. That's all there is to it.
(February 17, 2018 at 5:23 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: The connection allows private havens for the images and photos wanted to secured to be.
It's not just the images; even other files.
Right click in the browser, and hit "view source".
That's the website's code.
The internet was never meant to be a place of locked doors. It's open from day one; except the small parts that people need to use privacy in. The sources of your "work" is different than the "sample". The src is an 3500X4000 pixles; for example. The public display is a 350x400 pixles. See the difference of the quality?
A library isn't necessarily a place of locked doors. That doesn't mean you can steal from it or that people should complain that it isn't easier to steal from it.
(February 17, 2018 at 6:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote:(February 17, 2018 at 3:30 pm)Shell B Wrote: I disagree. I make my living off creating content for the Internet, for the most part. I own my copyrights. Sure, I've had pieces stolen, but that doesn't mean it's my fault for posting it on the Internet. Should I just not get paid for my work?
How does that work, Shell? Youtube routinely pulls videos because someone makes a DMCA claim. The copyright holder has to take some action to protect its rights.
How does what you write differ? If you put it on the web and someone reads it was that not your intention? What part of this am I missing?
Oh, certainly. The goal is to have people read it. I thought the discussion was about people taking and using your work (in this case photos) without permission. For example, if someone copy pasta'd an article I'd written and used it on their own site without a link to me/paying me, they're in the wrong. Yes, I would have to submit a takedown myself or hire someone to do it. I've done it before. Once, in the case of a popular "list" site, I got them to pay me to keep the list up. In another instance, a Jewish group used an article I'd written about Holocaust Denialism. I didn't even contact them because I didn't mind. Had they asked, I'd have given them permission in writing.
(February 17, 2018 at 5:52 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: A table on the front porch is not a group of pixels on the screen. There are millions of images online; that doesn't even compare to a visit to the local painting store, searching in that sea of pixels just to find an image that is not copyrighted is daunting and just terrible ! the internet is not the physical world.
Second language, eh?
