41–50 of 100 posts
If I've posted a picture to my personal timeline, can someone post that picture on their own Facebook pages without giving me credit? Can they even modify the picture (add a slogan or whatever) and do the same? I think the Facebook TOS allows both of these:
https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
Is that how you read it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think we should relax about the idea that most people post inaccurate facts when they're cheering science. The absolute only good thing about this is that it fights fire with fire: that is, it uses tribalism to fight tribalism. But that's all it is. Atheistic religiosity is still religiosity, and it's a problem whether or not magical woo is involved. It's the same kind of thing when people think that calling out…
"Atheistic religiosity is still religiosity" A lack of belief in God is not a belief in a God. Your example is ignorant.
Here's a slightly different question. If I've posted a picture to my personal timeline, can someone post that picture on their own Facebook pages without giving me credit? Can they even modify the picture (add a slogan or whatever) and do the same? I think the Facebook TOS allows both of these: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms Is that how you read it?
The bottom line is this: 1. Elise Andrew is making money off IFLS. (Whether or not she's giving it out to charities is non-relevant.) 2. IFLS' success rests largely on the high quality content created by artists, scientists, photographers 3. A small part of IFLS' success rests on Andrews' eye for picking out good/funny/clever quotes/cartoons/photographs/artwork Given (1) and (2), I'd say not only is IFLS largely inde…
This isn't hard, and can be automated... it's the 9gag model. Just view the cream of the crop that bubbles to the top of reddit and randomly pick out a few every day.
(If the given work was publicly licensed CC-BY, that's another story. Then you HAVE permission, under that license only if you credit. But that's something the CC-BY license does, not some built-in part of copyright law).
It's certainly _good manners_ regardless of the law. But, while you may or may not be illegally 'pirating' an image to use it in a facebook post without permission, whether or not you give proper attribution is unlikely to be determining factor of whether you are or not.
Would this be a situation where the artist could justify filing a DMCA notice?
It's never occured to me to wonder about how you file a DMCA notice against facebook though, or if that's something that happens and how effective it is for the filer.
Is this something that one can do on facebook? Facebook appears to say yes: http://www.facebook.com/help/190268144407210/
But it would be interesting to hear from someone with personal experience, on either end of a DMCA takedown notice on facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Atheistic religiosity is still religiosity" A lack of belief in God is not a belief in a God. Your example is ignorant.
Are you so sure? A person that is conditioned to follow an idea will behave in a conditioned way, I doesn't matter the topic. When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol".
Can reason an scientific method itself be an Idol? And if you do not cherish those things do you think it's better since you are truly not a believer in anything? Even the method that verifiebly gives humanity models of predictive utility that gave us almost all we enjoy today?
Nor do they love science. Most of the things they post are not accurate. The picture of the universe and a synapse for example springs to mind. They are just a "Like" farm. They use their tracking of likes to mine relationships so you can get personalized spam that appears that it came from your friends.
IFLS is to science as lol-cats is to feline veterinary medicine.
Lol-cats among other things teach public why veterinary medicine is worth the fuss. It's because cats are so cute!
I don't know if it's necessarily fair to call out "I F*cking Love Science". The same could be said about Reddit/9gag/thousands of other Facebook groups/etc. It's an Internet-wide problem, not just one FB group.
A fellow robs my house. I catch him and hold him for the police. He complains, "No fair! Most robberies are unsolved because we lack the manpower to chase every lead!!" Lie is indeed "unfair" to him in some statistical sense, but I am absolutely not being "unfair" to him in a moral sense. Or to put it another way, the reality of the Internet as you describe it is that a certain %age of copyright violations go unpurus…
Mine is, telling your friends a joke without bothering to establish who originally invented it.
The bottom line is this: 1. Elise Andrew is making money off IFLS. (Whether or not she's giving it out to charities is non-relevant.) 2. IFLS' success rests largely on the high quality content created by artists, scientists, photographers 3. A small part of IFLS' success rests on Andrews' eye for picking out good/funny/clever quotes/cartoons/photographs/artwork Given (1) and (2), I'd say not only is IFLS largely inde…
> 3. A small part of IFLS' success rests on Andrews' eye for picking out good/funny/clever quotes/cartoons/photographs/artwork This isn't hard, and can be automated... it's the 9gag model. Just view the cream of the crop that bubbles to the top of reddit and randomly pick out a few every day.
Small part of every DJ is picking the righ music to remix.