A recent tweet from Kyle Cameron's twitter feed:
"If The Wolf Of Wall Street doesn't inspire you to become successful, nothing will." [1]
Makes me a little sad.
[1] https://twitter.com/GirlsGoneKyle/status/427666832636403712
The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
61–70 of 105 posts
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is accurate. "Theft" is the wrong word to use, because theft is fundamentally a different concept , and the use of that word draws a false equivalence. And I'm not arguing that copyright infringement is legitimate on the basis that "intellectual property is unjust" or anything like that; but there are explicit differences that must be taken into account.
Theft is not a fundamentally different concept in the English language. The word "theft" has been used to refer to the appropriation or misuse of things other than physical property for a very long time.
It's neither appropriation nor misuse. They don't take the photos for themselves (or anyone) the photos remain where they were, they duplicate them. Looking at photos is the intended use.
It's copyright infringement. Copyright is an agreement between the demos and an individual creator of an "artistic" work.
Theft is a fundamentally different concept - the crux of that difference is denying the legal owner the enjoyment/use/benefit of that which has been appropriated.
It's not even like that's an especially nuanced point.
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just my distinction; it's a distinction made in courts too. The law is quite clear. Copyright infringement is not theft. > And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist! Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The…
I'll have a look at those, thanks. In response to your points, the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life. For example, in English law, I can "assault" you without ever having touched you. In fact, if I touch you, it's no longer assault. The dictionary definition, and common use, would require that I do more than look menacingly…
the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life.
By the same token, the word "theft" implies different forms of punishment than "copyright infringement" when used by people in day-to-day life. Is this difference in actual usage less important?
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#64This: "The audiences that Di Petta and Cameron have built are created with the work of photographers who they don't pay or even credit . They don't provide sources for the photographs or the captions that accompany them. Sometimes they get stuff wrong and/or post copyrighted photographs. " Combined with this: "I'm sure the majority of photographers would be glad to have their work seen by the massives." Nothing 'new…
I don't think I agree with this. A lot of their pictures ARE public domain, and I have to say, the fact that a) they met through youtube and b) managed to create an organic following of nearly a million, not to mention the number of impressions each tweet gets, in a matter of months, is highly impressive. There are plenty of people who use pirated photos through twitter, and true, they are now making a profit from it, but think of the things YOU were doing when you were 17 years old.
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#65Di Petta's flip attitude towards copyright is contemptible. But it's true that it is often impractical to get information about creators and rights. I wonder part of the solution isn't some service that decreased the friction (by a lot) for looking up the relevant information. (As I'm typing this I realize this probably isn't a new thought.)
Google's reverse image search and tineye.
Couple of others:
http://karmadecay.com/ [reddit focussed]
Also there was http://www.gazopa.com/ but it's shutdown. These http://iqdb.org/, http://www.ascii2d.net/imagesearch/, are for anime/manga.
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just my distinction; it's a distinction made in courts too. The law is quite clear. Copyright infringement is not theft. > And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist! Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The…
We can argue about whether IP rights should exist, but I see this as a separate point. IP rights do exist. The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are you responding to something specific that I said?
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
But all they care about is the follower count. Once it hits a million, they can sell off this account to someone who wants to monetize it. I mean, they have no real attraction to "History in Pics" as a constant, or to any particular post. They just care about it as something that people seem to like to follow. If someone else rips off their content, I doubt that would have any impact at all.
It's against Twitter's terms to sell an account or username. Does Twitter commonly look the other way on this? Are there public examples of Twitter accounts being sold for a lot of money?
What's a twitter account, a username + an email address? From Twitter's perspective, a sale is the same as just changing the email address.
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#68>"They are playing by rules that "old media" and most new media do not. To one way of thinking, they are cheating at the media game, and that's why they're winning. (Which they are.)" //
It seems fairly often I hear a comment that so-and-so media company (BBC, local paper, RIAA, ...) are using a private individuals media without permission or attribution.
They're it seems serially copyright infringers. Whilst big-media generally correct it after-the-fact when they're caught it seems worth noting that it's not only "young punks" that are profiting by playing fast-and-loose with media available online.
Yes there's a difference in complexion too: which goes both ways - if the images are historic then arguably [morally] the creators have had time to make them pay. The corollary of course is that unlicensed duplication of new images, particularly those used in the news, is more damaging.
This is not to excuse such tortuous infringement but just to shed more light on the context.
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
But all they care about is the follower count. Once it hits a million, they can sell off this account to someone who wants to monetize it. I mean, they have no real attraction to "History in Pics" as a constant, or to any particular post. They just care about it as something that people seem to like to follow. If someone else rips off their content, I doubt that would have any impact at all.
It's against Twitter's terms to sell an account or username. Does Twitter commonly look the other way on this? Are there public examples of Twitter accounts being sold for a lot of money?
How about allowing someone else to post on that account, is that allowed? If not I imagine nearly all corp accounts are in breach of their rules.
They don't need to "sell" it legally to create the same practical result.
Seems it's pretty unenforceable for Twitter?
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#70The credit thing seems like a red herring. Either you have the license to the photo or you don't.
Credit seems to matter.
When you see images on Google Image search you get an attribution - that seems the only difference legally between displaying the results of a db query for @HistoryPics twitter posts and displaying the results of a db query for "historic images" (say) on a search engines image search. Sure, the former has been more curated than the latter but having robots do your bidding doesn't appear in TRIPs agreements AFAIR.