Follow https://twitter.com/PicPedant for lolz, and credits :)
The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
71–80 of 105 posts
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 enjoym…
> 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.
The fact that the photos remain where they were is completely irrelevant — I never said that they didn't.
When we say "Great artists steal," we do not mean that great artists remove things from their previous location. We mean that they copy other artists' ideas and techniques. But we say "steal."
When we talk about one culture appropriating elements of another, we do not mean that they stamp out those elements in the original culture. We mean that they copy those things. But we say "appropriate."
When somebody steals my identity, I actually still have my identity, but he's using it too, and in ways that I don't approve of. But it's still called "identity theft."
The distinction between theft and copying is relevant in legal matters and some practical matters, but in colloquial use the two are often the same thing. Banging on about this every time anyone uses the word is annoying and, more importantly, contextually incorrect.
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#73This: "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…
It's quite possible to consider those facts in isolation.
What they have accomplished is impressive for 17 year olds, but it's very reasonable to acknowledge the moral (and legal) gray space their work occupies.
Moreover, it's possible to comment without bringing both of those facts up together. I know I'm not particularly interested in extolling the virtues of these particular individuals. It's just not interesting. Maybe the OP feels the same way?
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#74Earlier 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.
> The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld.
That's tough shit for them, then. Existing IP laws currently are really hard to uphold, and soon they will be literally impossible to enforce.
Also, IP is not a right; it's a privilege provided by the government.
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#75A 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
He's a 19 year old making money selling Twitter accounts. I wouldn't spend too much time looking his way for deep life advice and insights.
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Theft plain and simple. Well, no, not plain and simple. At the worst, it's copyright infringement. You may think this is a pedantic correction, and from your point of view, maybe it is. But it isn't for people who see intellectual property as unjust.
No no, your right. I should have know better. My old company, Royalty Free Models, used to sell regular people for commercial photoshoots. I sold them with all rights included like a ShutterStock database with actual people. Even agency's don't understand copyrights...
Stock companies require signed model release for every person on the photo. But copyright is belongs to creator - photographer.
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#77Start re-posting their tweets on a halfway-popular account and see how quickly they learn about copyright.
... aren't they already a more than halfway-popular account?
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld. That's tough shit for them, then. Existing IP laws currently are really hard to uphold, and soon they will be literally impossible to enforce. Also, IP is not a right; it's a privilege provided by the government.
By that argument, ownership of possessions is not a right, but a privilege provided by the government, and if a tough guy comes and takes your laptop away from you - tough shit for you.
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld. That's tough shit for them, then. Existing IP laws currently are really hard to uphold, and soon they will be literally impossible to enforce. Also, IP is not a right; it's a privilege provided by the government.
By that argument, ownership of possessions is not a right, but a privilege provided by the government, and if a tough guy comes and takes your laptop away from you - tough shit for you.
No. Possessions are a scarce resource that can be defended by the owner. Ideas are not scarce. The only way to "defend" an idea from improper uses in a society is with a coercive entity.
Re: The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
#801.3 million followers, eh? Aaannd my headlines-from-1914 bot has 11 followers. tl;dr I suppose.
To be fair, theirs isn't a bot.