The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics

Do you live in Somalia?

No - the idea that individuals are able to practically defend their possessions against determines thieves doesn't make sense in most societies where violence is not accepted as a normal part of life. Instead, most of us rely on the state to provide a police force.

Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true.

> No

Then don't do it.

> the idea that individuals are able to practically defend their possessions against determines thieves doesn't make sense in most societies where violence is not accepted as a normal part of life

I agree. Defense takes on many forms. In the more forward thinking societies, it's usually done with some sort of arbitration.

> Instead, most of us rely on the state to provide a police force.

OK? So?

> Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true.

Your straw man is behind the times. Somalia has had a central government for quite some time.

I'm not terribly surprised they're run by teens. I've seen them retweet some pretty bad/offensive tweets on both accounts before shortly deleting them (e.g.: misogynistic comments about periods), never mind their cross-promotion and all that. It's as if they mis-judged what they could get away with, because I couldn't work out why someone would want to see a photo of blood-stained pants otherwise.

I briefly followed Earth Pics until they started unrelentingly posting obviously fake photos with no attempt to do research into whether they were real or not. HIP has the same dirty feel to it and so it's no surprised to find out they're related.

They've taken two very possibly interesting topics to run a twitter feed on, and essentially run them in to the ground by not doing even a modicum of work to ensure some sort of integrity behind them. Maybe it's an intentional decision, I don't know, but it just seems like when you're trying to appeal to a semi-academic interest such as geography or history, you'd benefit from doing some fact-checking and verification.

It'd be as if IFLS started posting pseudo-science, for example. In fact, exploring the relative success of both approaches would be a really cool study into new-media or whatever buzzword you want to call it.

>"Great artists steal" //

I've read it online, I don't use it. Great artists are inspired by other artists just as in science we use the term "standing on the shoulders of giants". What precisely Picasso meant is it seems lost to us.

The blunt reading however is a damaging blurring of a legal and moral distinction - artists need to understand how copyright affects them and affects the cultural landscape. Making the adoption of important cultural works in to ones own work sound unlawful/immoral is harmful to a healthy society IMO.

However the concept behind this phrase is that "all artists use others work without worrying about copyright infringement" and that this is how the art world works, reflects culture and feeds society.

Or maybe Picasso meant "own it", make your version so much better that people think of you - undoubtedly the line-drawing of a dove wasn't a new idea when Picasso made his version.

>"we talk about one culture appropriating elements of another" //

Loose language, got you. When a culture is inspired or affected by another they don't appropriate the other cultures assets; this is kind of a key distinction when considering the way memes move; how cultural artefacts are created.

Parent's appropriate the slang of their children.

Word choice matters.

>But it's still called "identity theft." //

Actually this is far more in the middle ground - you don't get to use your identity [to the fullness you'd expect]. It's not copyright infringement, or at least that's not the important aspect. It really is like you've had your legal identity stolen (and often you've had things stolen as part of the process). "Identity theft" works IMO.

>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. //

The distinction is made in normal conversation.

>Banging on about this every time anyone uses the word is annoying and, more importantly, contextually incorrect. //

Deliberately attempting to ignore this important distinction and conflate the separate ideas of theft and copyright infringement is also annoying, intellectually dishonest and in this conversation concerning copyright infringement couldn't be more "contextually incorrect".