The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics

Post by chc » Wed, Jan 29, 2014, 6:27 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #33

archgrove wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This trope is getting exceedingly tired, on par with the "taxation is theft", "atheism is a religion" and "Linux should be called GNU/Linux" brigades that often crop up in the appropriate discussions. Theft and "steal" have long been used outside of the OED definitions; I can be a "thief of time", "steal an idea", "steal a base" and so forth. "Theft" and "steal" are appropriate words for the behaviour of people who h…

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.

Post by dublinben » Wed, Jan 29, 2014, 6:30 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #31

smackfu wrote: post #28

The credit thing seems like a red herring. Either you have the license to the photo or you don't.

From an ethical perspective I often think credit in these cases is more important than licensing, at least for older stuff. If it's a photo from the 1930s, I honestly don't care if some great-grandnephew technically owns the copyright, but it would be nice to have an accurate caption. The licensing issue gets bigger in my mind the more recent the photos get.

Post by fr0sty » Wed, Jan 29, 2014, 6:33 PM UTC

chadwickthebold wrote: post #52

virtuabhi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't this be considered "fair use"? A bunch of guys find some pictures on the internet. These pictures are not the originals but low-res jpegs. The pictures are saved on their machines (by the browser). Then the pictures are uploaded to Twitter. The source/photographer is provided with every picture (if info. is available). I don't understand how photographers are losing here? They are getting free publicity fro…

"free publicity" Exposure doesn't put food on the table.

Post by oalders » Wed, Jan 29, 2014, 6:34 PM UTC

jere wrote: post #25

pieterhg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how Twitter works

Yea, how Twitter works is it eats up 24 characters on a URL. No thanks. I figured the headlines were interesting enough on their own 99% of the time.

Post by adventured » Wed, Jan 29, 2014, 6:43 PM UTC

smackfu wrote: post #30

evan_ wrote: post #23

Start re-posting their tweets on a halfway-popular account and see how quickly they learn about copyright.

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.