Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Image Copyright Question
Options
-
22-06-2009 1:45pm#1Hi all,
Sorry if this is in the wrong section.
Question on obtaining images from a google image search and using them on a website?
For example business people having a meeting. I have seen this image on loads of sites and it seemed suitable to use on a site i was doing recently. But was speaking to someone yesterday about image copyright and apparently this is a dangerous game to play?
Any one have any advice or previous experiences with this?0
Comments
-
You don't have permission to use any photo you find on the internet. Either buy some from stock sites, or contact the photographer and ask about usage rights.0
-
Right. But surely every image on the internet isnt under copyright.
I know you dont have permission but is it frowned upon or is legal action often taken?0 -
By and large they are under local copyright laws, but sometimes the owner of the copyright chooses to relinquish that. You need to check with the owner for how the image is licensed.But surely every image on the internet isnt under copyright.0 -
-
iStockPhoto says they have over 5 million royalty free images for purchase.
This image of a business meeting could cost as little as $3 (cost is based on image size).0 -
Advertisement
-
I bought a tiny image the other day for €59 but it means I can use it to sell a product and print it as much as I want.
Better to be safe then sorry.
If its just for a website and not for print you can get free ones from this site.
http://www.sxc.hu/0 -
Things on the internet are under copyright as much as anything in the newspaper, in the cinema or on the TV.Right. But surely every image on the internet isnt under copyright.
Unless it is explicitly stated that things are copyright-free or they allow use, then don't take them. It is illegal, immoral and unprofessional and there is no excuse.0 -
check out this site; http://search.creativecommons.org/
you can use images for free depending on the license attached. Most will require some sort of attribution though.
in general, don't grab images from google search - certainly not off the first page for your term ;-)
most people won't have a problem with you using their images so long as you give them credit. I just couldn't be bothered updating licenses on any of my images, so they're technically all copyright by default but i couldn't care less who uses them provided i get credit.0 -
The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used. Just because the commercial-types want it their own way does not mean the majority of internet users agree. Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.
It's time for the nonsense to stop.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9642
The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used. Just because the commercial-types want it their own way does not mean the majority of internet users agree. Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.
It's time for the nonsense to stop.
This is utter nonesense, so a photographer whos job it is to take photos and then puts them up on the web on sites such as istock shouldnt be paid or should just not put images up in the first place? They are providing a service, for graphic and web designers to be able to go and source images is vital and to have such a choice to be able to find exactly what they want, and not have to go and organise to take a picture to suit is priceless. At the prices you pay on istock its ridiculous that people complain about copyright and not being able to download images where and when they want. Im sure whatever you work at you wouldnt do it for free, so why should a photographer or anyone else who puts their material up on the web for sale and use via copyright and license??0 -
Advertisement
-
The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used. Just because the commercial-types want it their own way does not mean the majority of internet users agree. Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.
It's time for the nonsense to stop.
That is one of the daftest things I've ever heard!!!
"The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used."
Hi, the frontdoor of my house is open. This clearly means anybody can come in and take what they like....
Clever guy!0 -
Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.
No-one's "appalled" that someone would download their content. Technically, every time you view a website you "download" the content.
It's the unauthorised re-use of the content that's the problem.
Say you pay a photographer and 3 models for a cool photo for your website; that, the studio time, and the license to use the image costs you about €600.
Then someone uses that image for free on their website.
OF COURSE you're going to be pissed off.It's time for the nonsense to stop.
Phew! Does that mean that that's the last post from you, so ? :rolleyes:
OP, with iStockPhoto selling website-usage images from €1, there's no excuse to break the law and/or risk being seen as a thief and/or sued.0 -
All images are copyright protected. It is up to you to establish who owns the copyright and get permission to use. It is illegal to use an image just because you are able to "grab" it.
Using am image without permission is theft, plain and simple.0 -
The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used. Just because the commercial-types want it their own way does not mean the majority of internet users agree. Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.
It's time for the nonsense to stop.
LOL. I agree. I do all my work for free, and live in a field, just taking what I want from the land and from free stuff that people bring me. It's great. Apart from the cruel pixie overlords who exact tax from me in buttercup-based micro-payments.
To the OP: I had a photo taken from my site and used in a newspaper in Romania, I was plenty mad about it. Almost sued, in fact, but ended up not doing so (long story). Came close though and next time I'd definitely sort it out.
.0 -
I agree. You're right that it must stop, but simply throwing legal copyrights to the wind ain't gonna do it. If you want it to stop, go vote for someone to legislate. Otherwise stop complaining.The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used. Just because the commercial-types want it their own way does not mean the majority of internet users agree. Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.
It's time for the nonsense to stop.
Yeah, pissed off by the fact they got royally ripped off by a photographer, who in turn probably got royally ripped off by a studio and 3 models.Liam Byrne wrote: »Say you pay a photographer and 3 models for a cool photo for your website; that, the studio time, and the license to use the image costs you about €600.
Then someone uses that image for free on their website.
OF COURSE you're going to be pissed off.
A silly analogy - if someone takes your telly from your house, you no longer have a telly. Telly's aren't instantaneously reproducible at zero cost."The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used."
Hi, the frontdoor of my house is open. This clearly means anybody can come in and take what they like....
An actually relevant analogy:
"Hi, my mouth was open when I was speaking in public, should anybody be allowed to repeat anything I said? Or do I own the copyright on quoting me?"
Really? That's awfully generous. I personally prefer to get paid for most work I do. Once. When I do it. For physically doing the work. If someone takes my work and reproduces it, that's them doing the reproducing work, not me. It's got nothing to do with me, why should I be paid for it? I've already been paid for producing it in the first place. That's just f'ing greedy!kevteljeur wrote: »LOL. I agree. I do all my work for freeQuestion on obtaining images from a google image search and using them on a website?
Don't reproduce anything you find on Google without explicitly finding out from the site you got it on that their licence allows you to reproduce it. Doing otherwise is illegal and you may be prosecuted. I don't personally believe it should be illegal but that's opinion, not law, and it is in every country and jurisdiction I'm aware of so just don't do it.0 -
The internet ethos is that what goes up there is meant to be seen and used. Just because the commercial-types want it their own way does not mean the majority of internet users agree. Those who want to retain copyright should stop complaining, and simply refrain from uploading stuff to the net, and then become appalled at the notion that someone would download their content.
It's time for the nonsense to stop.
This comment from “hellbent” sounds like the way the defence in "The Pirate Bay" trial tried to justify their client involvement in illegal activity (http://blog.securityitrust.com/the-pirate-bay-trial-had-come-to-an-end/).
Copyright is very simple all images are copyright protected; some have very strict copyright protection and some use open copyright protection like royalty free. If you do not own the image then you need permission to use it regardless of where you get the image. Taking an image from the internet or any other source with out permission is stealing, and using an image you stole on your website or other public material can end up in a lawsuit.
The theft of images on the internet is high, many people copy images and text from other website to use when creating their own website, and many website owners get taken to court around the world for this activity. So don’t use an image you don’t have the right to on your website, because it’s cheaper to purchase an image compared to the cost of a lawsuit.
From searching the internet I found there 2 articles on copyright.
http://www.gaelicimages.com/2009/06/copyright-duration/
http://www.gaelicimages.com/2009/06/ireland-photography-rights/
Niall
www.gaelicwebdesign.com0 -
I agree. You're right that it must stop
How is that "right" ? If someone does work - e.g. unique work for a client - then they get paid for it. ONCE COPY = ONE PAYMENT.Yeah, pissed off by the fact they got royally ripped off by a photographer, who in turn probably got royally ripped off by a studio and 3 models.
Hmmmm...maybe by a photographer whose photos were previously stolen and who has decided to charge in advance for the copies that he's now sure someone will make of HIS work ?A silly analogy - if someone takes your telly from your house, you no longer have a telly. Telly's aren't instantaneously reproducible at zero cost.
But the investment in creating the telly is reliant on selling a couple of hundred thousand of them.
Otherwise the initial cost of the telly would be a couple of million quid. The research and design has to be paid for somehow.
Likewise, if a photographer or website designer was only paid one amount of €200, with everyone else stealing / copying their stuff, how the hell would they pay for cameras, studio space, office space, etc ? The first photo would cost the €4,000 price of the camera, or the web designer's computer !An actually relevant analogy:
"Hi, my mouth was open when I was speaking in public, should anybody be allowed to repeat anything I said? Or do I own the copyright on quoting me?"
Not a relevant analogy UNLESS you were being paid to speak at a conference or something. If you were, then those who paid you - as well as yourself - are entitled to be reimbursed.
Someone in the audience is NOT entitled to copy everything word-for-word; they're entitled to your expertise, because they paid to hear it, but they are NOT entitled to repeat it.Really? That's awfully generous. I personally prefer to get paid for most work I do. Once. When I do it. For physically doing the work. If someone takes my work and reproduces it, that's them doing the reproducing work, not me. It's got nothing to do with me, why should I be paid for it? I've already been paid for producing it in the first place. That's just f'ing greedy!
Firstly, the poster was being sarcastic.
But otherwise, let me see. I build a website for one person, and ten thousand people copy it, thereby ensuring I can't make a living ?
I record a song, and sell one copy, but ten thousand people copy it ?
Can you not see how the above is actually related to your supposed "complaint" above about the "rip-off" photographer ?Don't reproduce anything you find on Google without explicitly finding out from the site you got it on that their licence allows you to reproduce it. Doing otherwise is illegal and you may be prosecuted. I don't personally believe it should be illegal but that's opinion, not law, and it is in every country and jurisdiction I'm aware of so just don't do it.
And rightly so. Otherwise either whoever (a) did the job or (b) paid for the job is perfectly entitled to feel VERY hard done by.
I - personally - would be a LITTLE more lenient on stuff that's COMPLETELY for personal use, but if you've got a website that's being designed to promote YOUR business and allow YOU make more money, then whoever designed or put that together is perfectly entitled to get paid.
If someone took a day, with models and studio lighting, to get a unique shot for a website, then it's gonna cost, and no-one should be entitled to steal that. And whether it's viewed as stealing from the photographer or from the company whose website it is, it's stealing. Period.
If a company makes a copy of something and in doing so disrespects / impacts on another company's method of making a living, then that company deserved to get named and shamed.
Bottom line is, of course, that you ASK, and abide by the reply.
Just like "borrowing" a book or a tv; if the answer's yes then you're OK.
If the answer's no, then that's the law.
Just because what someone produces is "copyable", doesn't mean that you should.
If a table was "copyable" as easily as a digital file, should a carpenter only be paid once ? With 100,000 people "copying" it to get a table for free ?
How does that carpenter pay for his carpentry course, rent, or food ? By charging €250,000 for the first table ?0 -
Well said Liam. I don't know why we're even having this little debate, it's purely ignorance from the likes of lucideer & hellbent.
I don't even know how somebody would think they should get images for free. I guess if the photo wasn't on the Internet and was instead, a photo printed and mounted in a museum they might have a different view on it....
<sarcasm>Then again, I think people should be aloud to go into galleries and just take the pictures they like!</sarcasm>0 -
(quotes added for truthery)GaelicWebDesign wrote: »This comment from “hellbent” sounds like the way the defence in "The Pirate Bay" trial tried to justify their client involvement in "illegal" activity
Given that you're the first person I've seen mention this case and take the side of the judge, I would guess that hellbent's comments about "the majority of internet users" is correct. I added the quotes above because despite the ridiculous verdict, it's fairly common knowledge the entire case was bunk. No I'm not a lawyer, yes I'm aware the verdict was given by someone with significantly more knowledge of Swedish law than I possess, but having read the verdict, the charge was very specifically directed at a commercial operation, which the PB most certainly was not.
The fact that the site is still operational, has not paid a penny and that the publicity from that court case lead to the Swedish freedom of information party (Piratpartiet) becoming the 3rd largest political party in Sweden and winning European Parliament seats in their first election, I would gather the population of Sweden are well aware that the verdict was bunk - and I seriously doubt the appeal will meet much resistance.
Did I say it was ok to steal a telly? No. What relevance has this?Liam Byrne wrote: »But the investment in creating the telly is reliant on selling a couple of hundred thousand of them.
Otherwise the initial cost of the telly would be a couple of million quid. The research and design has to be paid for somehow.
Ha! 'Cos a €4000 camera can only take one photo.. Ya.Liam Byrne wrote: »Likewise, if a photographer or website designer was only paid one amount of €200, with everyone else stealing / copying their stuff, how the hell would they pay for cameras, studio space, office space, etc ? The first photo would cost the €4,000 price of the camera, or the web designer's computer !
Now that is factually false, and ridiculous. And your logic is laughable - if you say something in public without charging for your knowledge, people can "take it", yet if you charge for first hearing, you're entitled to charge AGAIN for reproduction. How on earth is this entitlement granted only to people who decide to charge people to listen to their voice - is that the actual criteria in this grossly inequitable and thankfully imaginary legal system of yours?Liam Byrne wrote: »Not a relevant analogy UNLESS you were being paid to speak at a conference or something. If you were, then those who paid you - as well as yourself - are entitled to be reimbursed.
Someone in the audience is NOT entitled to copy everything word-for-word; they're entitled to your expertise, because they paid to hear it, but they are NOT entitled to repeat it.
How? Why does their copying it ensure you can't make a living? Stating it does not make it so.Liam Byrne wrote: »But otherwise, let me see. I build a website for one person, and ten thousand people copy it, thereby ensuring I can't make a living ?
Yup.. your point?Liam Byrne wrote: »I record a song, and sell one copy, but ten thousand people copy it ?
Yes, I can see how it's related. But I don't see any problem with either statement. You evidently do, but you're not elaborating.Liam Byrne wrote: »Can you not see how the above is actually related to your supposed "complaint" above about the "rip-off" photographer ?
Of course, attribution is a must. Common courtesy at the very least.Liam Byrne wrote: »Bottom line is, of course, that you ASK, and abide by the reply.
Ever tried copying a tv you borrowed onto your hard-drive, then giving it back?Liam Byrne wrote: »Just like "borrowing" a book or a tv; if the answer's yes then you're OK.
Why not?Liam Byrne wrote: »Just because what someone produces is "copyable", doesn't mean that you should.
Yes.Liam Byrne wrote: »If a table was "copyable" as easily as a digital file, should a carpenter only be paid once ?
Yes.Liam Byrne wrote: »With 100,000 people "copying" it to get a table for free ?
He diversifies.Liam Byrne wrote: »How does that carpenter pay for his carpentry course, rent, or food ? By charging €250,000 for the first table ?
I don't think I've demonstrated ignorance of anything - I am aware of current law and abide by it. Because I hold a different opinion on an issue to you does not automatically make me ignorant.it's purely ignorance from the likes of lucideer & hellbent.
Yes, I would. Canvas, frame, ink. Matter.I don't even know how somebody would think they should get images for free. I guess if the photo wasn't on the Internet and was instead, a photo printed and mounted in a museum they might have a different view on it....0 -
let me make a point.
A couple of years ago one of the major image libraries started going after individual sites that had images that they had not paid for. up to 1000s of dollars were being demanded.
in my book that is a pretty good reason not to take images off the internet with out finding out who owns them.
also your a troll0 -
Advertisement
-
Is this a new movement of internet communism starting here? what a ridiculous thread, can't even understand why it's being debated.0
-
Did I say it was ok to steal a telly? No. What relevance has this?
No. But you're the one who mentioned the telly. And your view is that the only reason that it's not "ok" to steal it is because it isn't digital/ instantly copy-able. If it were, you'd apparently be fine with it.
But then we wouldn't have telly's because no-one would spend millions to design and create the first one, knowing they'd sell only one.
So we'd all be worse off.Ha! 'Cos a €4000 camera can only take one photo.. Ya.
No, but if everyone copies that one photo, then there's a far less market for others. If everyone decided - that photo's nice; I like the other but this one's "free", so I'll use that instead, then you could well end up with a €4,000 camera only taking the one photo!
If the photo was a fantastic landscape print that everyone wanted, who would you propose that we charge for the "first copy" ? And how much should we charge ?
And how, exactly, should everyone else go about getting their "free" copy ? Would the first person not feel hard done by ?
Your argument is ridiculous.
If we all had Star-Trek style replicator machines so that EVERYTHING was "duplicatable" and no-one was at a disadvantage, then fair enough, but like I said, why target those whose output is digital just because you can.How on earth is this entitlement granted only to people who decide to charge people to listen to their voice - is that the actual criteria in this grossly inequitable and thankfully imaginary legal system of yours?
As opposed to your one, where everyone whose output is digital has no livelihood protection, and everyone whose output isn't, does ? :rolleyes:How? Why does their copying it ensure you can't make a living? Stating it does not make it so.
Another laughable comment, considering your glib "he diversifies" comment below. As I said above, the logical conclusion of someone not earning from copies of their work is that they (a) don't bother going into that line of work, and (b) charge a small fortune for the first copy, because of the time and effort that went into it. Unfortunately, no-one will BUY that first copy, because they'd know that everyone else would get it for free. So the whole "career" (and art-form) goes down the tubes.
Do you think that only one copy of a newspaper should be charged for ? If so, how much ? And who pays for the reporters, writers, etc ? Should the first copy of the newspaper be €5,000 to pay for this ? And who should pay that, knowing the freeloaders would then demand their copies ?
The entire system would collapse, because of the reasons mentioned above.Yes, I can see how it's related. But I don't see any problem with either statement. You evidently do, but you're not elaborating.
I have elaborated above.I don't think I've demonstrated ignorance of anything - I am aware of current law and abide by it. Because I hold a different opinion on an issue to you does not automatically make me ignorant.
The law is there to protect the owner of a copyright and give them a right to a livelihood. The law isn't just "there".
Out of interest, what's your chosen career ? Not being personal, but I just want check if there's an equivalent parallel......and if anything - even that replicator - would change your mind on the difference between "digital" producers and those who produce your "matter".
An artist is an artist, whether it's canvas, web, computer-based art, photography, carpentry, sculpture, etc.
EVERY career has an investment, both education-wise beforehand or technology-wise since.
And while I detest blatant rip-offs, at least you can - to some extent - shop around and get the best deal; but those who steal impose on society even more, with increased charges, security, policing, insurance, etc.0 -
let me make a point.
A couple of years ago one of the major image libraries started going after individual sites that had images that they had not paid for. up to 1000s of dollars were being demanded.
in my book that is a pretty good reason not to take images off the internet with out finding out who owns them.
also your a troll
You are dead right there. Corbis and Getty have software that crawls websites looking for images, and compares them against their own collections. Once they find a match, they start legal proceedings and claim for damages. They are even using sites like WayBack machine, to look for sites that may have used a copyright image in the past.
I know this is an English Law site, but there is more information here…
http://www.fsb.org.uk/discuss/forum_posts.asp?TID=11060 -
Really? That's awfully generous. I personally prefer to get paid for most work I do. Once. When I do it. For physically doing the work. If someone takes my work and reproduces it, that's them doing the reproducing work, not me. It's got nothing to do with me, why should I be paid for it? I've already been paid for producing it in the first place. That's just f'ing greedy!
By that logic, I can bring out a new best seller, the VaDinci Code.
All I need to do is scan in the existing book and re-publish it un the name Ban Drown. And I'll be immune to any claims of breach of copyright.
Although that might be too much trouble. Maybe I'll just pick a few random singles out of the top ten and release them on a CD.
Or hey, why don't I take OpenOffice and flog it to people who don't know any better as the new Windows 7 version of MS Office?
Cos, y'know, no one has rights to anything they create.0 -
By that logic, I can bring out a new best seller, the VaDinci Code.
All I need to do is scan in the existing book and re-publish it un the name Ban Drown. And I'll be immune to any claims of breach of copyright.
Interesting thought....I'm not sure whether our anarchistic digital communist would see it that way....since there's a "physical/matter" book.
If, however, you somehow got hold of Dan's laptop and copied the digital manuscript file, it certainly appears to be the case that he'd see that as being perfectly OK....
And since you'd be doing the printing of the physical copy YOU should get paid and Dan shouldn't.
Guess the moral of that story is that all authors should just use old-fashioned typewriters! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:0 -
And it's exactly because of this ridiculous opinion that the laws are in place.Don't reproduce anything you find on Google without explicitly finding out from the site you got it on that their licence allows you to reproduce it. Doing otherwise is illegal and you may be prosecuted. I don't personally believe it should be illegal but that's opinion, not law, and it is in every country and jurisdiction I'm aware of so just don't do it.
It makes no difference if the subject is physical or in a digital format. If you take what is not yours to take it's stealing... plain and simple.0 -
I had to quote this one as it's absolutely hilarious. Honestly, could you have chosen a better example than OpenOffice - I don't think so. I guess someone has never heard of something called the GPL? (I'll give you a clue, its author is mentioned in my sig)Or hey, why don't I take OpenOffice and flog it to people who don't know any better as the new Windows 7 version of MS Office?
Cos, y'know, no one has rights to anything they create.
An anarchist communist eh? Hrmm... sounds like someone has a great grasp on political terminology there. May I recommend a visit to Wikipedia (although whatever you do, don't repeat what you read there to anyone - that would be stealing right?)Liam Byrne wrote: »anarchistic digital communist
True. But that's based on the assumption that one can "own" the ethereal.If you take what is not yours to take it's stealing... plain and simple.0 -
I knew Stallman was a little touched, but I didn't think he also thought he was Torvalds.I guess someone has never heard of something called the GPL? (I'll give you a clue, its author is mentioned in my sig)
The law says yes, so thats good enough for me. Stealing may not be the right word, but certainly infringing on rights.But that's based on the assumption that one can "own" the ethereal.0 -
Richard Matthew Stallman (affectionately known to the open-source community as RMS) is referred to by Linus Torvalds as he invites you to "go suck on" the original author of the GPL (in the nicest possible way I'm sure)aidan_walsh wrote: »I knew Stallman was a little touched, but I didn't think he also thought he was Torvalds.
Oh stealing is absolutely the right word. The law defines this ethereal "product" as "property", so taking it is legally stealing, which I've acknowledged at least twice above. What I'm trying to get across is my right to have a dissenting opinion on that law, which defends people's apparent right to "own" ether.aidan_walsh wrote: »The law says yes, so thats good enough for me. Stealing may not be the right word, but certainly infringing on rights.0 -
Advertisement
-
An anarchist communist eh? Hrmm... sounds like someone has a great grasp on political terminology there. May I recommend a visit to Wikipedia (although whatever you do, don't repeat what you read there to anyone - that would be stealing right?)
You question someone else's post, using the the GPL / Creative Commons license as the reason, and yet you quote Wikipedia and suggest that quoting it might be stealing, despite it (a) being largely unsubstantiated, user-contributed content and (b) contains the following "copyright" footer:Wikipedia wrote:Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License"
:rolleyes:What I'm trying to get across is my right to have a dissenting opinion on that law, which defends people's apparent right to "own" ether.
You can have all the dissenting opinion that you like, but in doing so you've refused point-blank to indicate why there should be a distinction between those whose livelihood involves putting time, expertise and effort into a digital product as distinct from a physical one.
Yes, it's "easier" to copy something, but then it's "easier" to walk into a house and steal something than go to the bank, get a loan, pay for something and pay back the loan.
It's "easier" to pick up someone's unattended phone from a pub counter than go out and buy one.
Why should something be legal just because it's easier to do ?
Plus - as you've also ignored - what's the impact of your opinon ? I've stated clearly why the first "copy" would never be created, because it wouldn't be worth the cost. So the end result would be no websites, no photographs, no music, etc. All because people want to steal them.
You're going on the incorrect assumption that because someone can click "file - copy" or "file - save as" that there's no work or product involved, without acknowledging that the work is gone into it BEFORE that.
Your analogy is about REPRODUCTION AND DELIVERY, and contains no understanding of intellectual or creative copyright, and no understanding of the economics or the impact of what you are proposing.
And you've also refused to indicate what your own chosen career is; that's your right, but until you do you - so that we can draw or dismiss potential parallels - you cannot stand over glib comments that people should "diversify".0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement