EDIT: I hadn't realized that Getty is the reason for the removal of the view image button! I stand by my comment in general, however I do think removing that button is crappy.
EDIT: They also fraudulently claim to own public domain photos and legally threaten people who use them, demanding payment.
It's definitely not OK that they billed the photographer who took the public domain photos for using them on her own site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_M._Highsmith#Getty_Image...
That being said, anything published on the web should be free. E.g. if some don't want their image to be used, they should not publish it publicly in the first place.
I mean, maybe you can sue your friend later on, but that's between you and him.
All that matters to me is that you've used my IP without my permision.
[0] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3001353/Filed-Com...
I imagine they automate copyright takedown notices, and there was a bug somewhere. It's not great, but I don't believe it was malice.
Are you responding to someone else? Wrong thread? Because I haven't expressed that sentiment here.
> you inherently also have to believe Getty should be allowed to take public domain photos (or someone else's photos) and sell them.
Are you responding to someone else? Wrong thread? Because I never said they shouldn't be allowed to profit off public domain photos.
There is profit, and then there's just fucking people over. $1000 for a photo they didn't take and didn't pay for is just disgusting. All it does is restrict access to historical photos to 99% of the world, allowing only the very rich access to this window into our past.
I'd say society wouldn't change much if copyright were abolished. Probably for the better. Claiming authorship should still be protected in my opinion, see next point.
Trademark law gives some nice protections to consumers, so I'd vote for that one to stay.
Patent law? Ahhahaha where do I begin? To think that we rely on that crutch to develop medication makes my head hurt.
As a matter of fact, programming already works as if IP law didn't exist from the point of view of many programmers.I'm hired by a company to produce a product, in exchange for a salary. I don't know any IP that I might produce as a result of my work. I'm simply paid for my time. Could (as an example) novel writers be payed for the time spent writing a book rather than as a function of the sales of their books? I see not logistical reason why not. Maybe the market won't bear many writers under those conditions... But they would still exist, right?
Note: I think Trademark law is really good. And patents have issues but they are mostly good. I'm only talking about copyright here. I'm not entirely against the concept of IP, but I do think copyright law is not nearly as critical as it's made out to be. Maybe the optimal solution is weak copyright rather than no copyright, but I think it's important to understand that no copyright is not as crazy as it sounds.
Also, for most of human history, artists were funded by doing commissions. People wouldn't create music and movies for their fans, they would do it for the millionaires who could afford it, a la Once Upon a Time in Shaolin.
As for programming, maybe you don't care about your IP, but your company sure does. How would your company be funded if anybody could download its product? A few products might be able to survive just by being developed just for government contracts or for other large companies, but any care for ordinary consumers would be gone. And there is no similar market for books. Sure you could set up a book-writing company like you could now but where would the money for those salaries come from? No one will pay the company for a book they can download for free more easily.
> As for programming, maybe you don't care about your IP, but your company sure does.
I don't think they do. The software I write is used by workers in my company's warehouse. It's valuable because it makes their job easier. Sure, we don't give the software away, but we also don't sell it. We would lose very little if we released it for free. I know this doesn't apply to all software, but it applies to a sizable amount of it. It would be interesting to measure which fraction of time spent writing software is for projects like this, I don't know how to even begin estimating it.
> Sure you could set up a book-writing company like you could now but where would the money for those salaries come from?
Some ideas, in no particular order. Asa I said before, maybe reduces the amount of books that get written, but can't say for sure.
-Preorders. The publisher commits to only releasing a book once it has received X orders for it. GMT does this for boardgames.
-Patreon-like model, or plain subscriptions. Customers commit to paying for whatever is released, or just pay periodically and the publisher/author commits to releasing stuff that makes customers happy.
-Making nice editions: this could get very competitive, but surely a publisher who makes nice editions would still sell them. The publisher would be incentivized to pay popular authors to create books so it has more stuff to sell, even if other people could make other editions.
But why we need to add another 70 years is a mystery to me. How does that encourage creativity and innovation?
If you sell me an antique chair, I'm free to upcycle it, transform it into something new, and sell it on. I'm free to examine it and build an exact replica. I can give my chair to whomever I want and let any number of strangers sit on it. Such is the nature of property.
If you sell me a song, I must keep it in your proprietary system, leave the DRM intact, and definitely never even think about remixing it and selling my derived works.
IP is not property, it's a distinct beast of its own. It can't be "stolen" in the traditional sense, and it seems it can't really be bought or sold either.
Disney focused copyright laws have nothing to do with the development of modern civilization. There is plenty of case where overly tight licensing has proven detrimental to a technology.
I'm glad things like this exist, but so sad that they need to.
EDIT: and as one commenter astutely pointed out, fuck Pintrest too, a perfect example of the hubris of SEO focused trashes with no morals or sense of personal responsibility; degrading the commons for their own gain