5 ms·
If you desire to respond, I would relate the topic to her field. She claims to be a photographer. Surely she has a vague idea of copyright law. I would explain
by vxxzy 11y ago
If you desire to respond, I would relate the topic to her field. She claims to be a photographer. Surely she has a vague idea of copyright law. I would explain that you had developed a piece of Intellectual Property and licensed said property in a specific form -akin to taking a photograph. The person who takes a photograph owns the copyright. It just so happens that Spotify and Instagram, "enjoy your work" and have decided to make use of your work under the license you have given.
- pilif 11y agoor, even easier to understand analogy: Daniel is the person on the photograph, Spotify/Instagram are the photographers and the hacker is the person who just stole the picture.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y agoI fear you're still overcomplicating it: Daniel is a battery manufacturer. The person complaining bought a camera from Spotify, which came with one of Daniel's batteries inside. Someone stole that camera. (It's not perfect, but it's probably as close as you're going to get)
- AznHisoka 11y agoMost people don't associate batteries with cameras these days..
- rakoo 11y agoDaniel built the camera lens that is mounted on your camera; the hacker managed to make your camera send all the photos on his computer.
- darkr 11y agoTBH, libcurl is probably a dependency of a library that they use. So it's more like Daniel is a supplier of zinc (and just so happens to give that zinc away for free) to a battery manufacturer.. Who sell batteries to Spotify, who manufacture cameras?
- Cthulhu_ 11y agoDaniel is the photographer, Spotify uses his pictures, random user contacts him after finding his address in the attribution.
- woah 11y agoOr- the user is the photographer, Instagram is making use of the photos, and Daniel hacked her phone
- psykovsky 11y agoI fear she's labeling herself as a photographer because she uses Instagram to post photos taken with her iphone...
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoAnd why the snark about what tools the photographer is using? Do they have to fool around in a darkroom with chemicals to be a 'real photographer'? Note that their phone camera is better equipment than a generation of 'real' digital photographers had to make do with.
- daveguy 11y agoI think they are pointing out that just because you call yourself a photographer doesn't mean you are a professional photographer. You can't assume familiarity with copyright law from someone who calls themselves a photographer, but you can assume that familiarity from a professional photographer.
- USNetizen 11y agoIt's analogous to someone calling and threatening Firestone tires because someone broke into their Ford car.
- Houshalter 11y agoWorse, they claim they've been hacked. It's analogous to someone breaking into their car, and then they threaten firestone.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mbubb 11y agoExactly - I was thinking about cars. If you have a problem with the brake system you don't call Delco (who used to make those indash radios years ago) because that logo is visible and staring you in the face. ... Although there probably is a cartalk episode that would prove me wrong on this assumption Website might not be quite as complex as an auto but close and a decent analogy as there are different subsystems...