5 ms·
I suspect I'm one of the few readers here (@cstross being another) for whom this is genuinely important professional information. And it's fantastic. Sadly no
by thenomad 9y ago
I suspect I'm one of the few readers here (@cstross being another) for whom this is genuinely important professional information. And it's fantastic.
Sadly no mention of license there, though - kinda vital if one is intending to use some of the imagery in remix works - although given the texts are thoroughly out of copyright I'd assume that's not too big an issue.
- rosser 9y agoIANAL, but yeah: shouldn't these works not be under copyright, just on the basis of their age? Wouldn't the "phone book" doctrine apply here, also? There's no creative authorship in a collection of previous works.
- racer-v 9y agoThis is probably correct. Scans of public domain works which are "slavish copies" containing "no spark of originality" were ruled public domain in Bridgeman Art Library vs Corel. http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/who-owns-the-copyright-scans-public-domain-works/ http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/who-owns-the-copyright-...
- mylons 9y agocare to expound on your profession? edit: click their username to read about their profession
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- flycaliguy 9y agoI bet that shirtless youtuber is excited as well.
- oh_sigh 9y agoWhat kind of work do you do on the occult?
- richmarr 9y agoHow did you think AI works?
- TheOtherHobbes 9y agoThat depends if you're the AI or the developer.
- ComputerGuru 9y agoOr the media.
- jmh117 9y agoI would love to see some of this in your work! Great stuff!