5 ms·
Guy colored in someone else's photo for profit. And doesn't kick any of it back. I also don't suppose his estate lets anyone else sell copies of that image. See
by mwenge 4y ago
Guy colored in someone else's photo for profit. And doesn't kick any of it back. I also don't suppose his estate lets anyone else sell copies of that image. Seems like having your cake and eating it.
- EdwardDiego 4y agoYeah, I'd hardly call that fair use.
- bagels 4y agoNah, it's like stealing someone else's cake, and writing your name on it with frosting and eating it.
- Huh1337 4y agoMuch more like making the same cake with few differences and calling it yours. The original photo wasn't taken from anybody.
- pessimizer 4y agoOnly to the extent that copying a video file of a film makes me a filmmaker.
- Huh1337 4y agoIf you copy the file, not really. If you make modifications - e.g. a different cut, new scenes, dubbing... Then I'd say you're much closer to being one.
- pessimizer 4y agoIf it comes down to a subjective debate about aesthetics in a courtroom, we've veered into a bad direction.
- phpisthebest 4y agoNo it is not. Copyright infringement is not, can not be considered theft. It is not legal theft, and can not be called that in court. Theft is the act of taking something from someone, if you copy something you by definition have not taken it, you copied it. The original is still there, intact. Taxation is closer to theft than copyright infringement is.
- tiahura 4y agoYou’re taking away their right to control the copying of their work.
- phpisthebest 4y agoI dont consider it a right, I only recognize negative rights as valid natural rights. They may have the legal authority to control it, and may have the legal authority to use government guns to prevent unauthorized copying, but they do not have the moral or ethical right. You must reject natural rights in favor of "who ever have the most guns has the right" method to definition of rights
- throwaway09223 4y agoNo one should have the right to control what others do with information. Theft is a morally defensible issue because it deprives another. Copyright is morally indefensible: There is no deprivation. It is only about controlling others.
- tenebrisalietum 4y agoCopyright is an artificial right created to assist the "progress of the Science and Useful Arts." Is copyright still doing that, or is it creating cartels, being used to tell you what you can see and hear, encouraging patenting obvious things for a "landgrab", and supporting companies who don't really add anything to society other than file lawsuits when they think they can get a payout? For some industries that need a lot of upfront R&D and investment and can be well articulated, copyright/intellectual property should be able to be used to protect that investment, but we went very wrong with the current maximalism with copyright terms being 100+ years for songs that might take less than 1 hour to make, and where things like business processes and "X but with a computer" can get patented.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]