4 ms·
And how much of the revenue generated by that photograph was ever seen by the subject of it? It's a particularly pertinent example as the model in that photo w
by detrites 4y ago
And how much of the revenue generated by that photograph was ever seen by the subject of it?
It's a particularly pertinent example as the model in that photo was actually forced into taking the shot against her will, and had her life subsequently ruined over it, meanwhile further propelling the photographer to riches.
Should we be arguing against the development of cameras to stop this kind of thing from happening?
- wiseowise 4y agoWho ever said anything about revenue?
- scrollaway 4y agoPeople talking about copyright exclusively talk about revenue. Copyright isn’t meant to gatekeep people from copying each other just because it’s fun to gatekeep. The entire reasoning we give to continue using that system is based on revenue. So, the answer to your question is: everyone.
- numpad0 4y agoYou are trying to casually deny GNU GPL. On HN. WTF?
- scrollaway 4y agoI invite you to think about whether the GPL would be required for what it tries to achieve, in a system that doesn't have copyright at all.
- numpad0 4y agoGPL depends on copyright! It literally depends on parts of copyright frameworks that grant authors to have fun gatekeeping others. FSF guys had been fighting and defeating "you saying we stole GPL'd code is bogus because free internet stuff can't be stolen" for decades. It just makes no sense that you'd assume the foundation of GPL applies to code but not to images.