3 ms·
Usually, these articles about movies, clothing, art, or geography don’t have a single picture, even though what they are discussing is inherently graphical. I s
by teddyh 3y ago
Usually, these articles about movies, clothing, art, or geography don’t have a single picture, even though what they are discussing is inherently graphical. I suspect that it’s because people who read these articles don’t care, because they don’t read them to become actually informed, they read them simply to feel smarter.
(Repost of <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30349455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30349455>)
A related phenomenon is the same kind of article, but full of irrelevant stock images. (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37167492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37167492>)
- IshKebab 3y agoI think it's more likely because the effort of finding and licensing images is way more significant than that of writing text.
- teddyh 3y agoAn article doing analysis and/or criticism doesn’t need a license; that’s what “fair use” is for.
- kalleboo 3y agoThe lawyers required to argue that in court cost way more than the approx $60 in ad revenue this article will bring in
- teddyh 3y agoAnyone could sue anyone for anything and wipe out any profit in anything you do. What you have to figure is the likelihood that someone will sue you for using reference images in an article about industry practices. Unless you’re a very small media outlet and are using images from especially lawyer-happy large corporation, this isn’t likely.
- IshKebab 3y agoYou clearly haven't been following photo licensing lawsuits! https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty... That's a particular extreme example, but Getty are notorious for being sue-happy.
- teddyh 3y agoThat example only applies if the image you use is also in some way sold by Getty Images. This is not likely to be the case in this instance.