5 ms·

> You infringe copyright every time you download a picture off of a website. You infringe copyright every time you share it with a friend. respectfully yoy hav

> You infringe copyright every time you download a picture off of a website. You infringe copyright every time you share it with a friend. respectfully yoy have no idea what you are talking about here.

matheusmoreira 7mo ago
Try replacing "picture" with "music file".
scheeseman486 7mo ago
You might be thinking of fair use, but that's an affirmative defence. Every time someone has copied someone elses artwork and modified it into a meme, that's copyright infringement and remains so even if is eventually ruled as fair use. If you make a fair use claim, you don't deny infringement, you make the claim that you were allowed to infringe.
pixl97 7mo ago
Why don't they, there have been lawsuits over just these behaviors in the past. Hell, even the multiple representations of the picture in computer memory have had to have allowances. Copyright is a gigantic fucking mess that the US has forced over a large chunk of the world.
- throwaway290 7mo ago
  > there have been lawsuits over just these behaviors in the past How did they turn out?
  - pixl97 7mo ago
    It depends if you count the ones that were settled behind NDAs with large companies with unknown amounts being paid out that are ticking time bombs waiting to go off in the future.
    - throwaway290 7mo ago
      let's just count the ones we know about? you sound evasive;) Remember the original poster said that any time my browser downloads a picture on any website (which is a technical requirement to show it) I am infringing on those rights. If that is US court opinioon that would be absolutely stupid. Of course if you reshare some work that actually is somebody's property you can be totally infringing. Which makes total sense. Except when big tech does the same to us (LLM and diffusion training) it's suddenly ok and that's insane
      - matheusmoreira 7mo ago
        Copyright is the right to make copies. The creator of a work has a government granted monopoly on that right. When I download a picture from a website and save it to my machine, I am making a copy of it. If the photographer has not given me explicit permission to do so, then I have infringed on their rights by making an unauthorized copy of their work. The mere existence of licenses like the creative commons refutes your argument. They would not be necessary if you could just download whatever without infringing copyrights.
        throwaway290 7mo ago
        Downloading a picture needs to happen to show it. Without it it cannot be shown. I'm sure courts figured out that viewing a picture via browser is not infringing.
        matheusmoreira 7mo ago
        You forgot the "save it to my machine" part which lets me view the picture whenever I want without visiting its creator's website repeatedly. This means I don't need to be exposed to ads, which in turn lowers the creator's income. It also means other people can get the picture from me rather from the creator. Even less ads and payments. Obviously the creators want more money and control. Thus copies are only allowed to be made if it benefits them. Viewing a copy of the picture via the website might be permitted, but saving it or sharing it might not. The truth is nobody really cares what creators want. People will save and share and edit and meme it all up because they can. It is natural. It is their delusional belief that they can control what others do with information that is out of touch with reality.

matheusmoreira 7mo ago

Try replacing "picture" with "music file".

scheeseman486 7mo ago

You might be thinking of fair use, but that's an affirmative defence. Every time someone has copied someone elses artwork and modified it into a meme, that's copyright infringement and remains so even if is eventually ruled as fair use. If you make a fair use claim, you don't deny infringement, you make the claim that you were allowed to infringe.

pixl97 7mo ago

Why don't they, there have been lawsuits over just these behaviors in the past. Hell, even the multiple representations of the picture in computer memory have had to have allowances. Copyright is a gigantic fucking mess that the US has forced over a large chunk of the world.

throwaway290 7mo ago
> there have been lawsuits over just these behaviors in the past How did they turn out?
- pixl97 7mo ago
  It depends if you count the ones that were settled behind NDAs with large companies with unknown amounts being paid out that are ticking time bombs waiting to go off in the future.
  - throwaway290 7mo ago
    let's just count the ones we know about? you sound evasive;) Remember the original poster said that any time my browser downloads a picture on any website (which is a technical requirement to show it) I am infringing on those rights. If that is US court opinioon that would be absolutely stupid. Of course if you reshare some work that actually is somebody's property you can be totally infringing. Which makes total sense. Except when big tech does the same to us (LLM and diffusion training) it's suddenly ok and that's insane
    - matheusmoreira 7mo ago
      Copyright is the right to make copies. The creator of a work has a government granted monopoly on that right. When I download a picture from a website and save it to my machine, I am making a copy of it. If the photographer has not given me explicit permission to do so, then I have infringed on their rights by making an unauthorized copy of their work. The mere existence of licenses like the creative commons refutes your argument. They would not be necessary if you could just download whatever without infringing copyrights.
      - throwaway290 7mo ago
        Downloading a picture needs to happen to show it. Without it it cannot be shown. I'm sure courts figured out that viewing a picture via browser is not infringing.
        matheusmoreira 7mo ago
        You forgot the "save it to my machine" part which lets me view the picture whenever I want without visiting its creator's website repeatedly. This means I don't need to be exposed to ads, which in turn lowers the creator's income. It also means other people can get the picture from me rather from the creator. Even less ads and payments. Obviously the creators want more money and control. Thus copies are only allowed to be made if it benefits them. Viewing a copy of the picture via the website might be permitted, but saving it or sharing it might not. The truth is nobody really cares what creators want. People will save and share and edit and meme it all up because they can. It is natural. It is their delusional belief that they can control what others do with information that is out of touch with reality.