5 ms·

I'm not a legal expert. But to me it seems like If you say something in public, it being transcribed into a report is a statement of fact and belongs in what I

I'm not a legal expert. But to me it seems like If you say something in public, it being transcribed into a report is a statement of fact and belongs in what I guess would be called the commons. A photo on the other hand is something quasi tangible that a person put time, effort and resources into to create. Also if you spoke to a reporter I suppose that would be an implied consent to have your words used.

ollysb 13y ago
Yeah, pressing the button is the easy bit, it's getting there that costs the time/money/foresight.
- MichaelApproved 13y ago
  The same could be said about a quote. Verbalizing the words is the easy bit, it's getting the education and life experience to come up with the words that costs the time/money/foresight. I'm not taking sides with this comment, just pointing out the flaw in your argument.
  - ericcumbee 13y ago
    Thats true, but a photo leaves a lasting artifact. where as spoken words unless they are transcribed or recorded more or less evaporate. When you take the effort to transcribe or record those words, you have at least some claim to use those words. thats all based on I think montesquieu or adam smith.
    - jt2190 13y ago
      We're getting close to the point that every word a person speaks can be automatically recorded. (e.g. Google glass.)
strict9 13y ago
How is using someone else's image and giving them appropriate attribution any different than retweeting what they say? Quoting them in a blog post? If they post the image in a public forum (the internet) it's the same as words said in public. Sharing images without attribution is the same as plagiarism. Should journalists that plagiarise words be fined a million dollars? I don't know, maybe. But it's the same issue. EDIT: I'm not referring to law, only common sense and what actually happens in the real world.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > I'm not referring to law, only common sense and what actually happens in the real world. Actually, you are. Talking about plagiarizing and being fined and trying to use legal arguments, and then content you aren't referring to the law? > How is using someone else's image and giving them appropriate attribution any different than retweeting what they say? By using Twitter, you give explicitly permission to retweet. > Quoting them in a blog post? If someone says something, you are free to quote them. > If they post the image in a public forum (the internet) it's the same as words said in public. No, it's not. It's explicitly not because the internet is not the same thing as a public forum. > Should journalists that plagiarise words be fined a million dollars? I don't know, maybe. It depends on to what degree the plagiarizing occurred. But you can't say maybe and follow it up with the edit that you did.

ollysb 13y ago

Yeah, pressing the button is the easy bit, it's getting there that costs the time/money/foresight.

MichaelApproved 13y ago
The same could be said about a quote. Verbalizing the words is the easy bit, it's getting the education and life experience to come up with the words that costs the time/money/foresight. I'm not taking sides with this comment, just pointing out the flaw in your argument.
- ericcumbee 13y ago
  Thats true, but a photo leaves a lasting artifact. where as spoken words unless they are transcribed or recorded more or less evaporate. When you take the effort to transcribe or record those words, you have at least some claim to use those words. thats all based on I think montesquieu or adam smith.
  - jt2190 13y ago
    We're getting close to the point that every word a person speaks can be automatically recorded. (e.g. Google glass.)

strict9 13y ago

How is using someone else's image and giving them appropriate attribution any different than retweeting what they say? Quoting them in a blog post? If they post the image in a public forum (the internet) it's the same as words said in public. Sharing images without attribution is the same as plagiarism. Should journalists that plagiarise words be fined a million dollars? I don't know, maybe. But it's the same issue. EDIT: I'm not referring to law, only common sense and what actually happens in the real world.

jasonlotito 13y ago
> I'm not referring to law, only common sense and what actually happens in the real world. Actually, you are. Talking about plagiarizing and being fined and trying to use legal arguments, and then content you aren't referring to the law? > How is using someone else's image and giving them appropriate attribution any different than retweeting what they say? By using Twitter, you give explicitly permission to retweet. > Quoting them in a blog post? If someone says something, you are free to quote them. > If they post the image in a public forum (the internet) it's the same as words said in public. No, it's not. It's explicitly not because the internet is not the same thing as a public forum. > Should journalists that plagiarise words be fined a million dollars? I don't know, maybe. It depends on to what degree the plagiarizing occurred. But you can't say maybe and follow it up with the edit that you did.