Brian Legge
Veteran
That's the trick - all photo sharing sites need some sharing verbage on their legal disclaimers as they display peoples photos. Any that compress them differently or resize them need text related to modifying the photos.
All of which sounds really scary and confusing as soon as it's in legal speak. And hard for the average person to distinguish from something more nefarious.
All of which sounds really scary and confusing as soon as it's in legal speak. And hard for the average person to distinguish from something more nefarious.
Ranchu
Veteran
Yeah, yeah. All that's well and good, except that twitpic (for twits I guess, ha) reserves for themselves the right to shake down anyone who publishes your (twit) pic, and then not cut you in on the action.
That is bull****, I don't care if 'this is nothing new', or 'it's free', or 'anybody who has a camera thinks they're a photographer' (guess you need three).
It always amazes me how many people jump to make excuses for this kind of rights grab, 'well socialized' I guess you could say.
That is bull****, I don't care if 'this is nothing new', or 'it's free', or 'anybody who has a camera thinks they're a photographer' (guess you need three).
It always amazes me how many people jump to make excuses for this kind of rights grab, 'well socialized' I guess you could say.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
There's hypocrisy in many "photographer's" attitude towards "rights" - they feel no way about downloading from a Torrent any piece of music or movie or television show that, clearly, is created by someone/somewhere/copyrighted without paying for said item but they cry foul when someone "teefs" their photo online.
Don't want people to "teef" your photos? Plaster them with watermarks to the point where the entire meaning of the photo is lost. Don't upload high resolution images; keep them tiny to the point where detail is lost. Rail on forums like this one about how your rights are being trampled but do absolutely nothing when someone asks you for some spare change because they're hungry.
People need to see the big picture (pun intended) and quit being so self righteous.
Dave
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Do you know how much a "lot of money" might be?
It's a relative term after all.
A "lot of money" to the homeless is a cup of coffee...
Dave
Ranchu
Veteran
So you just threw in the homeless because it sounded good?
"Rail on forums like this one about how your rights are being trampled but do absolutely nothing when someone asks you for some spare change because they're hungry."
What do the hungry have to do with tw*tpic selling people's photos?
"Rail on forums like this one about how your rights are being trampled but do absolutely nothing when someone asks you for some spare change because they're hungry."
What do the hungry have to do with tw*tpic selling people's photos?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Thanks for taking only a PORTION of the post to try to make it look out of context - there are bigger things to be concerned about.
Dave
Ranchu
Veteran
Ok, here's the rest.
I have never downloaded a torrent, so I guess that doesn't apply to me. In any case what does hypocrisy matter, if tw*tpic is making money stealing rights then that's what they're doing.
I do, but that still avoids the issue. Tw*tpic is stealing rights and money from those who use their service. Sure nobody has to, but that doesn't mean tw*tpic's not deceiving their users to make money off them, does it?
No, that is exactly what they're doing, they sat in a room and schemed it up too. Bunch of little sh*ts.
Just righteous, Dave, thanks.
Last edited:
Jamie123
Veteran
Sorry but this is such a load of crap that I have a hard time knowing where to start. First let's get this straight. Your saying that because many people, some of whom probably are photographers, infringe on copyrights by downloading pirated content, it is ok for a corporation to essentially appropriate the content of its users irrevocably and in perpetuity? What the hell does one have to do with the other? Or are saying that you disagree with the concept of copyright itself? That would at least make sense.
And what does a homeless guy have to do with it?
What's the 'big picture' you want people to see exactly? That corporations should get away with anything they want and that the users should just shut up?
And why are you focusing on ''photographers''? This affects photographers and non-photographers alike. If a guy takes a picture of something newsworthy on his iPhone and that picture ends up in a newspaper he should get to say whether he wants it there or not and he should get proper compensation.
Jamie123
Veteran
Wtf? What the hell are you even talking about? What's with you and homeless people? Yes, Twitpic stands to make a lot of money by accumulating millions of pictures which essentially constitute a stock archive. Some might get sold for a few hundred and some for a few thousand but everything adds up pretty quickly.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
The bottom line is - don't like the sites, don't like the agreements, don't post there. Moaning and groaning about it on another site does squat. Vote with your mouse.
Dave
Dave
bwcolor
Veteran
I put generated JPGs on my Flickr account and have never worried about someone thinking that my photos are good enough to use them to their advantage. Like all things in life, talent is both a blessing and a curse.
Ranchu
Veteran
Hmm, I've never heard of a legal term called "the void", sounds very convenient for making money selling work you don't own.
Last edited by a moderator:
kshapero
South Florida Man
I am satisfied with this response.
Ranchu
Veteran
kshapero I agree, I'm satisfied with flickr's statement too.
Last edited:
Ranchu
Veteran
Yes, but in tw*tpics case, they want to sell usage rights of content to other entities without compensating the creator of the content. That's different, not the same as selling ad space next to user content.
Last edited:
bukaj
Established
Actually this accomplishes just that. Posts like these inform people of these issues, so someone who wasn't aware of them, can now make the decision if they want to use this service, allowing them to vote with their mouse.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
The easiest solution is the route I've chosen : Simply never take a photograph worthy of being stolen and it all becomes a non-issue.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Before you accuse someone perhaps you should read. They are not stealing something, they just do what is allowed according to their terms of use.
Users loading up photos there and complaining later should go back to school
.That's my interpretation of twitpics terms of use. But I'm no lawyer.
Last edited:
Luna
Well-known
So true. No one reads the Terms Of Service Agreement.
People should watch South Park's Human Centipede episode. It proves a great point.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Before you accuse someone perhaps you should read. They are not stealing something, they just do what is allowed according to their terms of use.
Users loading up photos there and complaining later should go back to school
That's my interpretation of twitpics terms of use. But I'm no lawyer.
A fair point. However, the as we call it in German "das Kleingedruckte" (small print) is no easy stuff and I bet a couple of lawyer spent a good amount of time to make the terms of use safe for the business of the site owner and still attractive and reasonable sounding for the potential user (if he is willing to spend the time and effort to read them completely. I did not read them at all and don`t care.
)