Technically speaking, a thumbnail is NOT the entire image. If you have an image that's of modest size... say 400x600, then reduce it down to 100x150, you are technically removing 225000 pixels... you are only SHOWING 15,000 of the total 240,000 pixels of the original work. This is only about 6.5% of the original work, which certainly falls under the fair use clause, as it's not a complete recreation of the original work.
Taking it a little farther, you have to realize that the thumbnail is not a completely accurate representation of the original image due to compression algorithms to make the image look similar to the original.
However, the simple fact of the matter is that you can't take the thumbnail and accurately recreate the original by resizing it back up.
I'm a Microsoft flunky... I admit it. (First post here on/. by the way!)
Personally, as a developer, I have explored open source options and found them to be generally incomplete, with little to no documentation (compared to MSDN, most docs are a barren wasteland, but I'm talking about even the most basic of documentation).
For example, I am building a 3D game. I explored Ogre, and I found it difficult to use, with far too many independent side-projects that required me to update from 5 or 6 different websites every time the core engine was updated. Seriously... building a commercial app kinda sucks when you have to rely on hobbyists for timely updates. What happens if the core engine updates, and one of the key add-on makers is on vacation for a month? Or just decides they don't want to do it? What if their whole project gets abandoned? These kinds of questions have to be asked when you're making something you want to bring to market. "Just program it yourself" was something I heard often... but that's really not the point, is it? People want to make a product that other people use, but more often than not, the project gets abandoned, gets handed off to new project owners time and time again... and when it's all said and done, it's a pain in the butt to really get a nice, stable, complete, well-documented project out of the open source community.
Personally, I've found that PAYING for my software brings with it a lot of perks: For one thing, you can hold over them the "I'm your customer" card... money talks! Secondly, market forces seriously drive quality standards... not really for Microsoft, but for other small developers that are competing.
To be blunt, and to really abuse a common saying... "You get what you pay for." If you don't pay jack squat... guess what you usually get.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically speaking, a thumbnail is NOT the entire image. If you have an image that's of modest size... say 400x600, then reduce it down to 100x150, you are technically removing 225000 pixels... you are only SHOWING 15,000 of the total 240,000 pixels of the original work. This is only about 6.5% of the original work, which certainly falls under the fair use clause, as it's not a complete recreation of the original work.
Taking it a little farther, you have to realize that the thumbnail is not a completely accurate representation of the original image due to compression algorithms to make the image look similar to the original.
However, the simple fact of the matter is that you can't take the thumbnail and accurately recreate the original by resizing it back up.
Trillian FTW. :)
I'm a Microsoft flunky... I admit it. (First post here on /. by the way!)
Personally, as a developer, I have explored open source options and found them to be generally incomplete, with little to no documentation (compared to MSDN, most docs are a barren wasteland, but I'm talking about even the most basic of documentation).
For example, I am building a 3D game. I explored Ogre, and I found it difficult to use, with far too many independent side-projects that required me to update from 5 or 6 different websites every time the core engine was updated. Seriously... building a commercial app kinda sucks when you have to rely on hobbyists for timely updates. What happens if the core engine updates, and one of the key add-on makers is on vacation for a month? Or just decides they don't want to do it? What if their whole project gets abandoned? These kinds of questions have to be asked when you're making something you want to bring to market. "Just program it yourself" was something I heard often... but that's really not the point, is it? People want to make a product that other people use, but more often than not, the project gets abandoned, gets handed off to new project owners time and time again... and when it's all said and done, it's a pain in the butt to really get a nice, stable, complete, well-documented project out of the open source community.
Personally, I've found that PAYING for my software brings with it a lot of perks: For one thing, you can hold over them the "I'm your customer" card... money talks! Secondly, market forces seriously drive quality standards... not really for Microsoft, but for other small developers that are competing.
To be blunt, and to really abuse a common saying... "You get what you pay for." If you don't pay jack squat... guess what you usually get.