I realize Getty does not seem to represent "the little guy"... but Google knows how the internet works, artists and publishers do not?
Let's get real. Google exists because they serve ads. An artist, photographer, publisher exists online because they serve ads, or entice interested parties to learn more about them. How else do you sell or generate revenue on the internet? Some unknown is supposed to put up a paywall?
One of the many snarky comments from folks who do not know how to read,
or willfully read what they want to see.
Budget went up to 19.5 billion.
Was earlier proposed 19.1.
Last year was 19.3.
Funding is up.
Perhaps the article was not well-worded,
but for sure, by some, it was poorly read.
The NASA budget was 19.3 billion for 2017,
19.5 billion for 2018.
Trump was originally going to go with 19.1 billion but that was bumped up to the 19.5.
Seems some folks just need to be sarcastic, and will twist the truth to do it.
Doesn't it ever get old?
I truly dislike Getty due to the fact that they use an ENORMOUS number of public domain images, and try to pass themselves off as having ownership rights. It is selfish and disgusting. And there should be a way to punish entities who do this. (You might be surprised how many places do this, including taxpayer funded museums here in the USA...)
However, the Library of Congress page of "Carol M. Highsmith - Rights and Restrictions Information" at:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...
States:
"Carol M. Highsmith's photographs are in the public domain."
The article that appears on PDNPULSE:
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/...
"Highsmith says she never abandoned her copyrights to the images. She says the Library of Congress had agreed to notify users of the images that she is the author, and that users must credit her."
If the images are public domain, she did not retain the right to enforce accreditation.
What she is describing would be equivalent to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
http://opendefinition.org/lice...
Part of the reason for a cc-by license is to stop greedy folks from reselling and trying to "own" what would otherwise be public domain works.
Of course, those of us who work at organizing, editing and adding our own works to the public domain on sites such as my wpclipart.com,
cannot touch anything with a cc-by license.
What would be much better is if there was a legal mechanism to punish people for falsely claiming rights/ownership of images.
Without it, greedy companies/entities are continually narrowing what is available in the public domain.
Copyright plea -- we're not rich enough!
Solution:
Make copyright on music good for one year.
Don't allow any unauthorized use in that time.
After that it's all public domain.
Music is very trend-oriented,
artists can make plenty in a year plus performance for many, many years.
A few other thoughts:
Do we really owe the grand-kids of artists a living?
Why must artists be paid in-perpetuity, while the rest of us schmucks that often make concrete, useful things get paid wage or by the hour?
If I build someone a nice picnic table, do I expect them to pay me every time one of the buyer's friends uses it?
Actually, I remember the early internet quite well.
It was NOWHERE near as useful as it can be today.
(But I do understand how you and I and others can get tired of intrusive ads,
as opposed to something like a non-tracking text ad or banner.)
What I am more tired of is so many of the folks online who argue from extremes...
and like to insult people who don't agree with them instead of trying to make a legitimate point.
I also have little patients for those who expect everything for free.
Welfare used to be a dirty word to proud, working folks.
Now it seems so many people aren't embarrassed to get something without working for it,
they actually don the label of "leech" as if it were a badge of honor.
....whereas I find many ads obnoxious and the tracking going on kinda creepy,
if everyone blocked ads there would be virtually nothing online "for free."
All the "I'll take my business elsewhere" folks are in for a rude surprise when
they realize all the small and innovative content generators don't have the free time
to generate quality content for nothing in return. All that will be left is larger companies
that can bankroll long-term investment and paywalls.
From a practical standpoint the drone operations are counter-productive.
They come off as cowardly (no risk of personal injury while killing others),
while the attacks also kill many innocent people. (To quibble over numbers is insulting.)
The drone attacks likely represent the greatest recruiting tool of the groups they mean to diminish.
So why use them so much, and seemingly with so little regard for collateral damage?
For the headlines:
"Number [insert low number] enemy killed by US drone!"
...and then all props go out to warrior Obama.
Those who think we need to choose between ISIS and Iran,
just as those who say the only alternative to the current deal with Iran is war --
are being dangerously simplistic.
Sort of reminds me of the whole Democrat-Republican dynamic here in the USA of late.
It's one line of BS or another -- both of which turn out to be politically motivated; that is,
in the self-interest of the politician.
I'm tired of hearing how:
"This is Bush's fault"
and
"No, it's Obama's fault"
At some point it's our fault.
For listening to overly simplistic arguments,
believing them, then picking a side....often followed by calling each other names.
Sad is what it is.
Sad and dangerous.
"When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs,
just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that
I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for
my respect, but for my submission."
--Flemming Rose
I'm all for less government intervention in most things, but let's be real --
the government has helped create the ISP monopolies that currently exist,
and "Net Neutrality" strikes me as an intrusive shell game...
Hoping I'm wrong.
How do we get back to real competition and value for our money?
.
From Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley, Aug. 22, 1862:
"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."
Although Lincoln did believe:
"...my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."
it was obviously not his main motivation in the Civil war.
Doesn't matter who's fault it is...
who started privacy abuses,
what party is/was in power.
There is something going terribly wrong here.
We, as Americans,
have obviously slid quite a little way down the slippery slope,
toward something quite different than the bastion of freedom we like to think of ourselves as...
We should be doing something more about it than pointing fingers and playing politics.
Is it just in France, all of Europe, or is the whole world becoming money-grabbers?
It seems the Europeans like to sue the successful companies (unfair business practices)
and now "surcharge" them by proxy.
When I read a couple years ago that a strike had killed "mostly" militants,
then the next day bombed everyone at the funeral...
I felt suddenly empty.
Who in their right mind would NOT think badly of the country responsible?
I love my country and consider myself quite patriotic,
but these drone attacks are shameful.
They should be stopped.
Aside from the obvious moral imperative,
there is the practicality of it:
every time we kill another "al-Qaeda #2"
with these cowardly half-blind strikes from the sky we create many more enemies.
Why do I hear so little protest here in the US? What can the average Joe do to raise hell about it?
And where is the press on all this?
I'm tired of hearing about Mitt Romney's taxes and President Obama's birth certificate. Let's get real.
Slashdot Mirror
I realize Getty does not seem to represent "the little guy"... but
Google knows how the internet works, artists and publishers do not?
Let's get real. Google exists because they serve ads.
An artist, photographer, publisher exists online because they serve ads,
or entice interested parties to learn more about them.
How else do you sell or generate revenue on the internet?
Some unknown is supposed to put up a paywall?
One of the many snarky comments from folks who do not know how to read, or willfully read what they want to see. Budget went up to 19.5 billion. Was earlier proposed 19.1. Last year was 19.3.
Funding is up. Perhaps the article was not well-worded, but for sure, by some, it was poorly read. The NASA budget was 19.3 billion for 2017, 19.5 billion for 2018. Trump was originally going to go with 19.1 billion but that was bumped up to the 19.5. Seems some folks just need to be sarcastic, and will twist the truth to do it. Doesn't it ever get old?
I truly dislike Getty due to the fact that they use an ENORMOUS number of public domain images, and try to pass themselves off as having ownership rights. It is selfish and disgusting. And there should be a way to punish entities who do this. (You might be surprised how many places do this, including taxpayer funded museums here in the USA...)
However, the Library of Congress page of "Carol M. Highsmith - Rights and Restrictions Information" at:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...
States:
"Carol M. Highsmith's photographs are in the public domain."
The article that appears on PDNPULSE:
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/...
"Highsmith says she never abandoned her copyrights to the images. She says the Library of Congress had agreed to notify users of the images that she is the author, and that users must credit her."
If the images are public domain, she did not retain the right to enforce accreditation.
What she is describing would be equivalent to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
http://opendefinition.org/lice...
Part of the reason for a cc-by license is to stop greedy folks from reselling and trying to "own" what would otherwise be public domain works. Of course, those of us who work at organizing, editing and adding our own works to the public domain on sites such as my wpclipart.com, cannot touch anything with a cc-by license.
What would be much better is if there was a legal mechanism to punish people for falsely claiming rights/ownership of images.
Without it, greedy companies/entities are continually narrowing what is available in the public domain.
Solution: Make copyright on music good for one year.
Don't allow any unauthorized use in that time. After that it's all public domain.
Music is very trend-oriented, artists can make plenty in a year plus performance for many, many years.
A few other thoughts:
Do we really owe the grand-kids of artists a living?
Why must artists be paid in-perpetuity, while the rest of us schmucks that often make concrete, useful things get paid wage or by the hour?
If I build someone a nice picnic table, do I expect them to pay me every time one of the buyer's friends uses it?
Actually, I remember the early internet quite well.
It was NOWHERE near as useful as it can be today.
(But I do understand how you and I and others can get tired of intrusive ads, as opposed to something like a non-tracking text ad or banner.)
What I am more tired of is so many of the folks online who argue from extremes... and like to insult people who don't agree with them instead of trying to make a legitimate point.
I also have little patients for those who expect everything for free. Welfare used to be a dirty word to proud, working folks. Now it seems so many people aren't embarrassed to get something without working for it, they actually don the label of "leech" as if it were a badge of honor.
....whereas I find many ads obnoxious and the tracking going on kinda creepy, if everyone blocked ads there would be virtually nothing online "for free."
All the "I'll take my business elsewhere" folks are in for a rude surprise when they realize all the small and innovative content generators don't have the free time to generate quality content for nothing in return. All that will be left is larger companies that can bankroll long-term investment and paywalls.
From a practical standpoint the drone operations are counter-productive.
...and then all props go out to warrior Obama.
They come off as cowardly
(no risk of personal injury while killing others),
while the attacks also kill many innocent people.
(To quibble over numbers is insulting.)
The drone attacks likely represent the greatest recruiting tool of the groups they mean to diminish.
So why use them so much, and seemingly with so little regard for collateral damage?
For the headlines:
"Number [insert low number] enemy killed by US drone!"
Those who think we need to choose between ISIS and Iran, just as those who say the only alternative to the current deal with Iran is war -- are being dangerously simplistic. Sort of reminds me of the whole Democrat-Republican dynamic here in the USA of late. It's one line of BS or another -- both of which turn out to be politically motivated; that is, in the self-interest of the politician. I'm tired of hearing how: "This is Bush's fault" and "No, it's Obama's fault" At some point it's our fault. For listening to overly simplistic arguments, believing them, then picking a side. ...often followed by calling each other names.
Sad is what it is.
Sad and dangerous.
"When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission." --Flemming Rose
How can it be a bad thing?
I'm all for less government intervention in most things, but let's be real -- the government has helped create the ISP monopolies that currently exist, and "Net Neutrality" strikes me as an intrusive shell game... Hoping I'm wrong. How do we get back to real competition and value for our money? .
They are likely taking a cue from Brazil, in an effort to promote domestic enterprise.
From Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley, Aug. 22, 1862: "If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..." Although Lincoln did believe: "...my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." it was obviously not his main motivation in the Civil war.
Doesn't matter who's fault it is...
who started privacy abuses,
what party is/was in power.
There is something going terribly wrong here.
We, as Americans,
have obviously slid quite a little way down the slippery slope,
toward something quite different than the bastion of freedom we like to think of ourselves as...
We should be doing something more about it than pointing fingers and playing politics.
Is it just in France, all of Europe, or is the whole world becoming money-grabbers? It seems the Europeans like to sue the successful companies (unfair business practices) and now "surcharge" them by proxy.
When I read a couple years ago that a strike had killed "mostly" militants, then the next day bombed everyone at the funeral... I felt suddenly empty. Who in their right mind would NOT think badly of the country responsible?
I love my country and consider myself quite patriotic, but these drone attacks are shameful. They should be stopped. Aside from the obvious moral imperative, there is the practicality of it: every time we kill another "al-Qaeda #2" with these cowardly half-blind strikes from the sky we create many more enemies.
Why do I hear so little protest here in the US? What can the average Joe do to raise hell about it?
And where is the press on all this? I'm tired of hearing about Mitt Romney's taxes and President Obama's birth certificate. Let's get real.
We've met the enemy...