|
If a photograph is of a work of art and contains only the work of art, and is therefore indistinguishable from other photographs of the same work of art, then it is not subject to copyright law.
And I wouldn't hang a Van Gogh in my toilet, let alone deface my web-site with it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: If a photograph is of a work of art and contains only the work of art, and is therefore indistinguishable from other photographs of the same work of art, then it is not subject to copyright law.
Edit: Hmmm. Didn't know that. Except it can still be quite costly to test it, because they can, and will, argue that it isn't a 'slavish copy,' and took skill to do.
Mark_Wallace wrote: And I wouldn't hang a Van Gogh in my toilet, let alone deface my web-site with it.
Perhaps one of their other 87,692 contributions doesn't inspire such negativity.
modified 12-Nov-14 6:47am.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: they can, and will, argue that it isn't a 'slavish copy,' and took skill to do.
But they'd have to do so knowing that they would lose, and I'd like to think that they'd be smart enough to choose their battles.
Anyway, you can't get more "slavish" than a direct photograph, and none of those I saw on the site were artistically modified in any noticeable way.
David O'Neil wrote: Perhaps one of their other 87,692 contributions doesn't inspire such negativity.
No argument there, but Van Gogh is a really bad example to use when talking about artists who were actually great, rather than just overinflated by businessmen.
My point, though, was that they're not doing anything that other museums haven't been doing for years, so it's just an apple-style publicity stunt.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: My point, though, was that they're not doing anything that other museums haven't been doing for years, ...
Your point doesn't seem very valid, because as far as I know, they are the first to publicly eliminate the threat of prosecution. Take the Smithsonian[^], for instance. Nothing on that page indicates you have the right to use the photos on their site in commercial works. It even strongly implies the opposite. So I say even if it is a publicity stunt, a huge thanks is in order for being the first to break the mold.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Take the Smithsonian[^], for instance. Nothing on that page indicates you have the right to use the photos on their site in commercial works. It even strongly implies the opposite. So I say even if it is a publicity stunt, a huge thanks is in order for being the first to break the mold.
Ah c'mon!
Is that all you need to do to get a load of kudos?
OK, I hereby announce that people are allowed to cross the road when the little green man light goes on!
There you go! That's another legal thing, and I have just declared that you're allowed to do it! Where are my kudosses?!? I want them!
Next up, I think I'll design the rounded corner, and maybe come up with the idea of having two cameras on a mobile phone!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Trolling now, wasn't before, but it is true: Yes, that was worthy of a kudos. It makes them feel a little better for their action, and sets the bar higher for those who follow. If you want to live in a world where good change is never publicly appreciated, it will be a little smaller world without me, because I don't relish such a dry, unappreciative reality.
Best wishes,
David
|
|
|
|
|
That looks more like honest opinion than trolling; don't expect me to see it as a problem if you honestly disagree with me.
I never appreciate deceitful behaviour, though -- but that's what marketing's all about, ain't it? Even for museums, who should know better.
If anything, it saddens me when people fall for it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Stepped away, but finally can answer a bit.
Your "Aw, c'mon" sounded trolly to me, which is the reason I started my reply that way. But it appears to be a misunderstanding, based upon your response. (I'm glad to see you took mine for what it was, rather than what I labeled it as for defensive, close-down quick purposes if it really was trolly).
I don't believe I have 'fallen for the marketing', and I suspect you think my Kudos were given because I did fall for their technique. And the following may reinforce your belief, but I'll say it anyway.
I am also (extremely) tired of marketing gimmicks. The fact is they have existed in one form or another for an extremely long time - probably back to the dawn of mercantiling. Even though the museum may use their new approach as a gimmick, I see a different aspect that brings me hope things are changing.
They are the first ones I've seen to look away from the "Me-first" approach and towards an "Us-All' approach. Even though they may have done this because of the case you got me to look up, which I wasn't aware of, they are still the first. And that shift from a "Me-first" to an "Us-All" approach is a fundamental paradigm shift which I believe will help radically improve our world in the coming centuries. For that, Kudos to them, and I sincerely hope it works. I will take any improvement I can find, even if it will take centuries, and I may be labeled 'naive.' I also hope other museums do the same thing, and it works for them as well.
(As an aside, I will be much more likely to visit museums with interesting stuff in them, once I have money for that pursuit, if I somehow found out about their cool stuff more easily on banners and such, and it was attributed (which would result from an 'Us-first' approach by the artist as well), so even if it is a gimmick the way you believe it is, it is still a sound approach.)
If you want me to say why I think that mindset will make a difference, I will. But this is long enough, and hopefully you can feel what I am getting at without such an explanation.
Best wishes,
David
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not so sure it's like that.
Most of the time I find it's this: Bug Hunting[^]
But for QA posters, it's generally this: Bug Hunting[^]
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I did say 'often', not 'always.'  I've faced a couple bugs that took more than a day to solve, and were so esoteric that that expression best described my state of frustration!
|
|
|
|
|
Movie Quote Of The Day
Don't go. Please. I want a baby
Which movie?
|
|
|
|
|
One night in Paris.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Any organization is like a tree full of monkeys. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but assholes.
|
|
|
|
|
Impo(r)tent Man 2
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
For a Few Dollars Babies More
Your time will come, if you let it be right.
|
|
|
|
|
Please don't eat the babies[^] 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
Grave Robbers?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Hills Have Eyes? ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Justin Beiber horror show
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
Baby's day out 
|
|
|
|
|
"Species" i guess.
Edit: I am sure it is species. The pool scene perhaps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
