the evening standard newspaper site
is at it again lifting potatochops from you lot.
'lionel rich tea' link on their main page or try
www.thisislondon.co.uk/til/jsp/modules/GalleryPopup.jsp?itemId=11788998&imageId=0
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:20,
archived)
is at it again lifting potatochops from you lot.
'lionel rich tea' link on their main page or try
www.thisislondon.co.uk/til/jsp/modules/GalleryPopup.jsp?itemId=11788998&imageId=0
It was Beau Bo D'Or who did the up liberty's skirt wasn't it? Tag chopped again.
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:21,
archived)
But on comparing both 'shopped pics, the one in the 'Mail this morning is a poor copy of Beau's attempt.
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:23,
archived)
do the same thing with 'mash-up' MP3s - get one of their in-house shitgibbons to copy something someone else has put together, but make it shit.
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:23,
archived)
It uses two completely different source pictures to create a similar image - yes, but they could be argued to be different enough to consitiute a conincidence/inspired by.
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:38,
archived)
both artists were inspired by the song "Statue of Libery" by XTC
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:51,
archived)
MTV will get permission from the copyright holders of the songs first.
So technically, they are in the right.
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:31,
archived)
So technically, they are in the right.
might be worth watermarking the picture itself rather than just a tag.
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:23,
archived)
Though I might do some self promotion... send them an email from a fake address saying 'Wow, check this site [link to site here]'. :P
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:24,
archived)
They'll use them, or the lycos viral chart.
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:28,
archived)
then nobody will use your picture at all - they'll just pic something simpler to use.
I would rather have my stuff printed without credit than not printed at all. Which has been the case so far.
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:25,
archived)
I would rather have my stuff printed without credit than not printed at all. Which has been the case so far.
all pictures should be watermarked with a goatse - that'll stop those damn papers
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:26,
archived)
nearly all of the people I know who have had a picture taken are quite chuffed about it.
I would be.
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:28,
archived)
I would be.
I'd take it as conclusive proof that the media really are a bunch of fuckwits :)
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:36,
archived)
with a few quid to say ta for the valuable commercial property & thanks for helping us make cash from your wit and sillyness
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:34,
archived)
would you then seek out the owners of the source pics you used and offer to give them their fair share?
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:38,
archived)
and some offers of paid work. I'd say it's all positive for those concerned really.
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:28,
archived)
the people who have had pictures used are not the ones who are complaining.
I am thinking about Slim and Sick_Boy as prime examples.
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:30,
archived)
I am thinking about Slim and Sick_Boy as prime examples.
Slap bang accross the centre of all our posts..
The fannyspunks!
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:24,
archived)
The fannyspunks!
and interviewd Rob.
Although, it didn't pay much attention to what he said by all accounts.
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:23,
archived)
Although, it didn't pay much attention to what he said by all accounts.
that was in the daily mail
www.recklessrecords.biz/b3ta/dailycockingmail.jpg
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:24,
archived)
www.recklessrecords.biz/b3ta/dailycockingmail.jpg
the pictures they take are mostly ones comprised of something slappedon a photo, in which case the masher has no rights to it, as the originaly picture is not their own work.
however, if the art in question is something wholely original then yes, you could sew the arse off em
(,
Tue 6 Jul 2004, 17:48,
archived)
however, if the art in question is something wholely original then yes, you could sew the arse off em