i think it's a shite rag for idiotsbut,
i don't want to be too precious about 'oh no, my copyrights'. i take freely from source pictures on the web to use in the first place
i've always put stuff that's all my own work (like, say, my flickr pics) under a creative commons attribution-sharealike licence. so if, for some reason, they had wanted to use one of them, they'd have been free to, even though i don't personally like the magazine
(i don't want to be too precious about 'oh no, my copyrights'. i take freely from source pictures on the web to use in the first place
i've always put stuff that's all my own work (like, say, my flickr pics) under a creative commons attribution-sharealike licence. so if, for some reason, they had wanted to use one of them, they'd have been free to, even though i don't personally like the magazine
plentyofants more ghee, vicar?,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:15,
archived)
that's all well and goodi appreciate all the complex legal issues
but at the end of the day, if you think they're shite, why give them something for free?
i was asked by a charity if they could use one of my images, i said yes, no probs
but if zoo or nuts asked, they could go fuck themselves
(but at the end of the day, if you think they're shite, why give them something for free?
i was asked by a charity if they could use one of my images, i said yes, no probs
but if zoo or nuts asked, they could go fuck themselves
mictoboy shitting in your cunt since,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:17,
archived)
pfft.to address mictoboy & mofaha's comments above and below, though:
i suppose the comparison i have is to free software. whereas my silly pictures aren't comparable in terms of usefulness to, say an operating system or a web server, the producers of these things have released them under licences which allow anyone, even organisations they are completely opposed to, to use them, without the need to ask permission. i admire the spirit of that kind of thing.
(and that's why the work i can legitimately release under creative commons doesn't have the 'non-commercial use' restriction)
(i suppose the comparison i have is to free software. whereas my silly pictures aren't comparable in terms of usefulness to, say an operating system or a web server, the producers of these things have released them under licences which allow anyone, even organisations they are completely opposed to, to use them, without the need to ask permission. i admire the spirit of that kind of thing.
(and that's why the work i can legitimately release under creative commons doesn't have the 'non-commercial use' restriction)
plentyofants more ghee, vicar?,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:31,
archived)
no, fair do'sreally,
i don't have an issue either way, if you think that letting them publish your pic is ok, do it. at least they've started asking (sort of)
all i know is, i wouldn't
(i don't have an issue either way, if you think that letting them publish your pic is ok, do it. at least they've started asking (sort of)
all i know is, i wouldn't
mictoboy shitting in your cunt since,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:35,
archived)
That's fair enough.I have some strong opinions about this but I'm happy to accept that they're just that - opinions.
Obviously this is a personal choice issue, and I definitely respect your right to make that choice.
(Obviously this is a personal choice issue, and I definitely respect your right to make that choice.
mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:47,
archived)
The difference isyou are not seeking material gain, and they are. Even if you argue that the 'you've got spam' images do not themselves make the publication money, they are essential filler which adds value and it would be easy to argue that they form an inducement to purchase. Thus, they have a monitary value. Why the fuck should these worthless imbeciles gain from your efforts?
( mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:18,
archived)