Hacker News Reader

Comment by dextorious | Hacker News Reader

"""Cameras are expensive. Photographs are almost worthless. Supply utterly outstrips demand, especially for shots like landscapes that have great appeal for amateur photographers but little commercial utility."""

Really? Then the photographer could say: if that's so, go use ANOTHER picture, because I don't fu*n supply mine.

You can't have it both ways, i.e the picture is worthless AND I still insist on using it.

View on HN

True, but at the same time you shouldn't be hosting your pictures on the internet where anyone can copy it if you want to charge money for it. And you shouldn't let your customers either.

If I was to place some proprietary code on a public git, or just display it on my public webpage, should I get angry if people take it and don't pay me for it? Same with music, if you place it on the internet expect it to be out there. That's the nature of the medium. And trying to fight that is stupid, even if you are deserving of compensation.

"""True, but at the same time you shouldn't be hosting your pictures on the internet where anyone can copy it if you want to charge money for it. """

This is "blame the victim". Posting something on the internet does not make it public domain.

"""If I was to place some proprietary code on a public git, or just display it on my public webpage, should I get angry if people take it and don't pay me for it?"""

Yeah, you should.

It's the same if you posted some GPL code on a public git, and someone took it and build a closed system with it.

In both cases, the creator/owner or something did not have his wishes and copyright respected.

The same way we insist on people/companies respecting GPL copyright licenses, we should respect other people's licenses for THEIR stuff.

"Posting something on the internet does not make it public domain."

This is where I find your point to fall apart. The internet is NOT under the laws of any given nation and I doubt very much if some nations even have a sense of Public Domain or copyright. And even the ones that do can hardly agree on common terms.

So really your statement should be "Posting something on the internet does not make it public domain in certain jurisdictions if covered by applicable copyright laws"

And that is why it is stupid to expect something you post on the internet to not ever be copied without your permission.

Just as stupid; to expect people not to sue you if you take someone else's intellectual property.

Even more stupid; expecting the legal system of different countries to fairly and efficiently protect your IP, especially if you don't already have large stacks of money to buy lawyers with.

Wait, lawyers cost money and the legal systems of different countries aren't perfect in every way? Welp time to roll over and let other people take my work for free without incident.

More like, don't act surprised when things you put on the internet are copied and don't try to push unjust restrictions because of it.

"""his is where I find your point to fall apart. The internet is NOT under the laws of any given nation and I doubt very much if some nations even have a sense of Public Domain or copyright. And even the ones that do can hardly agree on common terms."""

Actually, almost all nations have standard international agreements on this matters. Also, tons of common abuses are from the US and EU themselves, that very much agree on common terms.

I'm sure some people are complaining because a web outlet in Kazakstan used their pictures, but those are not many...

Guess what will happen: people will just use other photographs. What is the gain for the photographer?

Tremendous! He got his wish re: the use of his photographs respected!

Who told you that "more publicity" (or whatever else snake oil i-want-your-content-for-free types sell), is considered a "gain" by all?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com