Stronger Copyrights Are Important! Except, You Know, When It Means We Have To Pay Some Money

from the funny-how-that-works... dept

Tue, Aug 28th 2007 2:04pm — Mike Masnick

It's always amusing to catch the hypocritical actions of the groups that purport to be in favor of strong copyright rules, but throw those rules right out the window the second it saves them a few bucks. The latest such story involves a group called Prism that is against the idea that publicly-funded research should be available to the public for free. The group bases a lot of its claims on the importance of strong copyrights, but apparently it's not such a huge fan of living up its own standards. As Slashdot highlights the group not only copied some images from Getty Images without paying for them, it put them up on its website with the digital watermarks clearly visible. If you've ever bought stock photography licenses, you know that as you sort through the images, they all contain these visible watermarks to prevent people from doing exactly this type of thing. You only get the watermark-free versions after you've purchased a license. Of course, with the avalanche of Slashdot users, it looks like the group quickly ran out and licensed the photos it was using -- but it again highlights the hypocracy of those who claim to be in favor of strong copyright, when they really just want a monopoly for themselves when it helps themselves.

Filed Under: copyright, hypocracy, violations
Companies: prism

5 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

jLl, 28 Aug 2007 @ 2:49pm

Company or Developer?
The pic didn't get there without going through -- or, even, being suggested by -- a web developer or contractor employed by the group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jLl, 28 Aug 2007 @ 2:53pm
  
  Re: Company or Developer?
  Well...maybe manager.
  
  But, still...scapegoat or not, someone got canned.
  Or, is at least a write-up closer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2007 @ 3:23pm

Obviuzly, they wuz hacked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zcat, 28 Aug 2007 @ 4:13pm

Did they really pay for the images?
A few people have commented that it looks like they just photoshopped out the watermarks although it's pretty hard to tell on web-resolution images. If that's true, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to discover they're using a pirated copy of photoshop to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mars, 29 Aug 2007 @ 8:08am

It should not lead to a war against strong copyrig
Well from what I have read, it is only a example among others. Can we generalize and say that pro-strong copyrights are all stealers?
Of course, this example is funny and ironic. But let's play fair and admit that some of us are really pro-strong copyrights. Creation belongs to someone. A free and open market for exchanging all contents is not for tomorrow...according to me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]