From: "Peifer, William [OCDUS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bob Blakely said: > I don't think it's theft.... > [And then continued, probably unwittingly, to insult the female members of > the group. Snip... OUCH!! Snip... OUCH!!]
Har! I insulted no one. Men's and women's brains have structural differences. That these differences are manifest in poorer communitation between the right and left hemispheres in men is also not in dispute. That the differences become manifest in utero coincident with a surge of testosterone level in male fetuses is also not in question. Whether or not it is this that affects or limits (statistically) the ability of males to communicate beyond the verbal may be disputed, but it is fact that men are (statistically) limited in their effective range of communication skills compared to the ladies. I fail to understand how this limitation on the part of most males insults the female members of the group. Please elucidate. Har! > Hi Bob, > > The particular fellow in question did take someone else's copyrighted, > legally published creative work, and used it without permission for > commercial purposes. That violates the fair use provisions of US copyright > law. Certainly, that constitutes theft, does it not? The courts have said no in similar instances of links. > (He also appears to > represent it as his own creative work, which is plagiarism Perhaps, but I didn't get any such take. I'm male and therefore can't read between the lines with any reliability. > -- but I don't > believe plagiarism is illegal, just immoral.) Roger. Just immoral. > Certainly, one might also > argue that this fellow is technically guilty of "theft of services" -- Boz, > or Dario, or their respective ISPs, are stuck paying for the bandwidth usage > for all of this fellow's prospective customers who are linking to the > improperly referenced images. The fact that this fellow "only provided a > link" is not particularly relevant. Theft of services results when you accept a service from someone who is _selling_ the service and fail to pay as promised. Is Boz selling services to his site? If I want to go to Boz's site and click away all day at his various links for the pure sake of clicking, am I guilty of "theft of services" because I'm not using Boz's site as he had envisioned? > Haven't the big image-harvesting sites > been successfully sued for doing essentially the same thing? As I understand it, No. Not those sites that did it by links. Those that copied, yes. > Your examples about images for new items are interesting. You're right -- a > picture of a new item in a catalog is only representative, and it certainly > isn't the actual item you will receive when you make a purchase. > Nonetheless, an ethical manufacturer ~pays~ for product photography. When > you buy a new rifle, Sturm-Ruger (or Winchester, or Remington, or H&H, or > whoever) has already paid someone for the product photography, and this is > built into the price. When your brother sells high-end Adirondack chairs, > he's paid someone to do product photography, or he's expended a certain > effort doing it himself. Likewise, the cost of this work is built into > ~his~ product price. No, it was free. FYI - the boat house in the background behind the green chair belongs to a photographer who changed his name to Mathew Brady(sp?) when he was young and impressed with the Civil War photographer's work. He must be fairly good at this profession because my brother built a summer home for him on Lake George that cost somewhere over 2 million in materials alone. > This eBay fellow didn't seek any sort of permission, He should have. It's the moral thing to do. > or offer to provide any sort of compensation, for the creative work involved > in producing the product photography. No one else is going to offer any either. If it comes to it, I'll borrow some cheap digital and shoot before I pay for a photo and so will everyone else. Folks offering to pay for photos for new items sold on ebay are surely very few indeed. Usually, a reasonable photo can be had from a manufacturer's web site or scanned from a product broshsure. They never whine about it. In fact, the use of the Pentax name is restricted. Boz's site runs under sufferage fron Asahi unless he got permission to use it in the manner in which he is using it. Imagining that one is going to sit back an reap gobs (or even a small amount) of money from folks needing your tech pictures is pure dream. > And you can be sure he won't share > any of the profits with the fellows who did the product photography. That's > the issue in a nutshell. Smells like theft to me. Yup. Smells like it. Maybe it should be. Doesn't mean it is. Ever smelled hydrogen sulfide? Smells like shit. It isn't though. > Bill Peifer > Rochester, NY > > P.S. > Bob, please note that wrote the heading to this note with a <VBG> and a > smiley ;-) -- I'm only being funny and pullin' yer leg about the snip-snip, > ouch-ouch stuff -- but you're probably gonna catch hell from the ladies in > the group.... Well, I am known as a might touchy, cranky and eccentric. (An eccentric is a wheel with the axel a might off center.) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
