Well looks like the great Reddit exodus wasn’t so great after all and Reddit more than made up for it. Financially at least, things are looking up for them. I kinda really wish it weren’t so… but at least some of us got to know Lemmy as a consequence.
Never used this. Never cared for it 🤷🏻♂️
What you are saying is you don’t want creators to be able to make a living off their work. Because that is what “professional” means.
Do you use the integrated AI in new versions of Excel or do you ask ChatGPT or some other AI to write it out for you?
Since some commenters on here seemed a little too eager to go with “fuck copyright” and outright dismiss the particular copyright claim the story was about, I thought I’d help make sure they understand that it’s not all bad. Too often have well intentioned people been too quick to dismiss a setup, only to replace it with something worse - or without really having any idea what to replace it with. You seem to understand that copyright serves a useful function in the current market-based economy, warts and all.
It is very difficult to make money in a market economy if you cannot sell the products of your labor. And to be able to do that, you need to have some ownership over said products. Ownership means exclusion, no way around it. Then you can transfer that ownership to an employer in exchange for a salary, or trade in an open market as a freelancer. Or create a collective wherein you share ownership. There are different models, but culture, to an extent, has always been monetized one way or another because creators have always needed to make a living, so they can continue to practice their craft while sustaining themselves and their families.
Copyright abolitionism sounds cool until you’re a professional creator with mouths to feed in this economy.
Of course there are smart ways creators can make money while also waiving their rights under copyright, but this does not work for everyone and many really just need to be able to sell the product of their labor to make a living.
I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, not by a long shot. But there’s no easy solution either.
I understand the sentiment, and you are right, that copyright is an obstacle to some forms of creativity, especially anything that involves direct reuse of somebody else’s work without their consent. It has also enabled a marketplace for content that has, like many other markets over time, led to the concentration of market power in a small number of business concerns, who effectively dominate their fields with extensive content libraries and armies of lawyers and lobbyists to promote their interests.
However, one should still not forget, that if you’re just an independent creator who depends on their creativity to make a living and at some point manages to create something of great value, it is more likely than not that other small or big fish will try to take that and sell it without giving you a penny. And your only recourse will be copyright law. As in this case here. Saying “fuck copyright” without critically engaging with what is actually at stake in a specific case, can lead to a problematic stance where you may find yourself defending grifters against honest creators trying to make a living off their work.
Well if you want an argument based on ‘first principles’, because the photographer actually put work into producing this picture, let alone their knowledge, likely expensive equipment, and hard earned skill to take a truly great shot, whereas you did nothing for it. Unless you are a professional model, but then you probably got compensated for your work as part of a deal.
Now the uses you describe are very different. Some are more casual and non-commercial in nature. Courts will consider such factors in a copyright infringement case.
Now does the above mean you have absolutely no say in what happens to a picture of you taken by someone else? Not exactly, you can also prevent third parties from using the likeness of you for purposes that might be damaging to your dignity or reputation, again, in some jurisdictions, I do not know the details. I am not a lawyer and it was a long time ago I studied these subjects. But basically my point is that the fact that it’s you in the picture may matter to an extent, depending on laws protecting personhood in your country, but not in the way you assumed where every photo of you is yours for the taking.
It is different only in that - in some jurisdictions at least - you can ask for the picture to be taken down or destroyed, and then not if you are a public person appearing in public like Trump is in this case. But that still does not give you the right to use the picture for your own gain without compensating the photographer. Because then you clearly not only have no objections to the picture being taken, but you value that picture, want to use it publicly, commercially even, and again, you owe a debt to the person who took it and in fact depends on people paying for their pictures for their livelihood.
Actually no, when you go to a professional photographer to have your picture taken, you pay for it. Because they put in the work and need to be compensated for it. By that logic people would never have to pay photographers for portraits, weddings, none of that. Just because you’re in a picture doesn’t mean you don’t owe a debt to the person who took it.
Sure, until you become a creative professional and you see someone with a lot more money than you making even more money off your work, and then you might instead say “fuck that guy”!
Much of this looks good. But some of it looks painfully mid/generic. Might still be fun.
Really? The Telegraph? All the while downvoting the poor bot that’s trying to signal that this is a website know for rather poor quality journalism? (to put it mildly)
It is a mess, which is why I thought it’s intentional to make it difficult to apportion your dose of chocolate, in effect making you eat more. And all this stuff about inequality sounds like the worst BS possible.
I guess it’s sometimes done in the spirit of forcing men to really consider their actions, because most of the men I know tend to think abusive men are always other men. And we usually have plenty excuses for our own abusive behavior. So it is like saying: “no, stop with the excuses, the problem is you”, in the hopes that this message will also reach its intended audience, ie the many men who are abusive to women in one way or another and, largely, in denial.
But I agree, these kinds of slogans annoy the hell out of me too and are totally not helpful in more ways than one, e.g., when men seek protection from abuse. I guess there are better ways of making a more forceful point about holding men accountable.
Thanks for your insights! I am not aware of people having monochrome vision though, is that a thing? I use a single-color scale when that is appropriate. But use blue and red often for positive and negative values respectively. No purple. Just shades of blue and shades of red.
Well with an average in the 80s on metacritic one would assume it’s a very decent game. But user reviews tend to be a lot harsher indeed.
Thanks for the review. Disappointing to be sure. I was hoping to play it at some point and that it wouldn’t suck as much as people say it does. Or that they would turn it around in time.
I guess apple just missed the boat there. I don’t know that they will ever catch up on AI.