It may not be plagiarism, but does it count as fair use? Did the news aggregation site have to get permission to use those photos on a site which also has advertising (and thus, a financial model built in)? These are some important questions I'd love to see clarified for the community. There's a discussion going on over here which uses @masteryoda's posts as an example, but it hasn't gotten much attention yet. If this could turn into an existential risk for the platform in general, shouldn't we get some clarification on where the boundaries are?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That is a completely different question and a worthy debate. I don't like false accusations of misconduct very much though. If someone (or someone's bot) is going to make accusations or suggestions of such, they at least should be accurate as to what is being alleged.
@smooth: Yes, I agree, false accusations can cause a lot of harm.
For me though, when I see photo collections like this I wonder, is that "someone else's work" being claimed as their own (i.e. the work of the original news site to curate the content together)? In other situations where content is reposted in full, there's been some discouragement of the practice suggesting a better approach would be to link to the source, maybe quote a few paragraphs and include some commentary. When it comes to photos... maybe it's different? I don't know. Either way, the source is listed here (though not linked), so I guess it's all good. If the courts do get involved in this stuff, hopefully we can just make adjustments then as needed. :)