The fuck are you on? That’s a random site that I’m sureeeeee works for random pictures taken without your permission being posted by random people, you think that’ll work against a massive news publication?
It’s a massive ethical debate, but you think that’ll stop them? The vast majority of photos used fall under fair use, since the second you post them to social media, they no longer belong to you.
That’s a legal site run by lawyers under Reuters, it’s not some random site. Do you have absolutely anything supporting what you’re saying, or are you making things up off of stereotypes you read on the internet.
You literally just googled “photos without permission posted online” and copy and pasted the URL here.
If you knew anything about the law, the constitution, and court cases, you’d know that journalists have unbelievably broad leeway to post whatever is deemed newsworthy, including photographs taken without consent.
And the proof falls on you. You’re the one who needs to show it’s illegal. Everything is legal until it’s not. That person can’t prove legality unless there’s a court case that overturns a law.
That’s not how it works. I don’t know what social media is involved, but from according to Facebook’s TOS, you grant Meta a revocable license to use it it a manner consistent with your privacy settings.
Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as Meta Products or service providers that support those products and services. This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems.
There is a potential fair use argument to be had (particularly since the allegedly infringing party is news). And it is not clear from the article who owns the original copyright in the first place.
You’re just entirely making that shit up. Why do you feel the need to do that? https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/online-photos--taken-and-posted-without-your-permission.html
Lemmygrad.ml is all you need to know. Not their turn with the brain cell.
The fuck are you on? That’s a random site that I’m sureeeeee works for random pictures taken without your permission being posted by random people, you think that’ll work against a massive news publication?
It’s a massive ethical debate, but you think that’ll stop them? The vast majority of photos used fall under fair use, since the second you post them to social media, they no longer belong to you.
That’s a legal site run by lawyers under Reuters, it’s not some random site. Do you have absolutely anything supporting what you’re saying, or are you making things up off of stereotypes you read on the internet.
Nothing in that article says what you’re saying.
You literally just googled “photos without permission posted online” and copy and pasted the URL here.
If you knew anything about the law, the constitution, and court cases, you’d know that journalists have unbelievably broad leeway to post whatever is deemed newsworthy, including photographs taken without consent.
And the proof falls on you. You’re the one who needs to show it’s illegal. Everything is legal until it’s not. That person can’t prove legality unless there’s a court case that overturns a law.
And? Nothing on the site states that you have legal recourse. Unless they’re slandering you; what can you do?
“Stereotypes” lmao
That’s not how it works. I don’t know what social media is involved, but from according to Facebook’s TOS, you grant Meta a revocable license to use it it a manner consistent with your privacy settings.
There is a potential fair use argument to be had (particularly since the allegedly infringing party is news). And it is not clear from the article who owns the original copyright in the first place.