The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Two Teenagers Who Run the Popular Twitter Feed @HistoryInPics
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/the-2-teenagers-who-run-the-wildly-popular-twitter-feed-historyinpics/283291/?utm_content=buffer32d49&utm_source=twitter.com
17 comments
> Theft plain and simple.
Well, no, not plain and simple. At the worst, it's copyright infringement.
You may think this is a pedantic correction, and from your point of view, maybe it is. But it isn't for people who see intellectual property as unjust.
Well, no, not plain and simple. At the worst, it's copyright infringement.
You may think this is a pedantic correction, and from your point of view, maybe it is. But it isn't for people who see intellectual property as unjust.
This trope is getting exceedingly tired, on par with the "taxation is theft", "atheism is a religion" and "Linux should be called GNU/Linux" brigades that often crop up in the appropriate discussions. Theft and "steal" have long been used outside of the OED definitions; I can be a "thief of time", "steal an idea", "steal a base" and so forth. "Theft" and "steal" are appropriate words for the behaviour of people who have decided, in defiance of the laws and remunerative structures society has constructed, that they're entitled to the work of people without giving anything back (apart from some advice like "I'm giving you free advertising", "find a new business model" or "this will actually help you in the long run"). Society has created intellectual property, in the same way it created physical property, and if you can steal the later, you can surely steal the former.
One other angle on this, for the "steal absolutely must deprive someone of something" view, well - something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Many people say "Well, I'd never have bought it anyway". Whilst true for now, would it still be true in 1 year? 5? 10? Would you have bought it for your kids, or because a sequel came out that you do want to buy? By taking it, you rob the person of the ability to sell it to you in the future.
I think it's incumbent upon anyone who thinks "intellectual property is unjust" and who acts on this belief by just denying its existence, to propose and get support for a viable alternative for supporting the millions of people who depend on it for their livelihood. Otherwise, you're just an anarchist, burning the system down and denying any contribution to the people who have committed to a certain lifestyle on the guarantees currently provided by society.
One other angle on this, for the "steal absolutely must deprive someone of something" view, well - something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Many people say "Well, I'd never have bought it anyway". Whilst true for now, would it still be true in 1 year? 5? 10? Would you have bought it for your kids, or because a sequel came out that you do want to buy? By taking it, you rob the person of the ability to sell it to you in the future.
I think it's incumbent upon anyone who thinks "intellectual property is unjust" and who acts on this belief by just denying its existence, to propose and get support for a viable alternative for supporting the millions of people who depend on it for their livelihood. Otherwise, you're just an anarchist, burning the system down and denying any contribution to the people who have committed to a certain lifestyle on the guarantees currently provided by society.
It's not just my distinction; it's a distinction made in courts too. The law is quite clear. Copyright infringement is not theft.
> And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it.
Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist!
Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The first, "Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?" by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite chronicles the harm brought by IP with real world examples. The second, "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella is a philosophical/libertarian argument.
(The authors of Information Feudalism don't think IP should be abolished, so you may find it more credible.)
> And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it.
Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist!
Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The first, "Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?" by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite chronicles the harm brought by IP with real world examples. The second, "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella is a philosophical/libertarian argument.
(The authors of Information Feudalism don't think IP should be abolished, so you may find it more credible.)
I'll have a look at those, thanks. In response to your points, the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life. For example, in English law, I can "assault" you without ever having touched you. In fact, if I touch you, it's no longer assault. The dictionary definition, and common use, would require that I do more than look menacingly at you, but in the courts, I would have "assaulted" you. I claim the same holds for theft/stealing in an IP situation.
> Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist!
Well, of course. But we could have the same debate about property rights, so I could deny that "theft" exists at all, yet the language used to describe theft wouldn't change.
> Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist!
Well, of course. But we could have the same debate about property rights, so I could deny that "theft" exists at all, yet the language used to describe theft wouldn't change.
You're basically saying I'm being too pedantic.
I recognized that in my initial comment as a potential criticism. I did so for precisely the reasons you have brought up. Why? Because I understand terms can have colloquial and technical meanings.
But this does not imply that we shouldn't call attention to technicalities, particularly if it's with respect to an issue one thinks is important.
However, you seem to be arguing that even a technical application of theft is applicable to IP. I don't know how to disagree with that without diving into tedious details about what makes "ownership" a viable concept in the first place. Kinsella addresses it in the source I cited in a previous comment. So I defer.
I recognized that in my initial comment as a potential criticism. I did so for precisely the reasons you have brought up. Why? Because I understand terms can have colloquial and technical meanings.
But this does not imply that we shouldn't call attention to technicalities, particularly if it's with respect to an issue one thinks is important.
However, you seem to be arguing that even a technical application of theft is applicable to IP. I don't know how to disagree with that without diving into tedious details about what makes "ownership" a viable concept in the first place. Kinsella addresses it in the source I cited in a previous comment. So I defer.
the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life.
By the same token, the word "theft" implies different forms of punishment than "copyright infringement" when used by people in day-to-day life. Is this difference in actual usage less important?
By the same token, the word "theft" implies different forms of punishment than "copyright infringement" when used by people in day-to-day life. Is this difference in actual usage less important?
We can argue about whether IP rights should exist, but I see this as a separate point. IP rights do exist.
The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld.
The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are you responding to something specific that I said?
> The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld.
That's tough shit for them, then. Existing IP laws currently are really hard to uphold, and soon they will be literally impossible to enforce.
Also, IP is not a right; it's a privilege provided by the government.
That's tough shit for them, then. Existing IP laws currently are really hard to uphold, and soon they will be literally impossible to enforce.
Also, IP is not a right; it's a privilege provided by the government.
By that argument, ownership of possessions is not a right, but a privilege provided by the government, and if a tough guy comes and takes your laptop away from you - tough shit for you.
I'm not talking about a god damned laptop, I'm talking about digital data. And yes, if someone manages to copy a 4MB mp3 file that you sold to them or crack an executable file you put on their hard drive, then it is tough shit for you.
The government should keep it's greedy little nose out of affairs like this, and make piracy legal. Then maybe people will stop dedicating their careers to worthless games like Angry Birds and actually do something with real impact.
Thankfully, the tech will eventually get so good that the government literally can't do anything about it, so all we have to do is wait.
The government should keep it's greedy little nose out of affairs like this, and make piracy legal. Then maybe people will stop dedicating their careers to worthless games like Angry Birds and actually do something with real impact.
Thankfully, the tech will eventually get so good that the government literally can't do anything about it, so all we have to do is wait.
You're saying that intellectual property only exists because of government protection. I'm pointing out that this is true for other forms of property too.
Saying 'I'm not talking about a god damned laptop' doesn't change this.
Saying 'I'm not talking about a god damned laptop' doesn't change this.
I'm not talking about a god damned laptop. I'm not talking about morality or "what I think the government should be doing". I'm talking about the eventual certainty that intellectual property "rights" will be unenforceable in the (possibly near) future based on current trends. Piracy is only going up. Thus, the privilege provided by the government I initially referenced will be taken away by superior technology.
If a government was smart they would embrace this early on and learn to adapt before other countries catch on. And I guess we also get the benefit of a better and more prosperous life earlier, but that's just my opinion. Let's not get into that.
If a government was smart they would embrace this early on and learn to adapt before other countries catch on. And I guess we also get the benefit of a better and more prosperous life earlier, but that's just my opinion. Let's not get into that.
You're ignoring the fact that other forms of property are also privileges provided by the government.
I'm not at all convinced that piracy will win out given the increasing intrusiveness of governments and ISPs into network traffic. The net is built by corporations who will filter if the government tells them to even if they are not doing so for their own commercial reasons (e.g. AT&T u-verse who block torrents)
The internet itself is privilege provided by the government, as is the legal basis for the corporations that maintain it.
I'm not at all convinced that piracy will win out given the increasing intrusiveness of governments and ISPs into network traffic. The net is built by corporations who will filter if the government tells them to even if they are not doing so for their own commercial reasons (e.g. AT&T u-verse who block torrents)
The internet itself is privilege provided by the government, as is the legal basis for the corporations that maintain it.
The internet is not a privilege. It's a thing that exists.
No. Possessions are a scarce resource that can be defended by the owner. Ideas are not scarce. The only way to "defend" an idea from improper uses in a society is with a coercive entity.
Do you live in Somalia?
Do you enjoy trolling?
No - the idea that individuals are able to practically defend their possessions against determines thieves doesn't make sense in most societies where violence is not accepted as a normal part of life. Instead, most of us rely on the state to provide a police force.
Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true.
Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true.
> No
Then don't do it.
> the idea that individuals are able to practically defend their possessions against determines thieves doesn't make sense in most societies where violence is not accepted as a normal part of life
I agree. Defense takes on many forms. In the more forward thinking societies, it's usually done with some sort of arbitration.
> Instead, most of us rely on the state to provide a police force.
OK? So?
> Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true.
Your straw man is behind the times. Somalia has had a central government for quite some time.
Then don't do it.
> the idea that individuals are able to practically defend their possessions against determines thieves doesn't make sense in most societies where violence is not accepted as a normal part of life
I agree. Defense takes on many forms. In the more forward thinking societies, it's usually done with some sort of arbitration.
> Instead, most of us rely on the state to provide a police force.
OK? So?
> Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true.
Your straw man is behind the times. Somalia has had a central government for quite some time.
I don't think this is accurate.
"Theft" is the wrong word to use, because theft is fundamentally a different concept, and the use of that word draws a false equivalence. And I'm not arguing that copyright infringement is legitimate on the basis that "intellectual property is unjust" or anything like that; but there are explicit differences that must be taken into account.
"Theft" is the wrong word to use, because theft is fundamentally a different concept, and the use of that word draws a false equivalence. And I'm not arguing that copyright infringement is legitimate on the basis that "intellectual property is unjust" or anything like that; but there are explicit differences that must be taken into account.
Theft is not a fundamentally different concept in the English language. The word "theft" has been used to refer to the appropriation or misuse of things other than physical property for a very long time.
It's neither appropriation nor misuse. They don't take the photos for themselves (or anyone) the photos remain where they were, they duplicate them. Looking at photos is the intended use.
It's copyright infringement. Copyright is an agreement between the demos and an individual creator of an "artistic" work.
Theft is a fundamentally different concept - the crux of that difference is denying the legal owner the enjoyment/use/benefit of that which has been appropriated.
It's not even like that's an especially nuanced point.
It's copyright infringement. Copyright is an agreement between the demos and an individual creator of an "artistic" work.
Theft is a fundamentally different concept - the crux of that difference is denying the legal owner the enjoyment/use/benefit of that which has been appropriated.
It's not even like that's an especially nuanced point.
> It's neither appropriation nor misuse. They don't take the photos for themselves (or anyone) the photos remain where they were, they duplicate them.
The fact that the photos remain where they were is completely irrelevant — I never said that they didn't.
When we say "Great artists steal," we do not mean that great artists remove things from their previous location. We mean that they copy other artists' ideas and techniques. But we say "steal."
When we talk about one culture appropriating elements of another, we do not mean that they stamp out those elements in the original culture. We mean that they copy those things. But we say "appropriate."
When somebody steals my identity, I actually still have my identity, but he's using it too, and in ways that I don't approve of. But it's still called "identity theft."
The distinction between theft and copying is relevant in legal matters and some practical matters, but in colloquial use the two are often the same thing. Banging on about this every time anyone uses the word is annoying and, more importantly, contextually incorrect.
The fact that the photos remain where they were is completely irrelevant — I never said that they didn't.
When we say "Great artists steal," we do not mean that great artists remove things from their previous location. We mean that they copy other artists' ideas and techniques. But we say "steal."
When we talk about one culture appropriating elements of another, we do not mean that they stamp out those elements in the original culture. We mean that they copy those things. But we say "appropriate."
When somebody steals my identity, I actually still have my identity, but he's using it too, and in ways that I don't approve of. But it's still called "identity theft."
The distinction between theft and copying is relevant in legal matters and some practical matters, but in colloquial use the two are often the same thing. Banging on about this every time anyone uses the word is annoying and, more importantly, contextually incorrect.
>"Great artists steal" //
I've read it online, I don't use it. Great artists are inspired by other artists just as in science we use the term "standing on the shoulders of giants". What precisely Picasso meant is it seems lost to us.
The blunt reading however is a damaging blurring of a legal and moral distinction - artists need to understand how copyright affects them and affects the cultural landscape. Making the adoption of important cultural works in to ones own work sound unlawful/immoral is harmful to a healthy society IMO.
However the concept behind this phrase is that "all artists use others work without worrying about copyright infringement" and that this is how the art world works, reflects culture and feeds society.
Or maybe Picasso meant "own it", make your version so much better that people think of you - undoubtedly the line-drawing of a dove wasn't a new idea when Picasso made his version.
>"we talk about one culture appropriating elements of another" //
Loose language, got you. When a culture is inspired or affected by another they don't appropriate the other cultures assets; this is kind of a key distinction when considering the way memes move; how cultural artefacts are created.
Parent's appropriate the slang of their children.
Word choice matters.
>But it's still called "identity theft." //
Actually this is far more in the middle ground - you don't get to use your identity [to the fullness you'd expect]. It's not copyright infringement, or at least that's not the important aspect. It really is like you've had your legal identity stolen (and often you've had things stolen as part of the process). "Identity theft" works IMO.
>The distinction between theft and copying is relevant in legal matters and some practical matters, but in colloquial use the two are often the same thing. //
The distinction is made in normal conversation.
>Banging on about this every time anyone uses the word is annoying and, more importantly, contextually incorrect. //
Deliberately attempting to ignore this important distinction and conflate the separate ideas of theft and copyright infringement is also annoying, intellectually dishonest and in this conversation concerning copyright infringement couldn't be more "contextually incorrect".
I've read it online, I don't use it. Great artists are inspired by other artists just as in science we use the term "standing on the shoulders of giants". What precisely Picasso meant is it seems lost to us.
The blunt reading however is a damaging blurring of a legal and moral distinction - artists need to understand how copyright affects them and affects the cultural landscape. Making the adoption of important cultural works in to ones own work sound unlawful/immoral is harmful to a healthy society IMO.
However the concept behind this phrase is that "all artists use others work without worrying about copyright infringement" and that this is how the art world works, reflects culture and feeds society.
Or maybe Picasso meant "own it", make your version so much better that people think of you - undoubtedly the line-drawing of a dove wasn't a new idea when Picasso made his version.
>"we talk about one culture appropriating elements of another" //
Loose language, got you. When a culture is inspired or affected by another they don't appropriate the other cultures assets; this is kind of a key distinction when considering the way memes move; how cultural artefacts are created.
Parent's appropriate the slang of their children.
Word choice matters.
>But it's still called "identity theft." //
Actually this is far more in the middle ground - you don't get to use your identity [to the fullness you'd expect]. It's not copyright infringement, or at least that's not the important aspect. It really is like you've had your legal identity stolen (and often you've had things stolen as part of the process). "Identity theft" works IMO.
>The distinction between theft and copying is relevant in legal matters and some practical matters, but in colloquial use the two are often the same thing. //
The distinction is made in normal conversation.
>Banging on about this every time anyone uses the word is annoying and, more importantly, contextually incorrect. //
Deliberately attempting to ignore this important distinction and conflate the separate ideas of theft and copyright infringement is also annoying, intellectually dishonest and in this conversation concerning copyright infringement couldn't be more "contextually incorrect".
> Otherwise, you're just an anarchist, burning the system down and denying any contribution to the people who have committed to a certain lifestyle on the guarantees currently provided by society.
This is ridiculous. Believing that IP is unjust is not the same as "denying any contribution."
This is ridiculous. Believing that IP is unjust is not the same as "denying any contribution."
It is if you use your belief to say "Well then, I won't pay them what they've asked". Too many people seem to think a "belief" is justification for breaking the law (AKA "agreement made by society"). A belief is fine - fantastic even. All big change comes from passionate beliefs. However, we have a system in place for affecting this change. It's "discuss in public fora, create political will, and change the law". Or even "download in public, get prosecuted, take punishment and create public will to change the system based on ridiculous nature of punishment to crime". It's emphatically not "Use anonymising proxies to download Hollywood blockbusters whilst claiming I'm standing up for political principles".
It is a mistake to think that people against IP are just a bunch of kids ripping off content for free from [insert favorite bittorrent tracker]. For me personally, I pay for much of the media I consume.
My concerns with IP are more wide reaching, particularly with respect to the medical and agriculture industries. (And more personally, the software industry.) The book I cited, "Information Feudalism," chronicles this to a (horrifying) extent. In broad terms, countries rich in IP use it to extort developing countries.
I recognize the OP of this article sets the context with youthful apathy that can be annoying, but you shouldn't assume that the only criticisms of IP are selfishly trite.
To a secondary point, I don't think civil disobedience is a bad thing. But I agree that claiming civil disobedience while downloading the latest Game of Thrones episode is a bit incredulous.
> It is if you use your belief to say "Well then, I won't pay them what they've asked".
It seemed to me that you were equating "lack of IP" with "content creators aren't rewarded from the fruits of their labor." I was stating that this was a false equivalency. A lack of IP merely means that there is no body of law enforcing the notion of ownership over ideas.
My concerns with IP are more wide reaching, particularly with respect to the medical and agriculture industries. (And more personally, the software industry.) The book I cited, "Information Feudalism," chronicles this to a (horrifying) extent. In broad terms, countries rich in IP use it to extort developing countries.
I recognize the OP of this article sets the context with youthful apathy that can be annoying, but you shouldn't assume that the only criticisms of IP are selfishly trite.
To a secondary point, I don't think civil disobedience is a bad thing. But I agree that claiming civil disobedience while downloading the latest Game of Thrones episode is a bit incredulous.
> It is if you use your belief to say "Well then, I won't pay them what they've asked".
It seemed to me that you were equating "lack of IP" with "content creators aren't rewarded from the fruits of their labor." I was stating that this was a false equivalency. A lack of IP merely means that there is no body of law enforcing the notion of ownership over ideas.
Remember their entire motive for doing this is to profit. Once there are enough followers the product (twitter handle) is sold off. So they take photo's (actual products of others) and run with them.
No no, your right. I should have know better. My old company, Royalty Free Models, used to sell regular people for commercial photoshoots. I sold them with all rights included like a ShutterStock database with actual people. Even agency's don't understand copyrights...
Stock companies require signed model release for every person on the photo. But copyright is belongs to creator - photographer.
> They don't provide sources for the photographs or the captions that accompany them. Sometimes they get stuff wrong and/or post copyrighted photographs.
I can reverse-search for any picture on Google Images and, with extremely high accuracy, find a picture's origins.
If this is something we deem as problematic, why not solve it at the source by having the service (i.e. Twitter) identify the images that are posted and properly credit them?
That'd be a neat startup idea actually (and it probably already exists in some form?) A service to which you send a picture, and it returns to you its copyright information. You could market it by doing things like writing a Twitter bot (named "HistoryInPicsCredits" or something) that automatically tweets copyright information of images posted by HistoryInPics.
I can reverse-search for any picture on Google Images and, with extremely high accuracy, find a picture's origins.
If this is something we deem as problematic, why not solve it at the source by having the service (i.e. Twitter) identify the images that are posted and properly credit them?
That'd be a neat startup idea actually (and it probably already exists in some form?) A service to which you send a picture, and it returns to you its copyright information. You could market it by doing things like writing a Twitter bot (named "HistoryInPicsCredits" or something) that automatically tweets copyright information of images posted by HistoryInPics.
When you reverse-searched on Google Images, did you notice that their captions often distorted the facts or outright lied?
I think that's the bigger story here: it's not that "new media" or "kids these days" don't care about attribution for the sake of giving credit. The photos aren't attributed because it would be easier to find their contexts. If people know the facts, the account would be less interesting and therefore less popular.
I think that's the bigger story here: it's not that "new media" or "kids these days" don't care about attribution for the sake of giving credit. The photos aren't attributed because it would be easier to find their contexts. If people know the facts, the account would be less interesting and therefore less popular.
I don't think I agree with this. A lot of their pictures ARE public domain, and I have to say, the fact that a) they met through youtube and b) managed to create an organic following of nearly a million, not to mention the number of impressions each tweet gets, in a matter of months, is highly impressive. There are plenty of people who use pirated photos through twitter, and true, they are now making a profit from it, but think of the things YOU were doing when you were 17 years old.
It's quite possible to consider those facts in isolation.
What they have accomplished is impressive for 17 year olds, but it's very reasonable to acknowledge the moral (and legal) gray space their work occupies.
Moreover, it's possible to comment without bringing both of those facts up together. I know I'm not particularly interested in extolling the virtues of these particular individuals. It's just not interesting. Maybe the OP feels the same way?
What they have accomplished is impressive for 17 year olds, but it's very reasonable to acknowledge the moral (and legal) gray space their work occupies.
Moreover, it's possible to comment without bringing both of those facts up together. I know I'm not particularly interested in extolling the virtues of these particular individuals. It's just not interesting. Maybe the OP feels the same way?
Shouldn't this be considered "fair use"? A bunch of guys find some pictures on the internet. These pictures are not the originals but low-res jpegs. The pictures are saved on their machines (by the browser). Then the pictures are uploaded to Twitter. The source/photographer is provided with every picture (if info. is available). I don't understand how photographers are losing here? They are getting free publicity from the pictures which were already accessible to everyone.
> They are getting free publicity
For that, they would have to be properly credited in the first place...
For that, they would have to be properly credited in the first place...
"free publicity"
Exposure doesn't put food on the table.
Exposure doesn't put food on the table.
Indeed. "working for exposure" is basically a swear word in some photography circles.
Di Petta's flip attitude towards copyright is contemptible. But it's true that it is often impractical to get information about creators and rights. I wonder part of the solution isn't some service that decreased the friction (by a lot) for looking up the relevant information. (As I'm typing this I realize this probably isn't a new thought.)
> Di Petta's flip attitude towards copyright is contemptible. But it's true that it is often impractical to get information about creators and rights.
It sometimes is. Time and again, people have checked the pair's featured pictures and found sources in a few minutes.
It sometimes is. Time and again, people have checked the pair's featured pictures and found sources in a few minutes.
I totally agree. And again I don't want to excuse their behavior.
But it being inconsistently easy to find a source and copyright information is also a problem that it would be nice to have solved. That there's a lot of variance in this process is itself a disincentive to engaging in it.
It would be beneficial for everyone if, in general, finding sources was as easy as finding the images to begin with. There's no in principle reason (or is there?) why technology has to make content discovery easy and source discovery difficult, it just is that way right now.
But it being inconsistently easy to find a source and copyright information is also a problem that it would be nice to have solved. That there's a lot of variance in this process is itself a disincentive to engaging in it.
It would be beneficial for everyone if, in general, finding sources was as easy as finding the images to begin with. There's no in principle reason (or is there?) why technology has to make content discovery easy and source discovery difficult, it just is that way right now.
Google's reverse image search and tineye.
Couple of others:
http://karmadecay.com/ [reddit focussed]
http://saucenao.com/
Also there was http://www.gazopa.com/ but it's shutdown. These http://iqdb.org/, http://www.ascii2d.net/imagesearch/, are for anime/manga.
http://karmadecay.com/ [reddit focussed]
http://saucenao.com/
Also there was http://www.gazopa.com/ but it's shutdown. These http://iqdb.org/, http://www.ascii2d.net/imagesearch/, are for anime/manga.
I stopped following accounts like this because of their promotion tactics. They retweet stuff from other accounts and then delete it 15 minutes later. If you look at the feed before subscribing, it looks like it is a bunch of interesting photos. Once you start following them, you see these lower quality retweets at the top of your feed that are deleted as soon as they start to get pushed down on subscriber timelines.
I think the only difference between these entrepreneurs and big businesses is that big businesses would say "talk to our lawyers" instead of "talk to our lawyers, lol".
That said, if they do get sued I'm not going to feel sorry for them.
That said, if they do get sued I'm not going to feel sorry for them.
> Who really deserves the scorn—the two best players in the game or the people who own the stadium?
Are the two mutually excluded? I'm not sure about the platforms, but the owners of the account are definitely in the wrong. Ignorance doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to play within the bounds of the law.
Are the two mutually excluded? I'm not sure about the platforms, but the owners of the account are definitely in the wrong. Ignorance doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to play within the bounds of the law.
A recent tweet from Kyle Cameron's twitter feed:
"If The Wolf Of Wall Street doesn't inspire you to become successful, nothing will." [1]
Makes me a little sad.
[1] https://twitter.com/GirlsGoneKyle/status/427666832636403712
"If The Wolf Of Wall Street doesn't inspire you to become successful, nothing will." [1]
Makes me a little sad.
[1] https://twitter.com/GirlsGoneKyle/status/427666832636403712
He's a 19 year old making money selling Twitter accounts. I wouldn't spend too much time looking his way for deep life advice and insights.
So basically to start a successful account all you need to do is find a popular subreddit and upload most upvoted post on Twitter
I'm not terribly surprised they're run by teens. I've seen them retweet some pretty bad/offensive tweets on both accounts before shortly deleting them (e.g.: misogynistic comments about periods), never mind their cross-promotion and all that. It's as if they mis-judged what they could get away with, because I couldn't work out why someone would want to see a photo of blood-stained pants otherwise.
I briefly followed Earth Pics until they started unrelentingly posting obviously fake photos with no attempt to do research into whether they were real or not. HIP has the same dirty feel to it and so it's no surprised to find out they're related.
They've taken two very possibly interesting topics to run a twitter feed on, and essentially run them in to the ground by not doing even a modicum of work to ensure some sort of integrity behind them. Maybe it's an intentional decision, I don't know, but it just seems like when you're trying to appeal to a semi-academic interest such as geography or history, you'd benefit from doing some fact-checking and verification.
It'd be as if IFLS started posting pseudo-science, for example. In fact, exploring the relative success of both approaches would be a really cool study into new-media or whatever buzzword you want to call it.
I briefly followed Earth Pics until they started unrelentingly posting obviously fake photos with no attempt to do research into whether they were real or not. HIP has the same dirty feel to it and so it's no surprised to find out they're related.
They've taken two very possibly interesting topics to run a twitter feed on, and essentially run them in to the ground by not doing even a modicum of work to ensure some sort of integrity behind them. Maybe it's an intentional decision, I don't know, but it just seems like when you're trying to appeal to a semi-academic interest such as geography or history, you'd benefit from doing some fact-checking and verification.
It'd be as if IFLS started posting pseudo-science, for example. In fact, exploring the relative success of both approaches would be a really cool study into new-media or whatever buzzword you want to call it.
I think I've seen a lot of the @earthpics photos on the Earthporn sub-reddit. A bot that scrapes that and cross posts the top photos to a twitter account might work.
Sssshhhh, I'm working on that now.
>"They are playing by rules that "old media" and most new media do not. To one way of thinking, they are cheating at the media game, and that's why they're winning. (Which they are.)" //
It seems fairly often I hear a comment that so-and-so media company (BBC, local paper, RIAA, ...) are using a private individuals media without permission or attribution.
They're it seems serially copyright infringers. Whilst big-media generally correct it after-the-fact when they're caught it seems worth noting that it's not only "young punks" that are profiting by playing fast-and-loose with media available online.
Yes there's a difference in complexion too: which goes both ways - if the images are historic then arguably [morally] the creators have had time to make them pay. The corollary of course is that unlicensed duplication of new images, particularly those used in the news, is more damaging.
This is not to excuse such tortuous infringement but just to shed more light on the context.
It seems fairly often I hear a comment that so-and-so media company (BBC, local paper, RIAA, ...) are using a private individuals media without permission or attribution.
They're it seems serially copyright infringers. Whilst big-media generally correct it after-the-fact when they're caught it seems worth noting that it's not only "young punks" that are profiting by playing fast-and-loose with media available online.
Yes there's a difference in complexion too: which goes both ways - if the images are historic then arguably [morally] the creators have had time to make them pay. The corollary of course is that unlicensed duplication of new images, particularly those used in the news, is more damaging.
This is not to excuse such tortuous infringement but just to shed more light on the context.
1.3 million followers, eh?
Aaannd my headlines-from-1914 bot has 11 followers. tl;dr I suppose.
Aaannd my headlines-from-1914 bot has 11 followers. tl;dr I suppose.
Your articles are fine, but you're missing one key component...pictures. If each headline had a pic I bet you'd be doing much better
Well, it would help if you added your Twitter handle when saying something like that. Like the idea actually.
I posted about it here before. It may be too dry, but I find it quite entertaining. https://twitter.com/NEWS_XX14
On the contrary! You need to post links to these articles.
I want to read all of those articles.
I absolutely love the history leading up to and around the first world war, I've read a good portion of the issues of Punch from those years. But a headline is only enough to arouse my appetite without bedding her back down.
I want to read all of those articles.
I absolutely love the history leading up to and around the first world war, I've read a good portion of the issues of Punch from those years. But a headline is only enough to arouse my appetite without bedding her back down.
Well, you can find the articles by googling the headlines. These are all from the New York Times and you should find the first result is a link to a pdf article there.
That's not how Twitter works
Yea, how Twitter works is it eats up 24 characters on a URL. No thanks. I figured the headlines were interesting enough on their own 99% of the time.
When your plan isn't working, it's time to re-evaluate.
FWIW, I'd also really like to see links to the articles. :)
The subject of your headlines is critical in my opinion. European news, or Americain centered, International? Popular news? Headlines that turned out very wrong, etc etc. There are so many subjects...
They're from the New York Times. The focus appears to be in order NY, America, Whoever America Is Currently Fighting, Europe, and the rest of the world. Plenty of amusing missed predictions (e.g. VESUVIUS MORE ACTIVE.: Mr Burlingham Says Volcano is Preparing for Another Eruption. - 01/13/14). July is going to be interesting....
Is this curated at all? It seems like 10% interesting, 90% very boring articles.
Nope. If it was curated it wouldn't be much of a bot. That's how most bots are, the owners just retweet the really good ones.
One idea would be to focus on certain keywords, but you'd miss a lot of interesting stuff.
I don't know if I agree on your percentages though. In the first 3 days, I read stuff about eugenics, Shackleton, a woman declaring martial law on a town (first time martial law had been declared since Civil War), etc.
One idea would be to focus on certain keywords, but you'd miss a lot of interesting stuff.
I don't know if I agree on your percentages though. In the first 3 days, I read stuff about eugenics, Shackleton, a woman declaring martial law on a town (first time martial law had been declared since Civil War), etc.
both ideas are interesting, but photos are more interesting than plain text. so don't feel bad :)
please post the links to the articles
please post the links to the articles
Now you have 21.
To be fair, theirs isn't a bot.
Start re-posting their tweets on a halfway-popular account and see how quickly they learn about copyright.
But all they care about is the follower count. Once it hits a million, they can sell off this account to someone who wants to monetize it.
I mean, they have no real attraction to "History in Pics" as a constant, or to any particular post. They just care about it as something that people seem to like to follow. If someone else rips off their content, I doubt that would have any impact at all.
I mean, they have no real attraction to "History in Pics" as a constant, or to any particular post. They just care about it as something that people seem to like to follow. If someone else rips off their content, I doubt that would have any impact at all.
It's against Twitter's terms to sell an account or username. Does Twitter commonly look the other way on this? Are there public examples of Twitter accounts being sold for a lot of money?
How about allowing someone else to post on that account, is that allowed? If not I imagine nearly all corp accounts are in breach of their rules.
They don't need to "sell" it legally to create the same practical result.
Seems it's pretty unenforceable for Twitter?
They don't need to "sell" it legally to create the same practical result.
Seems it's pretty unenforceable for Twitter?
What's a twitter account, a username + an email address? From Twitter's perspective, a sale is the same as just changing the email address.
You might have a point about the "History in Pics" account, I guess you would have to be competing with a newer account and outpace its follower count- or have an "Ad free History in Pics" account that catches traction or something. Or maybe they really wouldn't care at all, I don't know.
... aren't they already a more than halfway-popular account?
I think we're in some kind of media bubble when a "news" website publishes stories about people who steal content and Tweet it. This feels like a lot of people chasing each other in circles without really producing any new content.
The credit thing seems like a red herring. Either you have the license to the photo or you don't.
From an ethical perspective I often think credit in these cases is more important than licensing, at least for older stuff. If it's a photo from the 1930s, I honestly don't care if some great-grandnephew technically owns the copyright, but it would be nice to have an accurate caption. The licensing issue gets bigger in my mind the more recent the photos get.
I agree. I think that (mis)attribution is a much more fundamental crime than unauthorized reproduction. It's essentially fraud to pass these off as their own works, or with incorrect captions.
Credit seems to matter.
When you see images on Google Image search you get an attribution - that seems the only difference legally between displaying the results of a db query for @HistoryPics twitter posts and displaying the results of a db query for "historic images" (say) on a search engines image search. Sure, the former has been more curated than the latter but having robots do your bidding doesn't appear in TRIPs agreements AFAIR.
When you see images on Google Image search you get an attribution - that seems the only difference legally between displaying the results of a db query for @HistoryPics twitter posts and displaying the results of a db query for "historic images" (say) on a search engines image search. Sure, the former has been more curated than the latter but having robots do your bidding doesn't appear in TRIPs agreements AFAIR.
There are a lot of opinions about the legitimacy of modern copyright laws, but almost everyone agrees that people deserve credit for their work as long as it is appreciated, so focusing on the latter addresses a more universal issue.
Follow https://twitter.com/PicPedant for lolz, and credits :)
[deleted]
If you want the source, you can try Google Reverse Image Search
Combined with this: "I'm sure the majority of photographers would be glad to have their work seen by the massives."
Nothing 'new media' about it. Theft plain and simple.