MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stock photos of scientists reveal that science is mostly about staring  (Read 6539 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



niktol

« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2018, 05:27 »
0
Sometimes at chickens

https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/5/3/17316640/science-stock-photos-representation-fails-bad-stock-photos-of-my-job

Maybe they are hungry scientists, with funds cut and all that. In movies they stare at huge monitors and flasks with blue liquid (fungicide?) with lights turned off. Perhaps light ruins the mood for discovery.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2018, 05:29 by niktol »

« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2018, 02:58 »
0
Seems some photos nicked from SS have been bought - or at least watermark removed - but not all. Istock and Adobe still clearly watermarked....! :(
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 03:01 by sarah2 »

« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2018, 04:10 »
0
Seems some photos nicked from SS have been bought - or at least watermark removed - but not all. Istock and Adobe still clearly watermarked....! :(

I would say this falls into a citation exception to copyrights, so it's fair use so long as the author is named. The ones that don't name the author seem to be embedded social posts.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2018, 07:07 »
0
Seems some photos nicked from SS have been bought - or at least watermark removed - but not all. Istock and Adobe still clearly watermarked....! :(

If I had shot those photo's I'd be ashamed if somebody had bought them.

niktol

« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2018, 07:08 »
+1
It should take more than putting an image next to a snarky comment to make it "fair use". Anyway, it's up to the author to decide what to do with this.

niktol

« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2018, 07:11 »
0
Seems some photos nicked from SS have been bought - or at least watermark removed - but not all. Istock and Adobe still clearly watermarked....! :(

If I had shot those photo's I'd be ashamed if somebody had bought them.

why?

« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2018, 07:40 »
+3
Seems some photos nicked from SS have been bought - or at least watermark removed - but not all. Istock and Adobe still clearly watermarked....! :(

I would say this falls into a citation exception to copyrights, so it's fair use so long as the author is named. The ones that don't name the author seem to be embedded social posts.

There's no such thing as a 'citation exemption'.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2018, 08:15 »
+2
Seems some photos nicked from SS have been bought - or at least watermark removed - but not all. Istock and Adobe still clearly watermarked....! :(

If I had shot those photo's I'd be ashamed if somebody had bought them.

why?

because some of these stock photos are indeed ridiculous.

niktol

« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2018, 09:19 »
+4


because some of these stock photos are indeed ridiculous.

They are commercial photos, anyone who buys them can use them any way they want. For giggles or anything else. Well, with some restrictions and in accordance with the license. And they are obviously not to be taken literally. They don't pretend to be about "real life" - whatever that could be, and they can serve their purpose - be sold. Some of those pretending to be scientists in comments though - not so much. Image number 5 from the top, scientist Kate Adamala. She calls a "beaker" what in fact is Erlenmeyer flask. Now that's ridiculous. I wouldn't be a good handyman if I called a hammer "screwdriver", would I?
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 09:39 by niktol »

« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2018, 10:18 »
+4
citation exemption, fair use ... how many bull$hit ways can people come up with to get out of paying photographers for their work..
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 19:36 by cathyslife »

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2018, 10:41 »
0


because some of these stock photos are indeed ridiculous.

They are commercial photos, anyone who buys them can use them any way they want. For giggles or anything else. Well, with some restrictions and in accordance with the license. And they are obviously not to be taken literally. They don't pretend to be about "real life" - whatever that could be, and they can serve their purpose - be sold. Some of those pretending to be scientists in comments though - not so much. Image number 5 from the top, scientist Kate Adamala. She calls a "beaker" what in fact is Erlenmeyer flask. Now that's ridiculous. I wouldn't be a good handyman if I called a hammer "screwdriver", would I?

You're taking this too seriously.

niktol

« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2018, 10:47 »
0

You're taking this too seriously.

I thought you did  :)

hard to tell from written posts  ;)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2018, 20:34 »
+1
Seems some photos nicked from SS have been bought - or at least watermark removed - but not all. Istock and Adobe still clearly watermarked....! :(

I would say this falls into a citation exception to copyrights, so it's fair use so long as the author is named. The ones that don't name the author seem to be embedded social posts.

There's no such thing as a 'citation exemption'.

Absolutely True, where do people get these made up uses? Oh if you steal a photo and give credit, it's OK.  :) NO IT"S NOT! Neither is using something with a watermark. It's still stealing. This isn't transformative or anything with creative alterations.

But there is an exception for Parody or Satire. Not sure if this one is a fit? Seems like if it's humor and satire, it would pass? That's for the courts to decide.

citation exemption, thanks for the BS new term.

« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2018, 11:52 »
0
Seems some photos nicked from SS have been bought - or at least watermark removed - but not all. Istock and Adobe still clearly watermarked....! :(

If I had shot those photo's I'd be ashamed if somebody had bought them.

why?

because some of these stock photos are indeed ridiculous.

And why the first description says showing on facebook with #BadStockPhotosOfMyJob but I wasn't sure that rock nuzzling is a profession?  :)

« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2018, 12:00 »
+1
The reason the photos are of people staring... it because science *********IS******** about staring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And looking... And staring... And looking...

Or rather - that is the 'unique' aspect of lab work...

If you had a picture of a scientist surfing the internet playing a facebook game, it doesn't have the same effect. Or, if you had them chatting with friends at the water cooler, doesn't have the same effect...

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2018, 00:06 »
+3
Yeah... Stock photos of scientists shared by scientists reveal that scientists don't like to pay to use stock photos of scientists.


niktol

« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2018, 10:20 »
0
Yeah... Stock photos of scientists shared by scientists reveal that scientists don't like to pay to use stock photos of scientists.

haha

would be funny to report a copyright breach to her department and see how they deal with that. And to her funding agencies.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 10:26 by niktol »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2018, 11:45 »
0
Yeah... Stock photos of scientists shared by scientists reveal that scientists don't like to pay to use stock photos of scientists.

haha

would be funny to report a copyright breach to her department and see how they deal with that. And to her funding agencies.
It comes under 'satire', which - whether everyone likes it or not - is a 'fair use' legally.

« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2018, 03:32 »
0
Yeah... Stock photos of scientists shared by scientists reveal that scientists don't like to pay to use stock photos of scientists.

haha

would be funny to report a copyright breach to her department and see how they deal with that. And to her funding agencies.
It comes under 'satire', which - whether everyone likes it or not - is a 'fair use' legally.
Well thats something new I've learn't so day not a complete waste  :o

« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2018, 04:54 »
0

niktol

« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2018, 05:18 »
+1

It comes under 'satire', which - whether everyone likes it or not - is a 'fair use' legally.

And I am sure UCSF would be mustering legal forces in her defense because that's what they pay their biochem postdocs and adjuncts for, to be satirists  8).

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2018, 05:19 »
0

It comes under 'satire', which - whether everyone likes it or not - is a 'fair use' legally.

And I am sure the UCSF would be mustering legal forces in her defense because that's what they pay their biochem postdocs and adjuncts for, to be satirists  8).
If she was doing it on the firm's dollar, she may well have a case to answer in that respect.

niktol

« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2018, 05:44 »
+1

If she was doing it on the firm's dollar, she may well have a case to answer in that respect.

openly associating herself with the "firm" is quite enough. You think they are just gonna go, ahh, our name is used to endorse this, but that's after 5pm so it's ok?  8)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2018, 07:04 »
0
Yeah... Stock photos of scientists shared by scientists reveal that scientists don't like to pay to use stock photos of scientists.

haha

would be funny to report a copyright breach to her department and see how they deal with that. And to her funding agencies.
It comes under 'satire', which - whether everyone likes it or not - is a 'fair use' legally.
Well thats something new I've learn't so day not a complete waste  :o

For anyone else:
UK: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

In the US, the exceptions 'seem' to be more limited, but closer examination could suggest the fair uses are broader, but more liable to subjective interpretation:
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use

« Reply #25 on: May 09, 2018, 07:11 »
0
Yeah... Stock photos of scientists shared by scientists reveal that scientists don't like to pay to use stock photos of scientists.

haha

would be funny to report a copyright breach to her department and see how they deal with that. And to her funding agencies.
It comes under 'satire', which - whether everyone likes it or not - is a 'fair use' legally.
Well thats something new I've learn't so day not a complete waste  :o

For anyone else:
UK: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

In the US, the exceptions 'seem' to be more limited, but closer examination could suggest the fair uses are broader, but more liable to subjective interpretation:
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use
Thanks for that plenty to keep the lawyers in work

niktol

« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2018, 07:20 »
0
from the cited Stanford link

1) Parody
A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to conjure up the original.

Just as I thought, "by imitating" is the keyword here. Not by copying it and writing comments. Else I could provide access to any movie for free. All I have to do is write a funny comment about it.

2) A commentary allows reproducing only a portion

That's my understanding, not pretending to be a lawyer

Still not sure a University would love to get involved, their reputation is their number one asset.

I know someone personally who got fire for self-plagiarism, writing something that was written by him before, but not quoting himself. The uni lost overheads of a fat NIH grant, but thought it was worth it.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 07:26 by niktol »


« Reply #27 on: May 09, 2018, 07:25 »
0
from the cited Stanford link

1) Parody
A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to conjure up the original.

Just as thought, "by imitating" is the keyword here. Not by copying it and writing comments. Else I could provide access to any movie for free. All I have to do is write a funny comment about it.

2) A commentary allows reproducing only a portion

That's my understanding, not pretending to be a lawyer
It all boils down to "Fair Use" I think which being totally subjective is a lawyers paradise. I think theres a good argument that just downloading a straight copy and saying "this is rubbish" isn't really....but who is going to spend thousands dragging that through the courts.

niktol

« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2018, 07:27 »
0
It all boils down to "Fair Use" I think which being totally subjective is a lawyers paradise. I think theres a good argument that just downloading a straight copy and saying "this is rubbish" isn't really....but who is going to spend thousands dragging that through the courts.

I wrote above (d*mn me, love to change my own posts), the guy was fired just on a tip, no action was necessary.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3047 Views
Last post August 23, 2008, 02:11
by Mormegil
2 Replies
5379 Views
Last post July 21, 2013, 15:53
by stockastic
7 Replies
2829 Views
Last post January 23, 2015, 00:10
by ann
2 Replies
1968 Views
Last post September 13, 2015, 22:21
by wordplanet
19 Replies
5540 Views
Last post February 22, 2019, 21:16
by Artist

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle