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.

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.

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.

Quote from: sarah2 on May 06, 2018, 02:58

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'.

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?

Quote from: Noedelhap on May 06, 2018, 08:15

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.

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on May 06, 2018, 04:10

Quote from: sarah2 on May 06, 2018, 02:58

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.

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...

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.

Quote from: niktol on May 08, 2018, 10:20

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on May 08, 2018, 00:06

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 

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  .

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?