On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:17:07 GMT, "John Malcolm" wrote:
"Froot Bat" wrote in message
The copyright owners of the original images? The people who probably stole the images without permission and pasted them together to zero artistic, or other, merit? Or the site, Worth1000, that hosts the probably stolen and used-without-permission images, pastes its own URL across them and otherwise tries to profit from them?
Photoshopping images of celebrities and politicians is more than covered by parody, if you’re referring to the ownership of the original unaltered images.
Interesting theory.
Let’s see what Worth1000 themselves say about parodies:
http://www.worth1000.com/contest.asp?contest_id=462 "In this contest you will create original parodies of the popular Absolut vodka ad series."
"Do not use original vodka ads for your source material (legal problems)!"
Yet, according to you, people can take _actual_ original copyrighted material, without permission, make a small change to it, and it’s all legal and fine as long as you claim you are parodying the subject of the material. Oh, and post some website address to where you happened to find the material…
Worth1000 does not acquire images and paste their "URL" across them. They watermark images submitted by their members to
photoshop/photo-manipulation contests.
No, they _paste_ their URL (worth1000.com) over the images. Have you even seen one? Next time you do, look closely in the corner.
In contests not involving celebs
though people are expected to get source images from sites like stockxhange and morguefile which allow images to be used freely. You obviously know next to nothing about Worth1000 if you think they are doing anything for profit.
Right at the top of the FAQ you claim to have read:
# Can I just donate money out of love and respect?
# Where can I find out about sponsorship and pricing information? # Who do I contact if I’m interested in purchasing high volume advertising on Worth1000?
Even after 5 seconds reading the site I obviously know more about Worth1000 than you do.
In fact I’m starting to wonder if you’ve even been there before.
Worth1000: Yet more proof that Web 2.0 = reinterpreting the word "Share" to mean trying to profit from other people’s stolen material and hard word, while claiming no responsibility under the DMCA.
I still don’t understand. How are Worth1000 profitting from "stolen" images?
What do you think the ads are about? Don’t you know how "free" sites make money?
What does Worth1000 have to do with the DMCA? What are you talking about?
http://www.worth1000.com/help.asp?help=copyright