http://www.dontscrewus.org

[kamekaze]

Cool concept, figured ya'll might like this

[Imagebuffet]

I hear that a micro site would at least get you a few dollars...

[kamekaze]

Originally Posted by Imagebuffet

I hear that a micro site would at least get you a few dollars...

Huh?

[ka5txl]

Unfortunatly the message is lost on too many people.

[Cajungaltx]

Yup. I like it.

[Patti Edens]

Hmmmmm. I get the concept. Stolen images off of the web and all that, but I don't think the object lesson works. It's not legal to steal someone else's copyrighted photo off of a website, but it is legal for people to walk away with those photos left unattended in a public place - at least in Texas...I think???

I'm no attorney and probably don't know the law as well as I should, but I think that in Texas, if you find something valuable sitting in a public place (a money clip full of money sitting in the street for example), it's yours - ala: finders keepers, losers weepers.

I do think there is some obligation to advertise your find and give the loser some time to reclaim his property, but after that time limit, it is yours.

I don't see that a framed photo abandoned on the street corner is any different.

I would be curious if anyone knows the law regarding this. I'll google around and see if I can find any statutes that would apply.

p

[z-monster]

Dunno about the rest of you but I got it. Good concept and it gets a point across.

[texkam]

It was in the "public domain".

[kamekaze]

I don't think this video was playing on the legalities of the issue, but the morality of it. Just because you can do something without breaking the law should you?

[Patti Edens]

Originally Posted by kamekaze

I don't think this video was playing on the legalities of the issue, but the morality of it. Just because you can do something without breaking the law should you?

I think you are correct in that the morality of it is what they did portray, but I don't think that is what they were going for. I thought the whole point of it was that stealing photos off of the internet is against the law. So, they tried to show another example that everyone would recognize is against the law as an object lesson. But, IMHO, the way they did it wasn't clear because the situation was not clearly illegal IMHO.

Mainly, I just question the way they chose to portray the illegal action in the brick and mortar world and tried to compare it to cyberspace. (If that's what they were doing. I am just guessing and could be way off.)

The way it was done was close and I get it, but what I'm saying is that it could have been better. If you want to teach someone, don't make it too subtle. Hit them over the head with it. Clearly some people are not getting this for some reason or other, so IMHO, it has failed.

A better way to do it might have been to have the art sitting in a booth at an art show with the artist standing right next to it and someone trying to steal it out from under him - watching him closely and when he was maybe distracted for a second grabbing the goods. That would clearly be illegal. The person grabbing the artwork would know it was illegal and anyone watching the video would know it was illegal.

A really good way would be on a split screen with the action going on above on one side and on the other side of the screen have someone right clicking on a clearly copyrighted photo, copying and pasting it on their personal desktop. Now, that's hitting them over the head with it.

[texkam]

Show someone going to great lengths to set up a killer shot. Lights, make up, hair, wind machine, background, fog machine, etc. only to have someone else step in and shoot a picture.