Joseph wrote:Ray, by your posting the terms for viewing you show you are violating them by posting on this site rather than posting a link to them.
The excuse of 'everybody is doing it' does not hold up. You are stealing intellectual property. The fact you do not make a profit has nothing to do with it.
You are a thief.
Joseph feels like sparring.
If I am a thief, then there must be honour among thieves here, because I'm not the only one, so there must be some ideological difference between us that gets your goat. To be consistent, you should also tell them that they are "thieves".
FYI:
Christchurch New Zealand Quake Gets Its Own Wikipedia Page.
File:ChristChurch Cathedral - 2011 earthquake damage.jpg.
Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia.
Now pay attention, Joseph. Here is the same source from which I got the photos:
Before-and-after interactive photos from the Christchurch quake.
Note where
they got them from:
1. Twitter user David Richards (@richardsd) and Google.
2. Twitter user @PolarBearFarm and Google.
3. Picture: Martin Hunter / Getty Images and Google.
4. Twitter user @gavb and Google.
The images are available on Google.
Now go to
Google Images.
I've never had a problem using copyrighted images on my blog, and I've used many. Arguably it's not the most popular blog in the world, and arguably Mormon Discussions isn't the most popular message board in the world. If a copyright owner ever has a problem, all they have to do is email me and ask me to take any of them down, and they can consider it done. Acknowledgment of your source is important (along with the profit motive). Many owners
want their work widely distributed, as long as it is acknowledged (brings them notoriety).
The worldwide media have used these images liberally, and I don't think too many are going to quibble about their use since it graphically brings home the destruction of the quake to a worldwide audience, which, I imagine, is the
intention of the photographers.
More information:
RNZAF photo.
Images or videos can easily be restricted by owners if they wish; just check You Tube re-postings anywhere on the Net and you'll see why they are "no longer available".
So wash your judgmental finger before you point it at me and call me a "thief", or to be consistent go around MDB pointing out all other instances of copyright breaches by your
mates who share your ideological assumptions. If you think I can't see through your real motives - then you are an utter fool.