Hacker News Reader

Comment by pilif | Hacker News Reader

or, even easier to understand analogy: Daniel is the person on the photograph, Spotify/Instagram are the photographers and the hacker is the person who just stole the picture.

View on HN

I fear you're still overcomplicating it: Daniel is a battery manufacturer. The person complaining bought a camera from Spotify, which came with one of Daniel's batteries inside. Someone stole that camera.

(It's not perfect, but it's probably as close as you're going to get)

Most people don't associate batteries with cameras these days..

Daniel built the camera lens that is mounted on your camera; the hacker managed to make your camera send all the photos on his computer.

TBH, libcurl is probably a dependency of a library that they use.

So it's more like Daniel is a supplier of zinc (and just so happens to give that zinc away for free) to a battery manufacturer.. Who sell batteries to Spotify, who manufacture cameras?

Daniel is the photographer, Spotify uses his pictures, random user contacts him after finding his address in the attribution.

Or- the user is the photographer, Instagram is making use of the photos, and Daniel hacked her phone

I fear she's labeling herself as a photographer because she uses Instagram to post photos taken with her iphone...

And why the snark about what tools the photographer is using? Do they have to fool around in a darkroom with chemicals to be a 'real photographer'? Note that their phone camera is better equipment than a generation of 'real' digital photographers had to make do with.

I think they are pointing out that just because you call yourself a photographer doesn't mean you are a professional photographer. You can't assume familiarity with copyright law from someone who calls themselves a photographer, but you can assume that familiarity from a professional photographer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com