Hacker News Reader

Comment by fatjokes | Hacker News Reader

Did they have your permission? Because they explicitly say that the difference between them and catfishing is that they have permission...

View on HN

I posted the picture on Unsplash, so yeah they are free to use it however they wish. I can see that a good amount of the pictures shown are taken from there. In a way sites like Unsplash make the problem they are describing worse. I have seen my travel pictures used on many different IG accounts, sometimes even as the profile pic.

I'm glad you get to travel. (no sarcasm!) I wanted to mention though that I am seeing irony in this.

I definitely get that. People post lifestyle pics to stock photo sites as the ultimate humblebrag; they get that little dopamine hit out of seeing others use their life on websites, posts, etc. I think that is a big reason why all the 'free for any use' websites get so many uploads. I find it much more rewarding than posting to social media.

If you are not a photographer, how is this rewarding?

I do not understand this epidemic. I can’t imagine caring the least bit about “likes” and it seems like I’m in the minority.

I don't care about likes either. You don't get many likes on a stock photo site even if you are a pro anyway. I got into uploading simply to use them as a photo host, but later it became an outlet for the basic effort I put into being more creative with photography (learning LR). The logic many use is that it is better to upload photos than just have them collect dust. Besides, it is fun to be browsing the web and see pictures you have taken. The reach of Unsplash and other sites is really impressive. My pics are meh quality at best and yet they still have ~60M views. Real photographers have way more than that with one approaching 1B views.

You might want to lead with "they used a picture I uploaded to a free use stock photography site" in your original comment.

The site is satire. they're not selling anything.

Satire is protected by fair use.

Don't you have to actually satirize the content being used, though? It would seem that using images to create a satire of something totally separate would require permission.

You're correct, thinking you're allowed to steal anything just because you're going to put it in a content satirizing something else is such a huge misunderstanding of the law.

E.g. you can use melody from a Justin Bieber song to make fun of him/the subject matter of the song, but if you make a video to make fun of Trump and you use Bieber's song as the background music, nope!

You're not likely to get taken to court though, are you? You would expect to receive a cease and desist letter or a DMCA takedown first, right?

If you weren't making any money off it, and it wasn't your intention to make money, and you had no monetisation avenues active, and you only made a handful of infringing media, during a brief period, what's the worst that could happen?

I'm assuming you're talking about US Copyright law.

Satire isn't protected by Fair Use. Parodies are.

Satire will make a more broad point--in this case, the damaging effects on mental health that social media plays. Any use of copyrighted works won't likely be protected.

Parody would be something smaller--like creating a website that looks similar to Instagram, using humor to criticize it.

It actually can be protected by fair use -- it's ruled on a case-by-case basis: http://www.newseuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topic... (scroll to end) You're right in that there is no BLANKET protection, but it has been used for protection before and continues to be.

Parody is only protected in the context of copying the thing it is parodying. Beyond that copyright applies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com