That was way back in September last year, and today I received this:
Here's the original photo -- I still think it's a genius image. Who'd have thought that inverting a simple "cat stretching" photo you'd get something like this?
I've added his flickr link to the original, of course, but I do wonder about the use of the word "violating". Obviously derived from the word violence, how can a non-commercial (probable) copyright infringement as minor as this be described as a violation? It says much for the hysteria of the copyright "debate" that has been launched by old-fashioned multinationals desperate to cling on to their nineteenth-century business models in the face of the digital world.
3 comments:
Ah, but I don't see a link to their original page on THIS post! Hehehehe. Fuck them. They seem like quite the controlling asshole. It's a picture of their damn cat. They can get over it. I would have invited them to sue me.
The link is in the second picture -- although, ironically, I think this whole post (although not the original) might be exempt on the basis of fair use provisions.
Meh... The Copyright Debate is getting weirder by the day. A while back I read a story about a german company which files lawsuits against cooking blogs, claiming copyright infringement on photos of spaghetti. It just makes me sigh...
Post a Comment