Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, rollback
7,537
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 160:
Line 160: +
→Copyright protection for intellectual property of the Islamic State
::::Reuters apparently got access to the footage early enough. Could you please tell me why it put a copyright watermark on the photograph?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 17:12, 12 June 2018 (EDT)
::::Reuters apparently got access to the footage early enough. Could you please tell me why it put a copyright watermark on the photograph?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 17:12, 12 June 2018 (EDT)
:::::I dunno, unless Reuters had an embedded cameraman with the Islamic State. I'd like to know under what theory of law (1) Reuters can claim ownership of property produced by the Islamic State, and (2) Why Reuters should be financially compensated for photos of murders thst Reuters didn't produce. (3) Can Reuters show proof they compensated the Islamic State to transfer exclusive ownership to them? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 17:23, 12 June 2018 (EDT)
:::::I dunno, unless Reuters had an embedded cameraman with the Islamic State. I'd like to know under what theory of law (1) Reuters can claim ownership of property produced by the Islamic State, and (2) Why Reuters should be financially compensated for photos of murders thst Reuters didn't produce. (3) Can Reuters show proof they compensated the Islamic State to transfer exclusive ownership to them? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 17:23, 12 June 2018 (EDT)
::::::Ok, I have asked Andy to restore the image. But please put a applicable licence in the file description. Sorry.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 06:10, 13 June 2018 (EDT)
== I moved the National Front article ==
== I moved the National Front article ==