>"They are playing by rules that "old media" and most new media do not. To one way of thinking, they are cheating at the media game, and that's why they're winning. (Which they are.)" //
It seems fairly often I hear a comment that so-and-so media company (BBC, local paper, RIAA, ...) are using a private individuals media without permission or attribution.
They're it seems serially copyright infringers. Whilst big-media generally correct it after-the-fact when they're caught it seems worth noting that it's not only "young punks" that are profiting by playing fast-and-loose with media available online.
Yes there's a difference in complexion too: which goes both ways - if the images are historic then arguably [morally] the creators have had time to make them pay. The corollary of course is that unlicensed duplication of new images, particularly those used in the news, is more damaging.
This is not to excuse such tortuous infringement but just to shed more light on the context.
It seems fairly often I hear a comment that so-and-so media company (BBC, local paper, RIAA, ...) are using a private individuals media without permission or attribution.
They're it seems serially copyright infringers. Whilst big-media generally correct it after-the-fact when they're caught it seems worth noting that it's not only "young punks" that are profiting by playing fast-and-loose with media available online.
Yes there's a difference in complexion too: which goes both ways - if the images are historic then arguably [morally] the creators have had time to make them pay. The corollary of course is that unlicensed duplication of new images, particularly those used in the news, is more damaging.
This is not to excuse such tortuous infringement but just to shed more light on the context.