Copyright Advocacy Group Violates Copyright

word munger writes "Commercial scholarly publishers are beginning to get afraid of the open access movement. They've hired a high-priced consultant to help them sway public opinion in favor of copyright restrictions on taxpayer-funded research. Funny thing is, their own website contains several copyright violations. It seems they pulled their images directly from the Getty Images website — watermarks and all — without paying for their use."

0wned

[c0d3h4x0r]

Nelson says: "Haaah-haaaaah!"

Like Billy Joel said...

[WwWonka]

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw someone else's copyrighted stones.

Re:didn't we already pay?

[pembo13]

I'm sure they would simply say no, and come up with a rationale after.

Obligatory.

[Tackhead]

Nothing to see here. Especially that Getty watermark in the hair of that guy in the lab coat in doc_image.jpg. And definitely not the Corbis watermark in the left-hand skull/shoulder X-Ray picture in header.jpg. Or the one that looks like some sort of text on the shoulder (and the hair, and the shelf all the way to his elbow) of the guy in the library in header.jpg that I can't quite make it out yet, but I'm sure someone else on Slashdot will. Umm, I mean, "Move along."

Re:didn't we already pay?

[stefanlasiewski]

If the research is funded by the public, didn't we already pay to see it?

Ah, but you didn't pay for the results. Results costs extra. Good results cost even more.

Re:didn't we already pay?

[MyLongNickName]

Ah, but you didn't pay for the results. Results costs extra. Good results cost even more

But dumb looks are still free.

Re:How Do You Know??!!

[UserGoogol]

Technically no, but a person who pays for a stock image and then keeps the watermark on is retarded. Thus, either they are hypocritical or they are retarded, and I try to be generous.