![Avatar](/_next/image?url=%2Flemmy-icon-96x96.webp&w=3840&q=75)
cbarrick
The rally was in Butler, a deep red town in the next county north of Pittsburgh.
The shooter was from Bethel Park, closer to and on the other side of Pittsburgh. There’s a subway line from Bethel Park to downtown Pittsburgh.
Pittsburgh itself is very blue. I’d call Bethel Park purple. It’s definitely more suburban than rural.
Phone cameras tend to ramp up the saturation.
It gives the photo a more vibrant look, which many people prefer, at the expense of color accuracy.
But generally with artistic photography, you’re going more for a style than for accuracy, so I wouldn’t say it’s always a bad thing (though sometimes it is).
In this example I would have committed both crimes.
It’s copyright infringement for me to republish and profit from your work without your consent (while that work is not in the public domain).
It’s plagiarism for me to pass that work off as my own.
So it was a bad example.
Let’s say you write a novel. It’s really really good. But no one reads it because no one ever hears about it.
Later, I stumble upon your novel and recognize how great it is. Then I republish it verbatim, except with my name as the author. I am much better at business and marketing than you, so it goes viral. I receive millions in sales, am tapped to produce a movie version, and win a Pulitzer for it.
Is that fair? Or should you have some rights in all of this since it was your copy?