Um, elaborate on the “apparently, G.L. Webb created it.” I asked for a cite of some kind.
So, you’d just call the new, composite, country “Of Canada”? 
Actually, now that I’ve said it in my head a few times, it kinda works…
“Public domain”? Oh, please.
Now, I don’t know either way. Perhaps the original designer did give permission and is delighted to see so many people distributing his work.
However, I’ve created lots of web graphics, and people who want to steal them can do so (and have done so), much to my annoyance. It’s really easy to wipe out a signature on a graphic with Photoshop. It’s also really easy to pretend that you “own” the rights to a graphic when you do not. It’s also illegal.
The rule of thumb when distributing this sort of work is to NEVER republish it unless you KNOW that you have permission from the original artist. It can be (legally) very perilous to not get permission. This map graphic is obviously a copy of the one done (supposedly) by this Webb guy. It’s not a similar but different graphic, it’s the same one.
Some people assume that if a graphic is distributed around enough, it’s “public domain.” They assume that if they got it off of someone’s skeevy little “web graphics freeware that I collected off the Internet” site, then it’s public domain. But chances are, it’s not. People can be very ignorant about what work is public domain and what isn’t. Just because it’s floating around and no one’s sure of who did it, it isn’t automatically in public domain.
Now, I can’t speak for what Moore did. For all I know he got written permission from the original artist to publish the graphic. But at this point, I don’t know, and I can’t see that anyone else knows either. And from a legal standpoint, publishing something when you don’t know for 100% that it’s in the public domain (or that you have permission to use it) is a foolish thing to do. Don’t have any idea if this applies to Moore, however.
Leaving aside your first two examples (with whose characterizations I disagree, but that’s been hashed over enough in other threads) how exactly is that unethical?
The “signature” appears to have been added to the version of the graphic currently on the G. Webb site, not deleted from the version used by Moore. I first saw this image the day after the election, and at that time there was no text on it other than the names of the countries.
“I asked for a decaf cafe latte; this is a capuchino, you imbecile!” — spoiled little beenie-wearing snot in Richie Rich. What do I look like, your shoe polish boy?
Okay, so you concede that you were basically talking out of your ass when you claimed that Moore stole the image from them/
Actually, a couple of pieces on NPR have stated that the youth turnout was higher than ever before, both in numbers and as a percentage of available voters. It just got offset by a higher turnout in all other age categories as well. Everyone came out for this one.
The youth turnout was higher in numbers, yes, but percentage-wise was the same as in 2000.
And the youth were very, very wise.
In fairness to Mike, it should be pointed out that as a member of the working class he doesn’t consider himself a liberal.
[Scroll down to near the bottom for his words in answer to a question on education.]
He didn’t “dupe” any soldiers. That AG footage was not shot by Moore, nor was it shot at the instigation of Moore. It was sent to him by somebody else and it belonged to that person not the soldiers in the pictures or to MM.
There also wasn’t any abuse in the footage that rose to any level that would have required “reporting.” Even if Moore had reported it he woukd have been accused of grandstanding and self-promotion.
There was no copyright violation in Moore using that footage, nor was it necessary for him to get permission from the soldiers unless you think all of te media should have to get permission to use any footage of war (including the Abu Ghraib torture photos).
You’re the one making the claim. Put up or shut up.
But that’s the only way Liberal knows!
All this chatter about copyrights and stolen images is quite beside the point. The bottom line is, Michael Moore is a ruthless, utterly unscrupulous opportunist. Liberals and Democrats cynically embraced him because they thought he was politically useful. Well, he has proved himself to be not only disgusting, but politically ineffective, as well.
I suggest that it is time Libs and Dems start to distance themselves from this multimillionaire lardbutt posing as a blue-collar lardbutt. I mean, really - if Michael Moore came to your home, you would not even let him sit on your nice furniture.
That proves absolutely nothing, either way.
It’s easy to add or delete a signature such as that. It can be done in a few minutes. We won’t know the chonology of that graphic, and we might never know, unless the original artist comes forward and provides the source file (perhaps a higher-res Photoshop with intact layers?).
I don’t know whether Moore swiped the graphic without permission. Part of me thinks it’s unlikely that he’d be so foolish as to do that, so perhaps he got permission. But, it’s not the first time that a graphic circulates and people assume it’s “public domain” when it’s really not, so who knows?
I am by no means Mickey’s number one fan, but if he popped round, I’d extend to him the hand of hospitality as I would to anyone else, even Starving Artist.
However, I would “go Japanese” and we’d sit on the floor. Just being practical.
If I may paraphrase the old saying:
“Oh, what a stupid web we weave,
When first we try to figure out why other people do what they do when we don’t have the slightest portion of a clue.”
Not as catchy as the original, I admit, but still.
What? No more romantic images of him in his garret with his paint-stained smock, his tumber of port, his Gitanes?
That’s what you say. What he said was that some of the soldiers didn’t know that they were speaking to a film crew that was working with him.
I didn’t say he shot the film. What he did was infiltrate by some method that he will not reveal, and then misrepresent himself in order to manipulate the soldiers to say something he could use. It’s not that he investigated objectively and came to conclusions; it’s that he took his conclusions to the task, and formulated what he could use to support his conclusion. He did the very thing you might condemn someone else for doing.
If that’s the case, then why did he use it? And why, when asked, did he not simply say what you said, rather than that he didn’t trust the mainstream media? I mean, that reeked of irony inasmuch as he was making the rounds of the mainstream media to promote his movie when he said he didn’t trust them.
And so? All that remark does is condemn him all the more. I mean, you’re saying that he weighed the ethics of whether to report what he saw, and in the end decided to cover his own ass.
I didn’t say anything about permission. It’s about deceit. It would be like me being here pretending to be an ordinary poster when I was actually an agent of the CIA gathering information about what is being posted here.
I showed you the picture with the claim of ownership. If you now claim the ownership is fraudulent, then you’ve made a claim of your own, and YOU should put up or shut up.