Conversation

Notices

1. Foone🏳️‍⚧️ (foone@digipres.club)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 16:35:52 JST Foone🏳️‍⚧️

   do you ever think about how much time would be saved if everyone got like 1% less up their ass about copyright just enough to let us have high-quality copies of covers and posters for representational purposes.

   • Foone🏳️‍⚧️ (foone@digipres.club)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 16:37:01 JST Foone🏳️‍⚧️

     in reply to

     it's a world which is mainly different by Wikipedia having full-size scans of posters book/dvd/cd covers, but it's one where so much time is saved whenever you want to talk about a cover, because you can just easily find a copy.

   • Foone🏳️‍⚧️ (foone@digipres.club)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 16:38:42 JST Foone🏳️‍⚧️

     in reply to

     because it's not like those images aren't out there. They're in other sites or they're in IMDB if you have an extension or screw with the content inspector.
     And no one really cares. You don't get a DMCA to your tweet for including a halfway decent cover image instead of the Wikipedia-safe 250x250 thumbnail. because nobody really cares.

   • Foone🏳️‍⚧️ (foone@digipres.club)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 16:39:21 JST Foone🏳️‍⚧️

     in reply to

     they care JUST ENOUGH to keep there from being a common free repository of all of these things, on wikipedia or elsewhere, thus making it always SLIGHTLY A PAIN.

   • Foone🏳️‍⚧️ (foone@digipres.club)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 16:41:16 JST Foone🏳️‍⚧️

     in reply to

     because sure it just takes 30 seconds to a couple minutes to track down a publisher site or a ebay listing with a good photograph, or someone else who did that work for you and posted the full quality on their twistragramtodonblr.

     It's not that hard, it doesn't take too long, it's just the annoyance of how often I have to do this.

   • Foone🏳️‍⚧️ (foone@digipres.club)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 16:41:51 JST Foone🏳️‍⚧️

     in reply to

     Like, come on. Publishers. You have lost the "don't publish good pictures of our books" battle that you were apparently fighting for some reason. Please just relax an extra percentage point and let this being easy, instead of a mild annoyance EVERY SINGLE TIME.

   • Foone🏳️‍⚧️ (foone@digipres.club)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 16:43:09 JST Foone🏳️‍⚧️

     in reply to

     anyway I'm highly annoyed I can't find a high quality version of this variant cover of a late-80s republishing of a 1984 young adult novel.
     what is the world fucking coming to, indeed.

   • Foone🏳️‍⚧️ (foone@digipres.club)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 16:44:55 JST Foone🏳️‍⚧️

     in reply to

     • joël

     @jollysea It gets more fun when you have a print edition. How do you keep the image from staying in the paper version after the 30 days are up? simple: you're not allowed to put it in there in the first place.

     The contracts with three separate entities combined to make us have to publish a print edition of a book where half the images where an empty box and "image not available in the print edition"

   • joël (jollysea@chaos.social)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 16:44:56 JST joël

     in reply to

     @foone It's very weird. Movie companies tend to be quite "generous" to the press, but more and more they are like "you can use this for 30 days and then you have to take it offline".

     Well, we print a newspaper, do they expect us to clean up the pdfs after a month? Deleting what is basically publicity for their product?

     Some book publishers do this do, mostly with photos of authors.