It's only a model...
Uncommon, some wear on the edges.
First game: TI Invaders (Space Invaders knock-off) for the TI-99 "home computer". Either that or the Pac-Man built into the glass-top tables at Mr. Gatti's Pizza.
First console: NES
First world-altering game secret: JUSTIN BAILEY
First Arcade: Aladdin's Palace
First "mature" game: Leisure Suit Larry
First PC: 386SX 16 mHz w/40 MB HDD, Win 3.0, & 640x480 VGA baby!
First FPS: Wolfenstein 3D
First game mastered: Street Fighter II Turbo - Hyper Fighting (SNES)
First LAN deathmatch: Duke Nukem 3D
Great Game Reawakening: Living in an apartment with all sixth generation consoles and 3 gaming rigs.
New Systems: Wii, DS.
Somehow now owns: PS3
Randomly owns: SEGA Nomad, Game Gear, Genesis II, Sega CD
Cannot afford but is thinking about intercepting return RROD coffin: Xbox 360.
Currently playing: Rock Band, Zack & Wiki, Unreal Tournament III
MaxVest's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
Second, although I agree with DaedHead8's appraisal of the photo quality, under US law at least, the photographer would have copyright automatically. Under Indian law might be a different matter.
this shit hits close to home with me since i am a photographer. i have a photo-blog with my pictures on there, so i can be easily contacted for permission to use any of my stuff if somebody wants to. using a Google Images search is no excuse! when you click an image, it shows you the page it comes from. just calling it a "careless" practice does not change what it is...
no credit given to the photographer = theft.
I'm not saying that it isn't illegal, and if the bloggers have an issue with it, they should certainly stick up for their rights. However, how many blogs out there grab whatever silly picture they can find on Google images without any regard for the original author? When images are copied from other sites that copied from other sites, it gets really hard to actually enforce stuff. The primary defense here has to be the photographer themselves, because if the internet has taught me anything, it's that digital copyright has never been taken seriously.
there's a difference between random photoshopped images and photographs.
Why should there be a difference? Making a really good shop takes as much skill as taking a really great photo so why should shop artists get the short end of the stick?
I appreciate that you're a photographer and that this issue may very well be a matter of your livelihood. Copyright infringement, however, is not theft. That doesn't mean it is acceptable behavior, but there are important differences. Theft is the taking of property, depriving you of the opportunity to enjoy it. The theft of a painting, for example, means it's gone. You don't get to look at it. Copyright Infringement is an unauthorized use of a work of authorship. You still have your painting, but someone went and made a poster print of it. Outside of the copyright act, you didn't lose anything, and the sharing of information is a net benefit to society. But way back when, they realized that many more people would make many more works of art if they could get $$$ to do so, or so the theory goes. So they set up the copyright act, giving you limited control of your work for a limited (in theory, at least) time. In American Law--unlike in Europe--nobody truly "owns" a work of authorship. It belongs to everyone; someone just has the right to control it for a while.
Of course, if you license your work for money, infringement does mean somebody's ripping you off. So the fact that infringement is not theft is a matter of semantics, but it's an important one. At least the RIAA thinks so; they've knowingly run propaganda campaigns equating downloading songs with theft.
But damn it, you're stealing my time! I'm supposed to be packing right now. I DEMAND that you give it back!