Can you visualize a trip to the airport?
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Viacom v. Youtube
SO... the case of Viacom v. Youtube was about the use of Spongebob on Youtube and how Youtube was infringing on Viacom's copyright laws on Spongebob. Viacom claimed that Youtube was creating hyperlinks from the Spongebob videos and directing users to Youtube's website, thus gaining Youtube revenue from their ads which should be Viacom's. The court's decision was in favor of Youtube due to the fact that. The hyperlinks are created by the website and then sent to search engines and other places where they would be viewed, and that it was not Youtube's responsibility to monitor all of the videos.
I agree with the courts decision in this case. But for personal reasons, copyright laws and actions that companies take over them seem ridiculous and greedy to me sometimes... I think that if you create media or art you should copyright because if someone claims it to be there own and make money off of it, you rightfully deserve that profit. But when companies like Viacom sue Youtube or other websites for hosting small clips from their shows or things it's absurd. I don't understand what the big deal is. I think people should be paid for art and media that they create, but Viacom is worth roughly $28,000,000,000 and it annoys me that they would rather make a few bucks, than let people enjoy what they have created. Overall I just think cases like this are just money-obssesed companies caring more about money than people.
SO... the case of Viacom v. Youtube was about the use of Spongebob on Youtube and how Youtube was infringing on Viacom's copyright laws on Spongebob. Viacom claimed that Youtube was creating hyperlinks from the Spongebob videos and directing users to Youtube's website, thus gaining Youtube revenue from their ads which should be Viacom's. The court's decision was in favor of Youtube due to the fact that. The hyperlinks are created by the website and then sent to search engines and other places where they would be viewed, and that it was not Youtube's responsibility to monitor all of the videos.
I agree with the courts decision in this case. But for personal reasons, copyright laws and actions that companies take over them seem ridiculous and greedy to me sometimes... I think that if you create media or art you should copyright because if someone claims it to be there own and make money off of it, you rightfully deserve that profit. But when companies like Viacom sue Youtube or other websites for hosting small clips from their shows or things it's absurd. I don't understand what the big deal is. I think people should be paid for art and media that they create, but Viacom is worth roughly $28,000,000,000 and it annoys me that they would rather make a few bucks, than let people enjoy what they have created. Overall I just think cases like this are just money-obssesed companies caring more about money than people.
Image Editing Websites
I used the first image and edited it in Picnik. I only used a few effects but I really like my final product.
Basic Edits:
Soft Blur
Orton-ish
I took the Rodeo Boys picture and edited it in iPiccy. I wasn't as satisfied as I wanted to be with the final product, but none of the effects I used on it felt right. In the end, I just went with the classic picture feel but I would've liked something else... I just don't know what.
Basic Edits:
Old Timey Photo
Basic Effects:
Reduced hue and saturation
For the final picture I used the free Photoshop Express Editor. I'm not sure if I like my City picture or this one the best, but I do really enjoy what I did with this one! I felt like I didn't use enough effects and edits in the other pictures so I used more on this one. But I honestly can't remember which ones! Sorry!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)