Another example, there is no unifying theory in physics. Particle physics seems to work pretty well, as does quantum physics. A person could create a similar grey scale with those, showing a nebulous confusing void between the two, and no one (yet) could challenge it, but that doesn’t mean that either end of the spectrum stops having meaning.
“at what point is this image copyright infringment”
At whatever point the MPAA, RIAA, whatever, decide it is, you economy-destroying-workplace-steeling-pirate scum.
9th pic from the bottom. I teach copyright law at a Law school. Item in question must meet a set criteria, but ultimately I feel that that image is sufficiently definitive on its protected content. I could be wrong and the law varies according to country in question, though from the Berne convention on it has been slowly homogenising.
I don’t get the point.
Copyright infringement is mostly dumb, but this is not a good counter-argument.
It reminds me of the halfway paradox (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#The_dichotomy_paradox); it’s clever, and I can’t disprove it, but it’s also dumb and doesn’t apply to the real world in any usable way.
Another example, there is no unifying theory in physics. Particle physics seems to work pretty well, as does quantum physics. A person could create a similar grey scale with those, showing a nebulous confusing void between the two, and no one (yet) could challenge it, but that doesn’t mean that either end of the spectrum stops having meaning.
“at what point is this image copyright infringment”
At whatever point the MPAA, RIAA, whatever, decide it is, you economy-destroying-workplace-steeling-pirate scum.
9th pic from the bottom. I teach copyright law at a Law school. Item in question must meet a set criteria, but ultimately I feel that that image is sufficiently definitive on its protected content. I could be wrong and the law varies according to country in question, though from the Berne convention on it has been slowly homogenising.