Drudge: PhotoShop Phreak!

[CagedTroll]

There's been some odd photos of Kerry on Matt Drudge's website lately. I just wanted to remind everyone that [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]. And then he hates to admit it. That's the kind o' guy he is: pathological!

[mayor]

Liberal media envy. Saw a report recently that showed what percentage of the time journalists and major media outlets are correct on the stories they print. Drudge came out on the high end, like it or not.

In this case, Drudge changed the photo so he could use it on his site without messing with copyright. It's perfectly legit and it did not affect the point of the story one iota. Unlike Liberals who alter the truth in order to make it fit their preconceived notions, ala F911.

Pathological = Bill Clinton
Pathological = Ted Turner
Pathological = John and Teresa Kerry
Pathological = Teddy Kennedy
Pathological = Al Gore
Pathological = Leftist extremists
Pathological = Michael Moore
Pathological = Moveon.org

You've got more than enough coconuts in your tree. :-)

[twonky]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

There's been some odd photos of Kerry on Matt Drudge's website lately. I just wanted to remind everyone that [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]. And then he hates to admit it. That's the kind o' guy he is: pathological!

That is strange why he would do that. I don't understand some people. They want to come off as objective and sometimes make some good strides in that direction. Why do they have to have their credibility questioned by doing stupid things like this.

[CagedTroll]

Originally Posted by mayor

In this case, Drudge changed the photo so he could use it on his site without messing with copyright. It's perfectly legit and it did not affect the point of the story one iota. Unlike Liberals who alter the truth in order to make it fit their preconceived notions, ala F911.

Actually, whether it's a violation or not is a question. "This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part..." There's something I haven't read in a while..., "Guidelines for Fair Use", which the Drudge-work doesn't qualify for, since there's plenty of pictures of Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly that are "public domain". Using them wouldn't have affected the point of the story either. And "Fair Use" still requires giving credit to the copyright holder.

And by saying "pathological" I meant to imply "dishonesty for NO logical reason". Clinton, et al, had reasons for lying. Drudge could have used the original photo, unaltered, and given credit to Tom Tomorrow without spending a dime or facing criminal charges, just by invoking "fair use".

Sing to ME of copyright law!

[mayor]

By pathological I mean.. "caused by or evidencing a mentally disturbed condition"

As far as "fair use" is concerned, odds are he didn't want to give credit to the person who took the photo, for whatever reason. I think copyright law is still very gray on just how much needs to be changed from the original work in order to make it fair use, and not require credit.

Regardless, where's the story here?

[mayfly]

Originally Posted by twonky

That is strange why he would do that. I don't understand some people. They want to come off as objective and sometimes make some good strides in that direction. Why do they have to have their credibility questioned by doing stupid things like this.

I agree, thats why I thought it was ludicrous the manipulation Michael Moore was doing in his movie.

[luvmetender]

Mayor is back from vacation