June 30, 2017
Posted by: J Greely at Fri Jun 30 17:28:04 2017 (JkjJR)
I normally use Epic as my browser, but google disallows image searches via Epic so I did it in Opera (which I almost never use for anything) and this is the first page...
There was a Bettaman/Corbis credit on the Daily Mail article, but that isn't the artist.
According to the wikipedia article Corbis owns the Bettamann archive and Corbis doesn't do the licensing gig anymore.
How is Getty involved?
Given that in this context its a relevant example commentary on a specifc weird search result, it might actually be fair use. OTOH, being painted in 1900 would put it in the public domain. OTGH January first is a suspicious date.
Perhaps Pixy can make a call. Otherwise I'll just delete the post.
Why is life so complicated?
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Fri Jun 30 21:21:25 2017 (KicmI)
Posted by: J Greely at Sat Jul 1 00:36:54 2017 (tgyIO)
Take a photo of the screen. Draw a monocle and a moustache on the heffalump. Take a photo of that, send it back in time by Weeping Angel Parcel Service (WAPS!), and use it to sue the Daily Mail for infringement. (They're used to it.)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sat Jul 1 00:38:04 2017 (PiXy!)
What do you get if you click on "Medium" right next to the thumbnail?
1: An angry medium with a bruised cuticle.
3: One excuse amongst the many for why no spirits were contacted that doesn't actually involve special pleading.
4: No refund.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Sat Jul 1 06:28:51 2017 (KicmI)
I see there is a Getty stamp on one of them now, but the others had nothing or the Bettaman/Corbin stamp or nothing at all.
Does this jive with what you're seeing?
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Sat Jul 1 06:34:21 2017 (KicmI)
I may need a walkthrough on that. Parts of it sound risky.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Sat Jul 1 06:36:15 2017 (KicmI)
Posted by: J Greely at Sat Jul 1 10:18:22 2017 (tgyIO)
68 queries taking 0.1277 seconds, 271 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.