taylor price
blake kathryn
One Nice Bug Per Day
titsay
🪼
⁂
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
Today's Document
DEAR READER
#extradirty
No title available
Mike Driver
todays bird
JBB: An Artblog!
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
styofa doing anything
Kiana Khansmith
ojovivo
tannertan36
Sweet Seals For You, Always
seen from United States
seen from Finland
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Taiwan
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Poland
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Netherlands
seen from Portugal
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from United States
@threefivezeroonetwofive-blog
u know someone is having a rough day when their favorite song plays and they don’t sing along
No one will understand how much this just broke my heart.
this post got 500 thousand notes bc people think it’s some profound observation but it’s actually about my mother not singing along to fergalicious in the car bc she was mad at me..
King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard - Muckraker
How do they even get in there
drake in the anaconda video and van gogh’s ‘at eternity’s gate’
Electric Feel (shagabond edit) // Henry Green
Killer Mike is fucking awesome.
via bokunokanshou
Wurster Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1966
(Joseph Esherick, Donald Olsen, Vernon DeMars)
Ralston Purina Headquarters, St. Louis, Missouri, 1971
(Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum)
So photographer David Slater wants Wikipedia to remove a monkey selfie that was taken with his camera. As you can see from this screen shot, Wikipedia says no: the monkey pressed the shutter so it owns the copyright.
We got NPR’s in-house legal counsel, Ashley Messenger, to weigh in. She said:
Traditional interpretation of copyright law is that the person who captured the image owns the copyright. That would be the monkey. The photographer’s best argument is that the monkey took the photo at his direction and therefore it’s work for hire. But that’s not a great argument because it’s not clear the monkey had the intent to work at the direction of the photographer nor is it clear there was “consideration” (value) exchanged for the work. So… It’s definitely an interesting question! Or the photographer could argue that leaving the camera to see what would happen is his work an therefore the monkey’s capture of the image was really the photographer’s art, but that would be a novel approach, to my knowledge.
Reader’s Digest Building, Sydney, Australia, 1960s
(John James & Associates)
TOILET PAPER MAGAZINE
