Elon Musk posts about self driving car technology coming in the next 3 years (for 10 years): very technology related, super cool, straight to the front page! Take my money!
Elon Musk takes effective control of government functions by bribing incoming President, uses power to close investigations into his driverless car technology that is currently running amok on city streets causing death and destruction: not technology related, off topic and uninteresting. Downvote and flag.
TWFKAT (the website formerly known as Twitter) is not a product, it's Elon Musk's safe space. He bought it to be his sandbox and to use it to soothe his constantly battered and fragile ego. His own personal clubhouse where he sets the rules, and he's the ultimate authority. You can join if you want to be a part of his cult of personality, but don't fool yourself that you're dealing with a "product" and a "business".
Yes, it's called being a billionaire. I'm sure if clinicians actually studied this group of people, they would find strains of delusions of grandeur, paranoia, extreme risk taking behavior, lack of self control and self awareness, inability to deal with adversity and setbacks without emotional outbursts, inability to contain and dismiss intrusive antisocial thoughts.
I feel probably that the emotional maturity of most billionaires is at the toddler level or below, and I mean that quite seriously and literally.
That image is only on screen for like 2 seconds, but it tells a whole story and really pulled me into the film. The first half you're deep in the city, and then finally when you get to see it from afar, it seems like a whole real city instead of the few locales they shot. Also makes it feel like a continuity of our future instead of some random alien drama.
Imgur might be vastly underselling the richness of the image, depending on your browser/device. Definitely check out the full 4K version if you're only seeing a thumbnail on that page:
But is the cinematography there of any interest? Why would OP include it? They're talking about the hard shots, like the exploding spaceship where they need to find a spot in the desert to shoot dozens of mortars at it, or the crazy blue paint needing special UV light exposures to render just right. That looks like... a matte painting? A nice matte painting, sure, important for worldbuilding. But just that.
You're probably right that the shot isn't of interest to American Cinematographer magazine, which is why it's not included. I still think it's the best futurescape shot in the movie, serving to tie the rest of the first half together nicely.
Where are you going with this line of thought? That making a copy of someone's work, using it for profit and not crediting them doesn't "take" anything from them?
I find that these discussions at the intersection of art and law tend to blur technical and familiar uses of words. So it's important to specify what was actually taken here because otherwise the discussion becomes muddy.
"making a copy of someone's work, using it for profit and not crediting them" wasn't really the scenario being discussed in this thread -- is that what you meant by "taking"?
Steve had made the point:
Not every single thing in the entire world requires explicit consent.
But actually taking someone else's verbatim work and selling it as your own is one of those instances where consent would be required, because many people see a clear line between someone selling another author's work and the author not getting a dollar because of that.
That doesn't preclude other instance where explicit consent is not required. For example, do I need your consent to learn from your work and produce similar work of my own? Am I required to credit you in my work for having learned from you? Am I taking from you if I don't share my profits with you?
Some rights holders would say yes, actually. Which, I don't agree with. I think it's important that we not require the artist's explicit consent for all things, because listening to some of rights holders (e.g. Disney), they have very expansive ideas about what kind of control they are owed by society over their creations.
Therefore, I think if you're going to claim something has been taken, you should specify what exactly.
reply