I thought as much for the photos Mr. Gumby ... when I first looked at them that is exactly what sprang to mind, that someone or other would take them and use them, and so I was a bit surprised that you shared them online. Our (family) media outlet (mentioned in another post) was in a middle-eastern country without copyright law (from before the gulf wars and on) ... so there was a competition between different outlets to get hold of the best pirate copy of say a new film, first. This was days of vhs and betamax, I remember receiving copies of films that had been filmed in the cinema, with people walking around in front of camera etc
. It was all friendly enough , you could go downtown to a music shop, give a worker a list of favourite songs, and they would record those to cassette in the act. When copyright was enacted eventually, corporate media moved in, megastores and so on... most of that eventually went to online... which is what has been sort of policed since. Personally, and I always do my best to respect other people's ownership of their work, I would rather there be no copyright law, only against fraud (pretending to be author of another's work for example) ...just because it is too much of an excuse for outside management of online content. If they want to prosecute someone filesharing for example , then they have to have access to private information online etc. Once that access is granted it can be misused. I was going to say there are acceptable ways to keep content clean (in all respects)... but then I look at what is presented online as mainstream and I just shake my head.
If you look at media, say news media, they have mostly all sold out, likely due to the change of income model, the reality of audience meaning revenue... instant catchy news instead of written to be printed next day. They spare the cost of journalism by all parroting the same news source, which is not good. That is just to say that no matter how protected their content is and how that should pay, it just ends up going down to clicks in the end. Most of the good sites I know rely on voluntary contributions as finance model. In short the internet is that way, if you place something on the web, half the world has access to it...if you display a picture you cannot charge after the fact, and you cannot stop someone "taking a photo" of that picture. They cannot figure a way around the new model where anyone can publish, compared to it being something slightly exclusive before with content only available after payment (for say a paper). That all feeds through to content providers also, music and photo for example... people will use whatever they find online, but attempts at paywalling quality tend to fail to one degree or another because there is so much alternative, and income competition to go with it. Publishers will pay still though, so I also understand why someone would want rights reserved, but even there it then becomes a walled garden "owned" by various interests, meaning they don't just control what is presented (for example careful promotion of a certain artist) but they also have the means to channel access of audience.
When I search up a paper (say academic), I scroll until I find a free version, and usually those versions are legitimately free access. What I notice though is that "illicit" free content sites are banned on search engine, though I imagine they must exist on the dark web or from countries without strict copyright law. It really underlines to me that what we see via the web is chosen for us. I have personally been shadow banned also ... which is a closer reminder.
So it's a strange new reality. I look at Kkrell's page and that reminds me how things used to be, very straightforward and deserving, where the effort of presentation is due its reward...but success nowadays is usually snapped up by competition, rights bought out by others and so on.
I'm sure some have a completely opposite view of it all, which obviously they are entitled to.
This takes me back to what music is, picturing before media to the time where there was only "live" music. In one post it was mentioned there was less, or little, talk about music... I don't know, I imagine there wasn't much talk before the web either, at least it would be at the pub, or between neighbours and so on. I think internet media raises people's expectations too high, because it is all instant and "perfected" with an air of being where it is all at... whereas before, music was mostly something for spare time for most people, for playing amongst friends and so on...which is closer to what it is about.
I also keep online presence as low as possible. One side of that is what is visible to others, the other side to it is the level of tracking that is possible and does go on. The tracking is supposed to be anonymous or "not noticeable", but I reject feeding any sort of information center with personal details of any kind beyond what is openly offered. Fortunately here in Portugal ID registry is not nescessary for mobile phone card /internet connections, but they are slowly moving that way with new obligatory access to telecom logs and so on. I watch that sort of information gathering creep, coming from Spain where it has become very centralised... and obvious. I have had conversations with intelligence officers (and even before that I was already approaching online with this attitude) who basically confirmed the level of access that is possible and routine when chosen . This was before Snowden even. The only sure approach is to consider anything on a computer connected to the internet as visible to others, including its camera and mic, but most people they really aren't that interesting for more capable access, mic recordings are just used to generate adds by computer, geolocation same, data harvesting is used to tailor products and target buyers and so on. I don't like the feeling of being part of that attention though.
Anyway, anything I put on line I count as "lost", and over time I think most people learn to tailor how they interact with online... I don't know though... I read how much TV people watch in the US say (and we don't have TV ) and I reckon if that extends to internet use then probably not.