Gallery image 2

all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 19 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Why is that mildly infuriating? Personally I think it's actually kinda cool that they're okay preserving the attribution for the artwork like that. Photographer is probably a Syrian national, so it still honors the nation and all that.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    The person you're responding to is a reddit reposter, so it's probably not their post. If I had to guess the OOP might be upset since apparently the name is a "watermark" which might indicate that the photographer was not paid for the use of the photo and that's why the passport only has the watermarked version.

    Just a guess. You could probably find the OG post on Reddit if you want to give that a try.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

    I see. Yea that makes sense, thanks.

    I figured they were just okay giving out the free advertising to one of their own. But stolen also makes sense.

    Honestly someone should just look up the photographer, email him and politely ask him if he was paid or not.

    edit: Likely case: They asked him for it and he happily donated it, so long as they kept the watermark, and they were totally cool with that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

    national honor is entirely inedible

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 hours ago*

    Right, but free advertising in every Syrian passport will help his business, which will make money, which can buy food, which is edible.

    Giving the photographer the credit for his work is a win-win for everyone involved.

    edit: Ooooh do you think the watermark means they stole it and never paid him? I didn't consider that possibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    You posted this 2 hours ago. Why did you feel the need to do so again?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments