For Sale: I'm a Terrorist not a Photographer

Not sure what this means ?

Not sure what 'on the side of the everyday street snapper means' ?

How are the papers 'on the side' of anyone ?

And what about councils and Microsoft and McDonald's and Canadian Airlines and Wallmart and Café Nero and Starbucks and Ogilvy and the BNP and the Conservative Party and General Motors and EMI records and Apple and Unilever and Barclays and so on ?

Would open access (through third parties) and fee free usage get them on the side of the everyday street snapper ?

I am not sure I have understood your point (honestly not sarcastically) ?

How many sentences can you end with a question mark in a single post ?

Like, 55 ?

I was musing out loud really. The state can be pulled to rights by the usage of footage taken by everyday by street snappers and holiday makers. the abuse suffered by the protesters at the hands of the police at the G20 was a good example.

so with that in mind my other braincell got that warm fuzzy feeling and started figuring out how the change of copyright law on images (&video) in the public domain could lead to more of these photos./videos being used by papers to build cases protecting our interests against the state.

the two videos posted on here are already doing that job, the guardian did great things on "our" behalf. there is also the impact of blogs and online news, not just the tabloids.
If Al Qaeda can organise armys and train them all to blow up people on a global scale via a few blogs and txt messages, surly we must be able to organise a protest against state changes?

Then i realised, in a sudden cold panic, i didn't understand in depth the legal standings today of using photos published on sharing websites. they could already be free?
Then after spending so long on this thread, and having written some words in the box down the bottom i decided to carry on.

I figured no fucking lack of information was going to stop me from making a point, besides it could raise a question or 55??