bosnuk
User
Written at 10 Aug 2009 on 14:15
I was browsing Movie Poster Forums recently and found this topic with Martin and DrPeach vs. everyone else.
Okay, let's put the legal crap aside, the copyright laws are different everywhere. That wasn't the best part of the discussion.
What really amazes me is that everyone on that forum believes that a lousy 2000x3000 jpeg can be used as a good source for a reprint! Basically all the accusations were built on this. These reprints should look really bad. Such an image may look OK on a A4 or an A3, good for a cubicle, but of course not on a full-size one-sheet.
This story - about Moviegoods selling reprints made from Heritage jpegs - sounds too wild to be true. Can anyone confirm this?
Okay, let's put the legal crap aside, the copyright laws are different everywhere. That wasn't the best part of the discussion.
What really amazes me is that everyone on that forum believes that a lousy 2000x3000 jpeg can be used as a good source for a reprint! Basically all the accusations were built on this. These reprints should look really bad. Such an image may look OK on a A4 or an A3, good for a cubicle, but of course not on a full-size one-sheet.
This story - about Moviegoods selling reprints made from Heritage jpegs - sounds too wild to be true. Can anyone confirm this?