Appeals court spares Google from $20m patent payout over Chrome Six years after a jury decided otherwise, Google has convinced an appeals court to reverse a $20 million patent judgment against the web giant. For the record, $20 million represents less than three hours of Google parent Alphabet's annual $60 billion profit, in a case that kicked off a decade or so ago. A US Court of Appeals …
Shutterstock: Young hispanic woman holding stapler isolated on blue background pointing temple with finger, thinking, focused on a task.
Bad art is BAD.
Not that this is art. It's bad image manipulation. The proportions of the limbs to the body are just wrong. There are billions of good, free, opensource images in the world. Why put a bad image on your front page?
To cut costs? Or maybe to undercut your reputation?
" It's bad image manipulation. The proportions of the limbs to the body are just wrong."
So your argument is reality is wrong? Because it seems consistent with (i) other (ii) images of her, and also with many years of drawing humans.
Do you have serious evidence of manipulation? Why bother with the kind of manipulation you suggest? There's not the money in it. Take some photos, pay the model, and whack it on line, and hope it sells.
(I admit, I used to have this problem myself when I first starting drawing people. perspective + varied human body = bitch)
The Reg decided a few years ago that every article must be accompanied by an image. You know, for the "image-rich UI" that became trendy, or something. Prior to this decision, only a few articles had images, i.e. only if it was actually relevant, or if they could mock something up in playmobil.
So they bought a subscription to shitterstock, and these days I am often embarassed to share a link to El Reg on WhatsApp or Slack etc, because even if there is no image in the article, it will post a huge, irrelevant shutterstock piece of crap which completely detracts from the focus of the article I am trying to share.
If these patents had been held to be valid, anyone who uses Chrome would be potentially infringing. Although the rightsholders would be unlikely to go after just anyone, the fear factor would probably give Chrome popularity a hit.
Also: it's a pity the patent office doesn't spend more time checking the validity of stuff at a time of issue, instead of waiting for the courts to argue it out later.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
