I'm a software engineer / ux designer / graphic designer. I've worked in marketing before. This is what news organizations and publications do.. they pull content from stock sites.
Nothing they have posted is stolen. Have you gone through their faq?
"Information presented on or via DVIDS is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified"
"DVIDS receives content from many branches and offices of the DoD and U.S. Federal Government. In general, all content on DVIDS is in the Public Domain."
Your argument might end up being that they presented the information as their own. What we're saying is.. is ALL of their content from stock sites? It doesn't seem like it and there's nothing to show that's true.
There is no evidence for your point though? You said they STOLE that content from those sources... you can't steal public content. Marketing/publications use stock resources all the time. If you think that is nefarious. It explains why you think you're right.
You fundamentally do not understand how marketing works and are basing your argument off that wrong pretense.
Did you prove every image they posted is from a stock site? Have you tried to confirm that some of their images are original content they took? I don't think so..
I’ve read most of the threads. I refresh GAW all day.
I'm a software engineer / ux designer / graphic designer. I've worked in marketing before. This is what news organizations and publications do.. they pull content from stock sites.
Nothing they have posted is stolen. Have you gone through their faq?
https://www.dvidshub.net/about/faq
"Information presented on or via DVIDS is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified"
"DVIDS receives content from many branches and offices of the DoD and U.S. Federal Government. In general, all content on DVIDS is in the Public Domain."
Your argument might end up being that they presented the information as their own. What we're saying is.. is ALL of their content from stock sites? It doesn't seem like it and there's nothing to show that's true.
There is no evidence for your point though? You said they STOLE that content from those sources... you can't steal public content. Marketing/publications use stock resources all the time. If you think that is nefarious. It explains why you think you're right.
You fundamentally do not understand how marketing works and are basing your argument off that wrong pretense.
Did you prove every image they posted is from a stock site? Have you tried to confirm that some of their images are original content they took? I don't think so..