[acomjean]

I'm curious how just using a photo makes it "transformative". Those photos look straight up taken from one site and used on the next.

(I ask as someones who's flickr photos ended up on the front page of a local paper... and was mildly annoyed, but it was promoting an event I work on.. had they just asked....)

News organizations and documentaries pay lots of money to clear and use old stock news photos.

I do enjoy the critique though...

[Amorymeltzer]

For one, she frequently marks up the photos with arrows and text, most of which is uniquely humorous while also being educational. No one would mistake her images for a promotional piece, or anything other than satire, comedy, and education.

[obsurveyor]

> I'm curious how just using a photo makes it "transformative". Those photos look straight up taken from one site and used on the next.

The photos are annotated for the article. That's not a straight rip, definitely some transformation going on.

[hedora]

Her use does not compete with the copyright holder's use -- no one is going to buy her house or fail to license the photos because of the blog. (They may decide not to buy the McMansion because of the blog, but trying to use copyright to silence critiques of a house won't fly in court).

That argument does not apply to your photo, or stock photos from an archive. The distinction matters in the eyes of the law.