robert

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jun 28, 2000

Comments

Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3
In reply to:

robert: I hope the RNC continues to do what they are doing, i.e. lifting photos online emboldened by this ruling. When they lift ones from some bigger names, like Getty which presumably have more resources to seek legal recourse in a court of law, let's see if a different ruling that's more equitable to the content creator and copyright holder would follow.

It's a balance of freedom of speech and protection of intellectual property. That's why it's mostly allowed to critique by quoting some text verbatim or what some Youtubers do with reactionary video, providing a critique while playing parts of a movie or video.

Is political ad considered a critique? I guess my use of the word ad negates that.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2019 at 19:04 UTC
In reply to:

robert: I hope the RNC continues to do what they are doing, i.e. lifting photos online emboldened by this ruling. When they lift ones from some bigger names, like Getty which presumably have more resources to seek legal recourse in a court of law, let's see if a different ruling that's more equitable to the content creator and copyright holder would follow.

Who appointed the judge is irrelevant to my discussion. Regarding the linked article, I am of a different opinion to the judge. The judge thought that the defendant did it in good faith and wasn't aware its copyright. I found this pretty laughable, not aware of the law is not an excuse to commit an offense. The defendant took it down not because he acted in good faith rather because he was caught. The judge says the photographer made money with the image before and after this alleged copyright infringement so the photographer isn't hurt financially anyway. So the judge makes the decision you made enough money and totally ignores the fact that you could and should have get paid one more time. All in all a judge is a judge. But I think this kind of decision should be challenged by some deep pocket overzealous copyright holder. It swings too much in the direction of and in the name of fair use and makes a total mockery of it and the content creator.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2019 at 15:17 UTC

I hope the RNC continues to do what they are doing, i.e. lifting photos online emboldened by this ruling. When they lift ones from some bigger names, like Getty which presumably have more resources to seek legal recourse in a court of law, let's see if a different ruling that's more equitable to the content creator and copyright holder would follow.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2019 at 14:19 UTC as 49th comment | 4 replies
Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3