Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

An Interesting Lesson On Using Other Peoples' Images Without Their Permission

Yeah, no. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/
"Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism."
Click to expand...
So yeah, the law does "make a distinction." And it's almost to the letter of what you're describing. Add to that I'll bet you never actually went through the paperwork of registering a copyright on whatever snapshot apparently has you butthurt today, which weakens your case considerably.

Add to that the logistics and difficulties of bringing a case where there was no financial loss on your part or gain on the defendant's part; that you've never met--or even have contact information for--the defendants, and establishing a jurisdiction to bring the suit in and I wouldn't be surprised if the judge laughed at you too.
 
It really wasn't that good a troll. It was a more than 2 month old dead post that no one cared about that you bumped that no one still cared about. :borg:
 
Actually, it snared ol' Din-Din. Sometimes the dead threads come back, if you get the right nincompoop stumbling along. Then they can leap up and shamble around biting people and bumping into the furniture.
 
Really, it's kind of like donating to the Special Olympics: I don't do it because I love seeing the Special Olympics or have been particularly persuaded by their sales pitch, I do it because I feel sorry for the retards.
 
They're not really retards. It's a ploy to get you to donate. When you're not looking, they're perfectly normal.

And laughing at you.
 
Volpone said:
Yeah, no. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/

So yeah, the law does "make a distinction." And it's almost to the letter of what you're describing. Add to that I'll bet you never actually went through the paperwork of registering a copyright on whatever snapshot apparently has you butthurt today, which weakens your case considerably.

Add to that the logistics and difficulties of bringing a case where there was no financial loss on your part or gain on the defendant's part; that you've never met--or even have contact information for--the defendants, and establishing a jurisdiction to bring the suit in and I wouldn't be surprised if the judge laughed at you too.
Click to expand...

More than that. In Lenz v Universal Music Group it was ruled that Fair Use is an assertive right, not just a defense against copyright. In other words it is free speech and parties that sue or use other methods to intimidate people to remove, delete or otherwise give up their fair use can be countersued for it.

IOW this thread is Castle standing on a sidewalk, pointing a gun at his head and screaming 'No one move or the retard gets it!' while everyone just walks on by.
 
Ancalagon said:
More than that. In Lenz v Universal Music Group it was ruled that Fair Use is an assertive right, not just a defense against copyright. In other words it is free speech and parties that sue or use other methods to intimidate people to remove, delete or otherwise give up their fair use can be countersued for it.

IOW this thread is Castle standing on a sidewalk, pointing a gun at his head and screaming 'No one move or the retard gets it!' while everyone just walks on by.
Click to expand...

You clearly need a refresher on what Fair Use permits and what it doesn't.

(Spoiler: "I saw it online, so I can do whatever I want with it without the subject's consent!" isn't how it works.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top