![[challenge entry]](/images/board_posticon_c.gif "Challenge Entry: We Love David Sullivan"){kind=small}
He may be misunderstood...
From the We Love David Sullivan challenge. See all 407 entries (closed)
(
The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on,
Fri 18 Mar 2005, 18:22,
archived)
y'know,I've been thinking, if you have had your work stolen, I know you can't sue from the point of view that "this is entirely my work so I demand money" because most of the time it isn't. However you could look at it like you have been working for the star, photoshopping pictures on request but not recieving a penny for it, let them deal with the legalities of the source art... just a thought.
edit: all it takes is for one person to win a case like this, and image stealing would rapidly become a thing of the past.
(edit: all it takes is for one person to win a case like this, and image stealing would rapidly become a thing of the past.
SuperMatt,
Fri 18 Mar 2005, 18:28,
archived)
the thing isif they didn't delete tags I don't think people
would mind, or at least I wouldn't.
(would mind, or at least I wouldn't.
Purple Onion,
Fri 18 Mar 2005, 18:34,
archived)
but the thing isthey are removing them. We're actually at an advantage over them, we can leach them for money and finally sort out internet copyright laws once and for all!
( SuperMatt,
Fri 18 Mar 2005, 18:37,
archived)
I'm not sure it's so black and white.but there is a difference between taking a reuters photo and making it into a b3ta post and
stealing that same post for a commercial publication.
Sort of like downloading a CD then printing up a bunch of copies and selling them.
(stealing that same post for a commercial publication.
Sort of like downloading a CD then printing up a bunch of copies and selling them.
Purple Onion,
Fri 18 Mar 2005, 18:46,
archived)
what I'm saying iswe're essentially employees for the star or whatever but we're not getting paid for the work we're doing for them. What we're doing here isn't against the law because we're not making a profit, but we are getting exploited. we're having money taken right out from underneath us and no one is doing a thing about it.
If it was decided that the star should pay us for the work, the star should then also get sued for publishing bastardised works of other people for money. we'd be safe but the star wouldn't.
The courts would see two differnt cases:
1) not paying someone for their work (b3ta)
2) and not paying someone for their work (the original artist)
(If it was decided that the star should pay us for the work, the star should then also get sued for publishing bastardised works of other people for money. we'd be safe but the star wouldn't.
The courts would see two differnt cases:
1) not paying someone for their work (b3ta)
2) and not paying someone for their work (the original artist)
SuperMatt,
Fri 18 Mar 2005, 18:52,
archived)
There is also the fact that our use of existing images is often protected under fair use.Any shopped image that uses somebody else's intellectual property, is perfectly legal provided it's clearly intended as a parody of said intellectual property. Many of the creations on b3ta clearly fall under that heading.
This is more applicable to American b3tans, because American law is much clearer on the point, but it's still valid in the UK. Also, Cunty McFuckface or whatever his name is clearly happens to be a cockney wideboy prick and would probably have some difficulty representing himself in court in America. So Amerib3tans complaining about the right images would clearly have a much better case.
Also: does anybody have a library of the images he's stolen? I'd quite like to go through them and check for IP theft myself.
(,
Fri 18 Mar 2005, 19:00,
archived)
This is more applicable to American b3tans, because American law is much clearer on the point, but it's still valid in the UK. Also, Cunty McFuckface or whatever his name is clearly happens to be a cockney wideboy prick and would probably have some difficulty representing himself in court in America. So Amerib3tans complaining about the right images would clearly have a much better case.
Also: does anybody have a library of the images he's stolen? I'd quite like to go through them and check for IP theft myself.
Also:the original use of copyrighted photographs only becomes relevant if the original copyright holder actually takes you to court over it. It's not directly applicable if you try to sue the Daily Idiot, or whatever his paper is, but it might weaken your case slightly. And then it's up to the judge. Who should really dismiss it because it's not the instance in question and has no direct bearing.
(,
Fri 18 Mar 2005, 19:02,
archived)
Hooray for heart medicine gags!
Wasp Box like a nervous random stranger at a glory hole,
Fri 18 Mar 2005, 18:30,
archived)
yay for b3ta blockers!
great minds, and all that
bnt what, me worry?,
Fri 18 Mar 2005, 18:34,
archived)