Originally posted by mr. knowitall:

---

Look up Section 107 of the Copyright Act or Title 17 of the United States Code and you will see that I am completely correct and that images of actors CANNOT be used without their express written permission. As such again the EFF is going to lose this case and anyone with two brain cells and an ounce of sense can see by reading these two laws that MoveON.org broke the law.

---

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/...13----000-.html

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 113
§ 113. Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.

Quote:

---

(c) In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.

---

or.....

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/...07----000-.html

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Quote:

---

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

---

or.....

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/...06---A000-.html

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 106A
§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity

Quote:

---

(c) Exceptions.—
(3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).

---

or..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fa...ited_States_law

or......

http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html

Publicity and Privacy Rights of Individuals

Quote:

---

Almost half the states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission. In case you are wondering how the news media handle this, newspapers and news magazines have a "fair use" privilege to publish names or images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event.

---

or......

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/copothr.html

Privacy and Publicity Rights

Quote:

---

While copyright is a federally protected right under the United States Copyright Act, with statutorily described fair use defenses against charges of copyright infringement, neither privacy nor publicity rights are the subject of federal law. Note also that while fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, fair use is not a defense to claims of violation of privacy or publicity rights. Privacy and publicity rights are the subject of state laws. While many states have privacy and/or publicity laws, others do not recognize such rights or recognize such rights under other state laws or common law legal theories such as misappropriation and false representation. What may be permitted in one state may not be permitted in another. Note also that related causes of action may be pursued under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), for example, for unauthorized uses of a person's identity in order to create a false endorsement.

---

or.....

http://www.publaw.com/photo.html

Publication of Photographs: Is A Release Required?

Quote:

---

The author and publisher in deciding whether to publish a photograph of an individual or group of individuals must be aware of the dangers that arise from an unauthorized use that relates to an individual's right to privacy and publicity. Individuals who lead public lives, such as public officials and celebrities, have restricted rights of privacy, but they usually have broader rights of publicity. State laws govern the right of privacy and the right of publicity. Therefore, the right of privacy and publicity law and its interpretation will vary from state to state. However, countervailing to an individual's right of privacy and the right of publicity is the First Amendment that provides that publication of an individual's image for newsworthy purposes is permissible.

---

Come again?

BTW, obfuscating the issues in a debate by belittling others is a tell-tale sign of an inferior maturity standard and the lack of good character. This usually translates into said person being of adolescent age, which I find ironic because that is the image your are attempting to portray of those here who you seem to disagree with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mr. knowitall:

---

Look up Section 107 of the Copyright Act or Title 17 of the United States Code and you will see that I am completely correct and that images of actors CANNOT be used without their express written permission. As such again the EFF is going to lose this case and anyone with two brain cells and an ounce of sense can see by reading these two laws that MoveON.org broke the law.

---

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/...13----000-.html

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 113
§ 113. Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.

Quote:

---

(c) In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.

---

or.....

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/...07----000-.html

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Quote:

---

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

---

or.....

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/...06---A000-.html

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 106A
§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity

Quote:

---

(c) Exceptions.—
(3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).

---

or..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fa...ited_States_law

or......

http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html

Publicity and Privacy Rights of Individuals

Quote:

---

Almost half the states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission. In case you are wondering how the news media handle this, newspapers and news magazines have a "fair use" privilege to publish names or images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event.

---

or......

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/copothr.html

Privacy and Publicity Rights

Quote:

---

While copyright is a federally protected right under the United States Copyright Act, with statutorily described fair use defenses against charges of copyright infringement, neither privacy nor publicity rights are the subject of federal law. Note also that while fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, fair use is not a defense to claims of violation of privacy or publicity rights. Privacy and publicity rights are the subject of state laws. While many states have privacy and/or publicity laws, others do not recognize such rights or recognize such rights under other state laws or common law legal theories such as misappropriation and false representation. What may be permitted in one state may not be permitted in another. Note also that related causes of action may be pursued under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), for example, for unauthorized uses of a person's identity in order to create a false endorsement.

---

or.....

http://www.publaw.com/photo.html

Publication of Photographs: Is A Release Required?

Quote:

---

The author and publisher in deciding whether to publish a photograph of an individual or group of individuals must be aware of the dangers that arise from an unauthorized use that relates to an individual's right to privacy and publicity. Individuals who lead public lives, such as public officials and celebrities, have restricted rights of privacy, but they usually have broader rights of publicity. State laws govern the right of privacy and the right of publicity. Therefore, the right of privacy and publicity law and its interpretation will vary from state to state. However, countervailing to an individual's right of privacy and the right of publicity is the First Amendment that provides that publication of an individual's image for newsworthy purposes is permissible.

---

Come again?

BTW, obfuscating the issues in a debate by belittling others is a tell-tale sign of an inferior maturity standard and the lack of good character. This usually translates into said person being of adolescent age, which I find ironic because that is the image your are attempting to portray of those here who you seem to disagree with.

---

------------------------------

I find it ironic that the only person here that can be claimed to obfuscate the issue is the people that insist they can do what they want-when they want and with whatever image they want and they seemingly (in their minds) think they have a right to do it.

As I said before, if you feel froggy enough about this then do what the EFF has done and start a lawsuit, or at the very least; join theirs.

By your constant "Yes I can, oh yes I can" chant when the law clearly says "no you cannot" all you are doing is trying to drop this to the level of a grade school playground and spewing so much smoke and mirrors that you are hoping people will not read what the DMCA ssays about these images as well as what other settled court cases have stated in their denial of this mythical right you claim to have.

Like I said though, If the EFF wins (and the chances of this are better then 98% against them) I will come back and apologize. Are you and your buddies claiming this nonexistant right willing to make the same statement and do the same action when the EFF loses? Your answer will say quite a bit about you.

Legality largely depends on why the image is being taken and the venue. For example, many public sports/concert/festive, etc. events have the "small fine print" on the back of the ticket which allows implicit use of photographic images without compensation or identification.

If the photograph is being taken by a newspaper or media source,
it's usually for editorial purposes, so, no need for licensing or model releases.

However, if the picture(s) is(are) being taken/used for commercial
purposes (i.e., to sell image for profit or to promote a product),
not only may model releases be needed for the image, but also a licensing agreement may be needed with the holder of any intellectual property.

There's a bit of a grey area for those venues/places that allow patrons to bring in cameras for their events. Usually patrons and amateur photographers are nominally using the images for their own enjoyment, and not seeking monetarily benefit, IMHO there isn't a lot of (legal) attention paid to these particular situations and for good reason.

Originally posted by AUDIOMIND:

---

Legality largely depends on why the image is being taken and the venue. For example, many public sports/concert/festive, etc. events have the "small fine print" on the back of the ticket which allows implicit use of photographic images without compensation or identification.

If the photograph is being taken by a newspaper or media source,
it's usually for editorial purposes, so, no need for licensing or model releases.

However, if the picture(s) is(are) being taken/used for commercial
purposes (i.e., to sell image for profit or to promote a product),
not only may model releases be needed for the image, but also a licensing agreement may be needed with the holder of any intellectual property.

There's a bit of a grey area for those venues/places that allow patrons to bring in cameras for their events. Usually patrons and amateur photographers are nominally using the images for their own enjoyment, and not seeking monetarily benefit, IMHO there isn't a lot of (legal) attention paid to these particular situations and for good reason.

---

-------------------------

That's what I am trying to tell these people. Political persons are not covered under this law nor are the press. If you are using the image to enhance your product or to sell, it makes no difference if it was taken in a public venue or not, you STILL MUST HAVE a release form.

And as for concerts, if you will look at the fine print on the tickets, TicketMaster does not allow ANY flash or digital images. Using one, even if it is a phone camera; is grounds for you to be ejected from the venue with no refund.

All of this could have been setteled long ago if the people that were posting that they had the right to take a picture in a public venue and use it any way they wanted, would have just read the DMCA. That is why the EFF is going to lose this suit as the NFL clearly states that this is a licensed broadcast and that use of ANY portion without express written permission is illegal. That includes the small portion that the moron put back up just to piss off the NFL. If they are not going to allow bars to do this, they sure are not going to allow anyone else to do it.

Originally posted by aalucard1:

---

Already GAVE you a site with Clinton and the Sagan Movie "Contact" but I guess that you just ignored that as it didnt fit your rant...blah blah...namoi campbell...blah blah...extra's in Cleveloand were required to sign a release form...blah blah...Danger Mouse was sued...blah blah...

---

Do you not read what you type? At least 75% of what you listed has nothing to do with this lawsuit and has to do with PRIVACY issues or music copyright issues or movie releases and blah blah blah. This has nothing to do with using video clips in an amateur spoof video. If you were trying this case, citing those as precedence, there would be a sustained objection by the defence counsel, because what you're BLAH BLAH'ing about has NOTHING to do with the case that this article is discussing.

If you really are a legal aide, you royally suck at your job, as anyone reading this now stupid thread can easily see. You are apparently not going to be happy until we recognize you as Judge Lord God in the Court of Heaven, which NONE of us is going to do, so why don't you just give it up? Let's see what happens with the lawsuit, and when it's over and you come back as you PROMISED, please let us know in advance what you would like served with your tasty serving of CROW.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aalucard1:

---

Already GAVE you a site with Clinton and the Sagan Movie "Contact" but I guess that you just ignored that as it didnt fit your rant...blah blah...namoi campbell...blah blah...extra's in Cleveloand were required to sign a release form...blah blah...Danger Mouse was sued...blah blah...

---

Do you not read what you type? At least 75% of what you listed has nothing to do with this lawsuit and has to do with PRIVACY issues or music copyright issues or movie releases and blah blah blah. This has nothing to do with using video clips in an amateur spoof video. If you were trying this case, citing those as precedence, there would be a sustained objection by the defence counsel, because what you're BLAH BLAH'ing about has NOTHING to do with the case that this article is discussing.

If you really are a legal aide, you royally suck at your job, as anyone reading this now stupid thread can easily see. You are apparently not going to be happy until we recognize you as Judge Lord God in the Court of Heaven, which NONE of us is going to do, so why don't you just give it up? Let's see what happens with the lawsuit, and when it's over and you come back as you PROMISED, please let us know in advance what you would like served with your tasty serving of CROW.

---

---------------------

The only thing that "sucks" here is someone like you that thinks they can do anything they damn well please and then state they have some "right" to do it.

As I said before, if you are so sure that you are correct in this, then shut up and start your own lawsuit or at the very least join the EFF one. Other then that you are doing nothing but blowing smoke and showing your complete ignorance of the DMCA. You have no idea what you are talking about and your constant posts implying that you do are sure to show your ignorance in and of itself.

As I said I told you what CFR I was talking about, I named you difference cases that showed you were wrong and yet you continue to insist otherwise, I will give you this, you are anal.

So unless you are willing to place your money and ideals where your mouth are, then there is no further need of continuing as I know I am correct and I have the law to back me on this and from your postings you have nothing to back you but your beliefs.

Originally posted by aalucard1:

---

(Insert the sound that air makes as it leaves the anus)

---

I've never claimed to cite anything other than common sense. Again (yes, one more time), if The Daily Show can do it every day (like they do), then there's no reason why the defendant in this case can't do it, too. That has nothing to do with Naomi Cambells boobs, or Tom Cruise's bastard, or a President Clinton halloween mask, or anything of the rest of the B.S. you spout. It's just common sense (I realize you have none). If every nationally televised spoof news show/skit is doing it, then I think it's safe to assume that it's legal. We're not talking about the local high school media club spoofing a show using copyrighted material and getting away with it. These are nationally televised shows that are doing in every episode exactly what the defendant did in this case.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll put my money where my mouth is when you do. Otherwise, it's now my turn to tell you to shut up until you do. When I see you listed as a prosecuting attorney for this case, then you can post again. Until then, you're not allowed to post. And don't criticize me for this last paragraph. These are YOUR rules -- I'm just enforcing them. Put up or shut up. Be part of the case, or don't talk about it anymore. So, I guess (using your rules), we'll never hear from you again, because we'll never see you listed as part of this case because you're no more of an attorney than anyone else here. You're a legal aide -- a job that I'm getting less and less of an opinion of the more you post.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aalucard1:

---

(Insert the sound that air makes as it leaves the anus)

---

I've never claimed to cite anything other than common sense. Again (yes, one more time), if The Daily Show can do it every day (like they do), then there's no reason why the defendant in this case can't do it, too. That has nothing to do with Naomi Cambells boobs, or Tom Cruise's bastard, or a President Clinton halloween mask, or anything of the rest of the B.S. you spout. It's just common sense (I realize you have none). If every nationally televised spoof news show/skit is doing it, then I think it's safe to assume that it's legal. We're not talking about the local high school media club spoofing a show using copyrighted material and getting away with it. These are nationally televised shows that are doing in every episode exactly what the defendant did in this case.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll put my money where my mouth is when you do. Otherwise, it's now my turn to tell you to shut up until you do. When I see you listed as a prosecuting attorney for this case, then you can post again. Until then, you're not allowed to post. And don't criticize me for this last paragraph. These are YOUR rules -- I'm just enforcing them. Put up or shut up. Be part of the case, or don't talk about it anymore. So, I guess (using your rules), we'll never hear from you again, because we'll never see you listed as part of this case because you're no more of an attorney than anyone else here. You're a legal aide -- a job that I'm getting less and less of an opinion of the more you post.

---

----------------------------

I have already put my money where my mouth is troll, and here is yet another blow to your self imagined "rights" You do know of Viacom...right? They only own MTV-Nick at Night-TV land-BET-Paramount Pictures-and Dream Works....and until recently owned CBS. In short they are one of the "big boys" in this game.

You have heard of Google, who owns YouTube and is being SUED FOR ONE BILLION DOLLARS by Viacom for doing the exact same thing that you claim that you can do. Seems that YouTube is illegally posting clips of shows and parts of show WITHOUT written permission and the people that own the shows do not like it. Hence they are suing the pants of Google and are going to win, maybe not the 1 billion they are seeking; but I guarentee you that there will be a massive change on YouTube and you will have to have your clips authorized to be placed there or they wont be allowed after this is all said and done.

This case hinges on three items

1. Does it violate the rights of the creators to control distribution of their products and be paid for same. In this case the answer would be yes it does. Strike one

2. Does it have any advantage to to society or to the widespread sharing of information. The answer to this is NO. As why would anyone want to make new movies and tv shows and such if they can be downloaded without the maker receiving money for his/her/their work? Strike 2

3. Are the ISP's and websites responsible for content on thier servers if said content is ruled or has been ruled illegal. The answer is yes once they have been notified about it. Strike 3

Will the law have to adapt, yes. Will it adapt so much that you can take images of others works and use them on the net free of charge? No. The Fair Use laws ONLY allow limited personal use of copyrighted material. For instance when you buy a cd or a dvd you can make a backup for your OWN PERSONAL USE. You CANNOT make a backup and then post the backup to the net nor use it in your webpage or anything along that line, nor can you reproduce it for sale or even to give it away without express written permission of the maker.

This is what I have been saying all along. I cannot help it if you are too damn stupid to understand that and I will bet you any amount you want to name that this Viacom v Google/YouTube is settled long before the EFF case is and will be used in deciding the EFF case in where they will lose.

You have been shown you know nothing about what you are posting, you have been shown that you do not check out the links and facts that were posted; all you do is just keep on with the childish refrain of "Yes I can cause i said so"

Wake up and join the real world bucko as you are very soon to get a rude awakening...and it is going to be along the same lines as I have been posting here. Then I will expect a major apology from you and all the others here that tried to spin this to their advantage.

And since you have proven yourself too damn lazy to check the facts, here are some links for the Viacom lawsuit against Google/YouTube

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenew...&src=rss&rpc=22
http://news.com.com/Viacom+sues+Google+o..._3-6166668.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/

Now stop playing with mommy and daddy's computer, child. You have no idea what you are talking about and the above lawsuit proves it beyond any doubt.

Uh...um...so? And, your point (if you ever had one) is somewhat lost when 1/3 of the links you posted are dead and another 1/3 is just a 50-word news flash with no additional information. It doesn't help that the final 1/3 is a C|NET news article. Yeah, baby...C|NET is where I go for all my news! You betcha.

And what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Seems to me like Viacom needs to make up their minds -- either they're able to successfully enforce take-down notices (like in the above AfterDawn article) and subsequently be sued for doing so or they're not (which is why Viacom is suing Google/YouTube for $1 billion). Which is it?

Just like what the EFF rep said in the above article, "Viacom knows this -- it's the same kind of fair use that 'The Colbert Report' and 'The Daily Show' rely upon every night as they parody other channels' news coverage," I stand by my original statement that if The Daily Show and The Colbert Report can do this same thing on a daily basis, then there's nothing stopping anyone else from doing it, too. You have yet to address this, and yet this has been my contention all along. Does Jon Stewart have a free pass or something? I don't see any write-ups about Jon Stewart being sued.

The reason why I simply responded with a "so?" above is because 99.9% of what you cite in attempt to backup your stance in this debate is completely irrelevant to the topic to the point that it must just be your strategy to dilute the forum with a bunch of irrelevant links and citings in attempt to make you look like you know what you're talking about. The only way that will happen is if people skip over your paragraphs of B.S., and simply assume they contain relevant, intelligent information. Unlike you, most people here can read, so I don't see that strategy working any time soon, which is why you don't seem to have a single ally in this debate.

Once again, I'm still waiting for your expert explanation as to how The Daily Show and The Colbert Report get away with doing this, when they admittedly do not obtain prior permission to use copyrighted clips, and at best simply list a copyright or courtesy of statement in their credits. So, how about if you don't post anymore extraneous B.S., and just answer the above question? Still waiting....

Oh, and still waiting for a link to the Falwell vs MTV case that you claim shutdown the very popular Celebrity Deathmatch show. I can't help but to notice you have yet to post a link to that HUGE case. It's almost like it doesn't exist. Still waiting....

Still waiting for you to respond with something...anything...relevant to the original topic. Still waiting.....

Can't wait for your next links! What are they going to be about? Illegal cock fighting in Mexico? A link to a lawsuit where a distant presidential relative is suing for use of his image on Mt. Rushmore? A link to a class action suit where your cold medicine of choice didn't work so you and the rest of the residents of your mobile home park sued the manufacturer? How much more of this inane, irrelevant ramblings do we have to take from you before you finally admit that you have nothing to say about the meat of this issue, and that's because you simply do not know what you're talking about? Get a clue. No one believes you, no one agrees with you, and yet you're still here?

Originally posted by GernBlan:

---

Uh...um...so? And, your point (if you ever had one) is somewhat lost when 1/3 of the links you posted are dead and another 1/3 is just a 50-word news flash with no additional information. It doesn't help that the final 1/3 is a C|NET news article. Yeah, baby...C|NET is where I go for all my news! You betcha.

And what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Seems to me like Viacom needs to make up their minds -- either they're able to successfully enforce take-down notices (like in the above AfterDawn article) and subsequently be sued for doing so or they're not (which is why Viacom is suing Google/YouTube for $1 billion). Which is it?

Just like what the EFF rep said in the above article, "Viacom knows this -- it's the same kind of fair use that 'The Colbert Report' and 'The Daily Show' rely upon every night as they parody other channels' news coverage," I stand by my original statement that if The Daily Show and The Colbert Report can do this same thing on a daily basis, then there's nothing stopping anyone else from doing it, too. You have yet to address this, and yet this has been my contention all along. Does Jon Stewart have a free pass or something? I don't see any write-ups about Jon Stewart being sued.

The reason why I simply responded with a "so?" above is because 99.9% of what you cite in attempt to backup your stance in this debate is completely irrelevant to the topic to the point that it must just be your strategy to dilute the forum with a bunch of irrelevant links and citings in attempt to make you look like you know what you're talking about. The only way that will happen is if people skip over your paragraphs of B.S., and simply assume they contain relevant, intelligent information. Unlike you, most people here can read, so I don't see that strategy working any time soon, which is why you don't seem to have a single ally in this debate.

Once again, I'm still waiting for your expert explanation as to how The Daily Show and The Colbert Report get away with doing this, when they admittedly do not obtain prior permission to use copyrighted clips, and at best simply list a copyright or courtesy of statement in their credits. So, how about if you don't post anymore extraneous B.S., and just answer the above question? Still waiting....

Oh, and still waiting for a link to the Falwell vs MTV case that you claim shutdown the very popular Celebrity Deathmatch show. I can't help but to notice you have yet to post a link to that HUGE case. It's almost like it doesn't exist. Still waiting....

Still waiting for you to respond with something...anything...relevant to the original topic. Still waiting.....

Can't wait for your next links! What are they going to be about? Illegal cock fighting in Mexico? A link to a lawsuit where a distant presidential relative is suing for use of his image on Mt. Rushmore? A link to a class action suit where your cold medicine of choice didn't work so you and the rest of the residents of your mobile home park sued the manufacturer? How much more of this inane, irrelevant ramblings do we have to take from you before you finally admit that you have nothing to say about the meat of this issue, and that's because you simply do not know what you're talking about? Get a clue. No one believes you, no one agrees with you, and yet you're still here?

---

------------------------
If you knew how to use a computer you would have already found it as it is not that hard to locate.

I have proved that you are ignorant in this case and you have no idea what you are talking about, yet you continue to use the same old grade school attack "because I said so, that's why" and sadly for you in this case that just is not going to work. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together and get a spark knows that if YouTube had had the permission of Viacom, this lawsuit would not have happened. Anyone with any common sense knows that using clips of ANYTHING for professional use (unless you have permission or are a politician who's image is being used) is ILLEGAL. Even the Press has limits on what they can and cannot use and they have a Constitutional right to use some of this stuff...so please tell us Einstien; if someone who has a plain Constitutional right to use "photos/stills and small printed excerpts" cant do what you claim you can, just WHERE in the US Constitution does it give you that right??

You keep right on opening your mouth as with every word you use your obvious ignorance on this subject is clearly evident for anyone that wants to read these postings.

As I said, I put my money where my mouth was as I gave my services to the NFL free of charge in this case as well as Viacom. Will they accept my services...only time will tell. Now what exactly have YOU done to put your money where your mouth is? The ball is in your court and I have met every challenge you have tossed at me and all you have now is schoolyard taunts. If this is the best you can do, then why dont we just wait and see who will win. As I said if the EFF wins (and that is extremely doubtful and they will come back with the tired old refrain of it having a "chilling effect" on the 1st amendment and fair use) then I will come back here and publically apologize. Now when the NFL wins...I want your promise posted here that you will also come back and apologize in these threads. Until you give that, then nothing you say from here on out will or should be taken as your opinion as you would have shown that all you are is mouth and not willing to back your beliefs.

aalucard1, for G.O.D.'s sake, give it up already.

I don't know who's lapdog you are, but you are far past your prime.

Originally posted by AUDIOMIND:

---

aalucard1, for G.O.D.'s sake, give it up already.

I don't know who's lapdog you are, but you are far past your prime.

---

-----------------------------
I am no one's lapdog, and I guess you can call me anal in this case as I am not going to give it up. The idiot that keeps insisting that he can do whatever he pleases with images on the net needs to be taught a lesson before his mouth and actions lands him in a jail cell.

I have one simple question that I would like him to answer..

If his point had any legal merit at all, then please explain why a Judge did not toss this case of Viacom's suit out for having no basis in law or being a waste of the courts time? That is called having a case be "dismissed with prejudice" and that means for all of the legally ignorant...that you can never file that case again as it has no legal standing. For this case to continue, there HAS to be legal standing. And the legal standing would be violations of the DMCA, the federal law that clearly states you CANNOT do as you please with images or anything else; and if you are going to use them for anything other then personal use (fair use act) then you MUST have permission from the maker or the copyright owner.

This twit has yet to check out any of the links I gave him or any of the sources and all he does is a constant "yes I can cause I said so" refrain. So if you are asking anyone to give it up, you are asking the wrong person as all my sources and links are based in law and factual cases.

Point your statements at Glernban and his buddies where they belong.

You're a complete and total liar, Mr. AlucartonofBS. And since all of my and your messages are still visible in the above thread, I hope you feel like a complete and total ass to actually make such claims about what I've said, done or not done, etc., as part of this debate. It's all right up there in plain text, viewable in any internet browser.

Without cutting and pasting my complete resume (like some people with an obvious Napoleon complex seem to feel the need to do around here), I can assure you that I know how to use a computer, as I've been using, making, programming, and supporting computers since before the internet was called the internet. You, on the other hand, cannot even figure out how to use the quote function of this forum, so why don't you head on down to the local community college (where you finally got your official legal aide certification after failing it 28 times) and take a couple of Computer Idiot classes yourself, eh?

I read every one of your links and searched for every one of the cases you cited. It's not my fault that you are so completely full of excrement that I'm on a wild goose chase for cases that never existed. If the Falwell vs. MTV case was so significant that it took a very popular series off the air, then why can't YOU find a link to it and post it here?

If using video clips without permission in spoof news shows and skits is so blatantly illegal, then why have no lawsuits been brought against Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Saturday Night Live, etc.? Why can't you give me a reason for this? YOU are the one is avoiding and disregarding my common sense arguments, because you simply do not have an answer. Period.

It's rather funny...when an entire forum seems to be saying that you are wrong, all of a sudden it becomes "Gernblan and his buddies". I don't know any of these people any more than I know you. It's not my fault if the entire forum thinks you're a lying, blowhard, irrelevant fool. You can chalk up the credit for that discovery to your own BS rantings.

Oh, and STILL WAITING for everything I listed in my previous message, oh legal genius. This would be me...STILL....WAITING....

Originally posted by GernBlan:

---

You're a complete and total liar, Mr. AlucartonofBS. And since all of my and your messages are still visible in the above thread, I hope you feel like a complete and total ass to actually make such claims about what I've said, done or not done, etc., as part of this debate. It's all right up there in plain text, viewable in any internet browser.

Without cutting and pasting my complete resume (like some people with an obvious Napoleon complex seem to feel the need to do around here), I can assure you that I know how to use a computer, as I've been using, making, programming, and supporting computers since before the internet was called the internet. You, on the other hand, cannot even figure out how to use the quote function of this forum, so why don't you head on down to the local community college (where you finally got your official legal aide certification after failing it 28 times) and take a couple of Computer Idiot classes yourself, eh?

I read every one of your links and searched for every one of the cases you cited. It's not my fault that you are so completely full of excrement that I'm on a wild goose chase for cases that never existed. If the Falwell vs. MTV case was so significant that it took a very popular series off the air, then why can't YOU find a link to it and post it here?

If using video clips without permission in spoof news shows and skits is so blatantly illegal, then why have no lawsuits been brought against Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Saturday Night Live, etc.? Why can't you give me a reason for this? YOU are the one is avoiding and disregarding my common sense arguments, because you simply do not have an answer. Period.

It's rather funny...when an entire forum seems to be saying that you are wrong, all of a sudden it becomes "Gernblan and his buddies". I don't know any of these people any more than I know you. It's not my fault if the entire forum thinks you're a lying, blowhard, irrelevant fool. You can chalk up the credit for that discovery to your own BS rantings.

Oh, and STILL WAITING for everything I listed in my previous message, oh legal genius. This would be me...STILL....WAITING....

---

----------------------------------------
Very funny...you insult me and then expect me to do your work for you as well? Buy a clue and do your own research.

As I said, I have placed my money where my mouth is, and yet you have not done the same...wonder why? Could it be that you know that you will not win?

So it is now put up or shut up time...put your money where your mouth is and then get ready to lose in a court.

You have tried the "fair use" route but neglected to state that only allows you to make copies of items for your PERSONAL use. NOT to be posted on the net. That is a violation of Title 17 CFR

You have tried questioning why a show on Comedy Central can use clips of different shows but never once contacted them to see if they have the required release forms allowing them to do this as if you had actually contacted them, they would have corrected your ignorance right quick. And isn't it just so strange that under Comedy centrals own webpage in the legal agreements, they have a section 3 that states EXACTLY what I have been trying to tell you all along...
"OWNERSHIP OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
The contents of this Site, including all Site software, design, text, images, photographs, illustrations, audio and video material, artwork, graphic material, databases, proprietary information and all copyrightable or otherwise legally protectible elements of the Site, including, without limitation, the selection, sequence and 'look and feel' and arrangement of items, and all trademarks, service marks and trade names (individually and/or collectively, "Material"), are the property of Comedy Partners, and its Parent Companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, licensors, suppliers, operational service providers, advertisers, promotional partners, or sponsors and are legally protected, without limitation, under U.S. Federal and State, as well as applicable foreign laws, regulations and treaties. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise or we explicitly say so in writing, the term "Site" includes "Material" as well. The Site is to be used solely for your noncommercial, non-exclusive, non-assignable, non- transferable and limited personal use and for no other purposes. You must not alter, delete or conceal any copyright or other notices contained on the Site, including notices on any Material you download, transmit, display, print or reproduce from the Site. You shall not, nor will you allow any third party (whether or not for your benefit) to reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, display, perform, publish, distribute, disseminate, broadcast or circulate to any third party (including, without limitation, on or via a third party web site), or otherwise use, any Material without the express prior written consent of Comedy Partners or its owner if Comedy Partners is not the owner. Any unauthorized or prohibited use of any Material may subject you to civil liability, criminal prosecution, or both, under applicable federal, state and local laws. We require users to respect our copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights. We likewise respect the intellectual property of others. On notice, we will act expeditiously to remove content on the Site that infringes the copyright rights of others and will disable the access to the Site and its services of anyone who uses them to repeatedly to infringe the intellectual property rights of others."

In short Einstein, they are calling you a liar and showing that you dont know as much as you thought you did, else why have this on their site and just not open it to the public for them to use anyway they feel?

You know, you have become a pitiful excuse for comedy. You have been shown you are wrong in so many ways I have lost count. You have been given links that blow your argument out of the water and destroy it completely, yet you insist on showing your ignorance. You have made challenges and i have accepted them, yet when the same challenge is made to you; you make up 101 excuses as to why you cannot do it.

You have been completely destroyed on this issue and nothing you can say will change that fact of life. Enjoy, as no one here will ever believe you again in anything you say. You have proved that you are a complete and total liar as well as a moron as all this information is available to anyone with the intelligence to look. So I guess that we know what that says about you now don't we?

Still waiting....

You have yet to address why The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Saturday Night Live can use clips from other networks without prior permission (if they got prior permission it would say so in the credits, which it doesn't).

You have yet to provide a link to the "well known" case between Falwell and MTV, and now you're passing it off as me asking you to do my work. You're the one who cited the case -- put up a link or retract the citing. You're the one who's avoiding the "work" because you know such a case doesn't even exist and never did.

You are one person. One person saying that I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about doesn't compare to the dozens who have stated that you don't know what you're talking about in this thread. And your self-proclaimed legal knowledge cannot override my common sense questions (which again, you have yet to answer). I'm sure Hitler went to bed at night thinking he was right in everything he did in life. I'm sure Napoleon did the same. I'm sure the local village idiot does the same. That doesn't make any of them right -- it just makes them full of themselves, thinking they can impose their opinions on others. You have provided very little (if any) valid argument to support your side of this debate. You just keep citing irrelevant cases or cases that I cannot find any reference to on the entire of the internet, and then when you do provide links they're to worthless or barely credible sites, provide minimal information, or are flat out broken links.

No one here wants to hear from you again until you:

1. Answer my specific and direct question about why The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Saturday Night Live are not subject to the lawsuits for using copyrighted video clips in their spoofs.

2. Provide an unbroken link to the case you cited, Falwell vs. MTV.

3. Post a single message where you successfully and correctly use the quote function.

Until then, go back to surfing porn on your boss' dime. Your rhetoric is boring me, and no doubt all the readers of this forum topic (which I'm sure is about 2 or 3 by now).

Originally posted by GernBlan:

---

Still waiting....

You have yet to address why The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Saturday Night Live can use clips from other networks without prior permission (if they got prior permission it would say so in the credits, which it doesn't).

You have yet to provide a link to the "well known" case between Falwell and MTV, and now you're passing it off as me asking you to do my work. You're the one who cited the case -- put up a link or retract the citing. You're the one who's avoiding the "work" because you know such a case doesn't even exist and never did.

You are one person. One person saying that I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about doesn't compare to the dozens who have stated that you don't know what you're talking about in this thread. And your self-proclaimed legal knowledge cannot override my common sense questions (which again, you have yet to answer). I'm sure Hitler went to bed at night thinking he was right in everything he did in life. I'm sure Napoleon did the same. I'm sure the local village idiot does the same. That doesn't make any of them right -- it just makes them full of themselves, thinking they can impose their opinions on others. You have provided very little (if any) valid argument to support your side of this debate. You just keep citing irrelevant cases or cases that I cannot find any reference to on the entire of the internet, and then when you do provide links they're to worthless or barely credible sites, provide minimal information, or are flat out broken links.

No one here wants to hear from you again until you:

1. Answer my specific and direct question about why The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Saturday Night Live are not subject to the lawsuits for using copyrighted video clips in their spoofs.

2. Provide an unbroken link to the case you cited, Falwell vs. MTV.

3. Post a single message where you successfully and correctly use the quote function.

Until then, go back to surfing porn on your boss' dime. Your rhetoric is boring me, and no doubt all the readers of this forum topic (which I'm sure is about 2 or 3 by now).

---

------------------------------------
I already answered your questions and yet you continue on with the "I will cause i said so" chants.

So how does it feel to have reality smack you upside your head?

Quote:

---

I already answered your questions and yet you continue on with the "I will cause i said so" chants.

So how does it feel to have reality smack you upside your head?

---

No, you did not answer my questions, so I'm confused as to why you felt the need to post.

And neither you, little man, nor anything you spew here can be considered "reality". You're a nitwit who claims to be an expert yet cannot provide simple answers to simple questions, and therefore I am....

... S T I L L W A I T I N G ....

Quote:

---

If his point had any legal merit at all, then please explain why a Judge did not toss this case of Viacom's suit out for having no basis in law or being a waste of the courts time?

---

The case is still pending and I firmly believe the case will eventually be dismissed because Google in all its efforts is actively removing videos (those in violation of copyright) as quickly as it receives DMCA notices. It cannot police every single bit of media that is uploaded to the site. That is simply an impossible task by any stretch of the imagination and Viacom knows this. It isn't as if Google is openly sharing videos for free on a p2p network. Viacom (the whiny bitches they are) are only doing this in an attempt to supposedly make an example of Google. However, this tactic is not going to work.....mark my words.

However, I don't understand how we moved from talking about images to Viacom and $1bil lawsuits. I know that this is what the original thread is about, but I was speaking specifically towards the Fair Use of photographic images.

Are we comparing apples and oranges here?

Originally posted by aalucard1:

---

Very funny...you insult me and then expect me to do your work for you as well? Buy a clue and do your own research.

---

The onus of responsbility is upon you to reinforce your claims with specific recitations and/or proof, not the other way around.

All I'm seeing is the repeated use of contextomized strawman arguments.

Quote:

---

[quote]
If his point had any legal merit at all, then please explain why a Judge did not toss this case of Viacom's suit out for having no basis in law or being a waste of the courts time?

---

The case is still pending and I firmly believe the case will eventually be dismissed because Google in all its efforts is actively removing videos (those in violation of copyright) as quickly as it receives DMCA notices. It cannot police every single bit of media that is uploaded to the site. That is simply an impossible task by any stretch of the imagination and Viacom knows this. It isn't as if Google is openly sharing videos for free on a p2p network. Viacom (the whiny bitches they are) are only doing this in an attempt to supposedly make an example of Google. However, this tactic is not going to work.....mark my words.

However, I don't understand how we moved from talking about images to Viacom and $1bil lawsuits. I know that this is what the original thread is about, but I was speaking specifically towards the Fair Use of photographic images.

Are we comparing apples and oranges here?

Originally posted by aalucard1:

---

Very funny...you insult me and then expect me to do your work for you as well? Buy a clue and do your own research.

---

The onus of responsbility is upon you to reinforce your claims with specific recitations and/or proof, not the other way around.

All I'm seeing is the repeated use of contextomized strawman arguments.[/quote]
-----------------------------
Your right, your arguments are nothing but straw arguments. Glad you finally admitted it.

Re-read my last post, maybe it will finally sink in.

Originally posted by aalucard1:

---

Your right, your arguments are nothing but straw arguments. Glad you finally admitted it.

Re-read my last post, maybe it will finally sink in.

---

Dude, maybe your therapist at the inpatient facility where you currently reside can understand your ramblings, but I can guarantee you that no one here will.

I realize you weren't responding to me, but I just wanted suggest the above explanation, but also to let you know that I'm....yes...still waiting......and waiting......and waiting.....and waiting....

Do you hear that? That's the sound of your credibility sinking lower and lower and lower the longer I'm still waiting and waiting and waiting. You're not following your own advice and putting your money where your mouth is. Show me the lawsuits against The Daily Show...show me a link to Falwell vs. MTV...show me that you can use the quote function of this forum correctly. What's the matter? Do they limit your online time at the...uh..."facility"?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aalucard1:

---

Your right, your arguments are nothing but straw arguments. Glad you finally admitted it.

Re-read my last post, maybe it will finally sink in.

---

Dude, maybe your therapist at the inpatient facility where you currently reside can understand your ramblings, but I can guarantee you that no one here will.

I realize you weren't responding to me, but I just wanted suggest the above explanation, but also to let you know that I'm....yes...still waiting......and waiting......and waiting.....and waiting....

Do you hear that? That's the sound of your credibility sinking lower and lower and lower the longer I'm still waiting and waiting and waiting. You're not following your own advice and putting your money where your mouth is. Show me the lawsuits against The Daily Show...show me a link to Falwell vs. MTV...show me that you can use the quote function of this forum correctly. What's the matter? Do they limit your online time at the...uh..."facility"?

---

-------------------------------------------
You do need help, so maybe instead of telling me to seek therapy; maybe you should see the theripist that you have been seeing 4 times a week for the last 5 years.

read the last few of my posts as these have destroyed all your arguments and show you to be spewing smoke an mirrors.

You have lost the argument, get over it.

Quote:

---

Dude, maybe your therapist at the inpatient facility where you currently reside can understand your ramblings, but I can guarantee you that no one here will.

---

Originally posted by aalucard1:

---

You do need help, so maybe instead of telling me to seek therapy; maybe you should see the theripist that you have been seeing 4 times a week for the last 5 years.

read the last few of my posts as these have destroyed all your arguments and show you to be spewing smoke an mirrors.

You have lost the argument, get over it.

---

The above proves more than ever that you do not read anything that anyone else posts here, and I seriously doubt that you even read your own posts (or there wouldn't be so many errors, broken links, and BS rhetoric).

I never suggested that you seek therapy. I implied that you currently live in an inpatient psychiatric facility where you were receiving daily therapy.

You're the one trying to use smoke and mirrors -- I'm the one who is still on topic and waiting for your responses to my specific and direct questions:

1. Why isn't The Daily Show, Colbert Report, and SNL being charged with the same thing if using video clips without prior permission is so blatantly illegal?

2. Where is the link to the infamous case of Falwell vs. MTV?

3. When are you going to use the quote function of this forum properly?

It's just three questions -- the same three questions I've had since the very beginning. Why can't you just answer the questions? Do I have to file a motion to compel?

Still waiting.....meanwhile, you're still posting irrelevant blah blah, feably trying to turn this around when everyone here knows that you're the one getting the spanking because you cannot even answer three simple questions to the point that it is clear you are avoiding the questions because you know that my argument is signed, sealed, and delivered, whereas you keep throwing B.S. up in the air in desperation, hoping something will stick and make you look like you have some semblance of an argument in this (which will never happen because you don't). Again, it's clear to me that you are either not a legal aide or you're a lousey one. Your arguments are disjointed at best don't make any sense at worst. One would expect a legal aide with 20 years experience to be more organized in their presentation, stay on topic, and generally keep things relevant to the argument. You are not (and have not been) doing that....at all.

Oh, and I'm still waiting....

there's nothing better and more amusing than an argument between lawyers.. Shane you guys can't charge for all this time and effort *grins*

For anybody who is still confused I ripped this from a blog-site legalese bit.. Probably breaking copyright by doing so, but what the hell....

If it does not have a copyright notice, it is ok to use.
USUALLY NOT. Almost all works are protected by copyright, even if they do not have a copyright notice. Therefore, you should assume that you need to obtain permission to use any material that you did not create.

If I do not mark up the selling price of my products, it will not be an infringement.
FALSE. If a product is not marked up from its base price, that sale can still be considered an infringement, even if you are buying the product yourself. Even if you post an image in your store and make no sales or earn no profits, you can still be held liable for the use of the image.

It's on the internet, so it is ok to use it.
FALSE. Simply because an image is found on the internet does not mean that it is in the public domain. Unless the author of the work has explicitly stated that his work is "public domain" or that the copyright has expired because the work is very old, then you must assume it is not. Further, a person who posts an image on the internet and claims that you are free to use it may not have had the right to post the image in the first place. Thus, your use of the image may violate the rights of the actual copyright owner.

It is Fair Use.
USUALLY NOT. Fair use of a work for the purposes of merchandise sale is treated very differently than for informative purposes or for commentary. In general, a claim of fair use of a work when it is used on merchandise may not hold up in court, especially if the merchandise is sold for profit.


I took the photo, so I can use it however I want.
FALSE. Simply taking a photo of a person, company, brand, logo or the like does not afford you the right to sell merchandise featuring that photograph. There are two distinct intellectual property rights in a photograph: (1) the rights in the photograph itself and (2) the rights in the subject of the picture, such as the product or person shown in it. For example, if you take a photo of a celebrity, you only own the rights to the photo, but not the right to use the photo of a celebrity for merchandise sale. In order to sell merchandise with the image, you will need to obtain explicit permission from the celebrity.

I based my artwork on the artwork of a third party, so that is ok.
FALSE. Works that are derived from a previous work of another violate the rights of the owner of the previous work. Therefore, if you are creating an image that is based on the work of someone else, you need to obtain permission from the original creator prior to your use of your work. For example, Weird Al Yankovic obtains permission from Michael Jackson prior to recording a song based on one of Michael Jackson's songs.

It's parody, so it is ok.
MAYBE. Parody is one form of fair use (please see "What is Fair Use"). Parody may qualify as fair use only if it draws upon the original composition to make humorous or ironic commentary about that same composition. Whether something falls within the Fair Use parody exception depends on whether the parody reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree. Generally parody, like Fair Use, is a difficult and murky concept, even for experts, and you should consult with an attorney before using copyrighted or trademark material in connection with the CafePress.com service.

I am using Clip Art, so it is ok.
USUALLY NOT. Most clip art, photo collections, or graphic programs contain a license agreement. The license agreement sets forth the specific uses for the clip art. In most instances the license does not grant you the right to use the clip art for the sale of merchandise. You should consult the license agreement and your attorney to determine whether you can use the clip art images on CafePress.com.

The First Amendment protects my freedom of speech, so I can use whatever images I want.
FALSE. Freedom of speech is a constitutional protection that guarantees that the government will not oppress your right to self-expression. It does not give you the right to use intellectual property of another to sell or distribute merchandise.

Can I use images of a celebrity since you allow images of famous political figures?
NO. There is an exception to the Right of Publicity for political figures, which does not extend to celebrities.

Quoted sources..


Quoted sources..

For additional information on Copyrights, please visit the United States Copyright Office Library of Congress at http://www.copyright.gov. For additional information on Trademarks, please visit the United States Patent and Trademark Office at http://www.uspto.gov. For general questions about Intellectual Property Rights (copyrights/trademarks), please visit the Nolo Law Center at http://www.nolo.com. You can find the federal laws regarding Copyright (U.S.C. Title 17) and Trademark (U.S.C. Title 15) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/uscmain.html

and I did rip them so in fairness..

All Content Copyright © 1999-2007 CafePress.com.

Quoting the source reinforces fair use for informative/educational purposes. (in the UK anyway as there is no means or intention of making any profit from this..

Keep going guys.. I'm really enjoying this argument... ;-)

---

Great information, Janrocks! It's organized, specific yet concise, and simply explained in laymens terms. It's almost like you took it from the blog site of a lawyer who doesn't really care if anyone knows he's a lawyer. People working in law in this thread (at least those who claim to work in law) seem to worry more about us bowing down and worshipping them for their lamely presented knowledge instead of just actually posting good knowledge. Are you reading this, Alucancer? You could learn from this.

This one is not entirely accurate, but that's because it's not an all-encompassing explanation:

Originally posted by janrocks:

---

I took the photo, so I can use it however I want.
FALSE. Simply taking a photo of a person, company, brand, logo or the like does not afford you the right to sell merchandise featuring that photograph. There are two distinct intellectual property rights in a photograph: (1) the rights in the photograph itself and (2) the rights in the subject of the picture, such as the product or person shown in it. For example, if you take a photo of a celebrity, you only own the rights to the photo, but not the right to use the photo of a celebrity for merchandise sale. In order to sell merchandise with the image, you will need to obtain explicit permission from the celebrity.

---

What about school, wedding, etc., photos? For most weddings, you have to sign a release, allowing all the images to become the property of the photographer, and therefore all reprints must be purchased through him. But for school photos, there is no such release (at least not for any of my four children thus far, and two are in high school). So that poses an interesting question -- who owns the school photograph? Me, as the parent of my child or does the photographer own all the images? And why do I not have to sign something for my children to appear in every yearbook, even if I do not want them to? Why does the school have the right to publish my kids' photographs without my permission?

Anyway, that's just pondering for pondering's sake. The only relevant passages are the following two quotes. That's not meant as an insult to you, Janrocks, so please don't read it as such. I just know that Alucocoabutterhead is going to jump in any time now with, "That's exactly what I've been telling Gernblan and all his stupid buddies, but they just won't listen to me...blah blah blah". Of course, you'll have to throw some blatant misuse of the quote function in there, and some horrible misspellings, but anywho.... The following are relevant to copyrights involved in this specific case:

Originally posted by janrocks:

---

It is Fair Use.
USUALLY NOT. Fair use of a work for the purposes of merchandise sale is treated very differently than for informative purposes or for commentary. In general, a claim of fair use of a work when it is used on merchandise may not hold up in court, especially if the merchandise is sold for profit.

---

For this case, the above should be changed from "USUALLY NOT" to "MAYBE", because I can guarantee you that the maker of the video in question is going to use fair use as part of his defense. He did not make the video for profit -- it was simply a spoof or parody that he uploaded to a video sharing site.

Originally posted by janrocks:

---

It's parody, so it is ok.
MAYBE. Parody is one form of fair use (please see "What is Fair Use"). Parody may qualify as fair use only if it draws upon the original composition to make humorous or ironic commentary about that same composition. Whether something falls within the Fair Use parody exception depends on whether the parody reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree. Generally parody, like Fair Use, is a difficult and murky concept, even for experts, and you should consult with an attorney before using copyrighted or trademark material in connection with the CafePress.com service.

---

Bingo. At best, this guy is in murky water, but it's a classic fair use/parody defense, and since the guy was obviously not making any money (especially profit) from it, I highly suspect that his defense will be successful and this video will end up successfully reposted.

Originally posted by janrocks:

---

Keep going guys.. I'm really enjoying this argument... ;-)

---

There's not really an argument. You have one twit who claims a 20+ year legal resume, yet cannot write a proper message post to save his life and definitely cannot seem to stay on topic, and then you have everyone else who pretty much completely disagrees with the twit on all matters RELEVANT to this case. Sure, we all agree that someone selling nude or otherwise personal photos of a celebrity is doing something wrong, but that's not really relevant to this case of copyrighted video clips used in a parody.

As for Mr. Alucacapeepee, I'm still waiting for answer to the three things I asked, especially that Falwell vs. MTV link, because I think that will be a very interesting read. Unfortunately, at the moment, it seems it will be a good fiction read because apparently the case doesn't exist and has never existed.

Quote:

---

Arguing that the RIAA and big record labels may be misusing their copyrights, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has jumped in on the defendant's side in a White Plains, New York, court conflict. The case is Lava v. Amurao, and the EFF will be defending Mr. Amurao's right to counterclaim for copyright misuse. EFF argued that the RIAA, by deliberately bringing meritless cases against innocent people based on theories of 'secondary liability', are abusing their copyrights. In its amicus brief, EFF also decried (just as when it joined the ACLU, Public Citizen, and others on the side of Debbie Foster in Capitol v. Foster) the RIAA's 'driftnet' litigation strategy. They argue that the declaratory judgment remedy must also be made available to defendants, in view of the RIAA's habit of dropping the meritless cases it started but can't finish.

---

GO EFF....score one for consumers!!!

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspo...tion-files.html

Quote:

---

[quote]Arguing that the RIAA and big record labels may be misusing their copyrights, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has jumped in on the defendant's side in a White Plains, New York, court conflict. The case is Lava v. Amurao, and the EFF will be defending Mr. Amurao's right to counterclaim for copyright misuse. EFF argued that the RIAA, by deliberately bringing meritless cases against innocent people based on theories of 'secondary liability', are abusing their copyrights. In its amicus brief, EFF also decried (just as when it joined the ACLU, Public Citizen, and others on the side of Debbie Foster in Capitol v. Foster) the RIAA's 'driftnet' litigation strategy. They argue that the declaratory judgment remedy must also be made available to defendants, in view of the RIAA's habit of dropping the meritless cases it started but can't finish.

---

GO EFF....score one for consumers!!!

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspo...es.html[/quote]
------------------
Dont get too excited, no judge has said they are going to hear the case or not, it is just a filing of the case and that means squat till a judge accepts the case.

And what the EFF says does not mean that the Judges have to do it as they can decide to hear it for different reasons or dismiss it without giving a reason. and if they dismiss it with prejudice, then the case is over because it cannot be filed again.