Parody can fall under the recent turn of events, but that is, of course, up to debate.
So can freedom of speech (which has been decided by the courts as expression, as well as words), seeing as it’s hard to call non-artistic works “copyrighted." I mean, journalists can get information that others don’t want them to have legally, although that is a different situation.
IN FACT!
Assuming that the pictures were not creative (which would leave the copyright laws void), any work done on them would give the artist copyright over them. Of course, one must acquire permission before any sort of commercial trade can become of it, and this is all personal.
However, all members should be banned for using copyrighted material in signatures, for none of them follow any guidelines set forth by copyright law (as noted above). Fair use (in the US) does not protect us.
As for privacy:
Intrusion can be protected if it is not considered harmful to the one intruded upon. Now, this details intrusion on a more physical plane, I would assume the courts would have to decide if the Internet falls under the same things (although, I would assume in damaging cases, it would).
AKA, the law really doesn’t apply to the events transpired (as far as I know). It’s frankly up to Bjarne’s discretion, but unless there is some link to him and the events by specific users, there is NO LEGAL ISSUE HE WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH (regarding US law). That’s only as far as I know, however.
By the way, I don’t think we should REALLY get banned for using what we do in signatures, since it is not criminal law that copyright falls under, so we would have to be confronted by the original holder before legal action can occur.
Also, I find it unfair that Cid can hypocritically get people banned, even though they were not the ones intruding, from what it seems. The only one liable is the one who originally posted the pictures, unless he put up the fact they were private pictures before they were used.
Geass wrote:
If we went by Copyright laws,everyone would be banned for using an Avy’s or Sig’s,on the Interwebz.
That was my point. The rule that says we can’t have copyrighted material voids our use of most signatures and avatars. That would be ridiculous to say the least, and frankly, it isn’t an issue unless the copyright holder states it is. I also put all that in there so no one would claim their photos were copyrighted, because a parody (which is what LeClair’s work has been) would be completely legal.
So in other words*, the whole drama about copyrighted pictures and Cid suing Bjarne etc. was really just a bunch of figurative bullshit that caused drama without any real reason such as laws actually being violated?
*because I refuse to try and think up an assumption that I know what you’re talking about only to find out that I was way too off on the left field-
Tyreaus Dreacon wrote:
So in other words*, the whole drama about copyrighted pictures and Cid suing Bjarne etc. was really just a bunch of figurative bullshit that caused drama without any real reason such as laws actually being violated?
*because I refuse to try and think up an assumption that I know what you’re talking about only to find out that I was way too off on the left field-
Something along those lines. This is for clarification as well as justification. I, at least KNOW, that it was unfair for LeClair to be banned. I’ve seen his work.
I can’t say for sure about Rosputin and oh hai, but Cid’s hypocrisy in the situation (which has been made apparent) shows me it’s for malicious intent, not rational justice.
And I also want to try and keep Bjarne from worrying. He isn’t on here all the time, so he should know the events transpiring here aren’t going to harm him (it seems there was some legal threats, according to what I’ve read). Besides, this is a public forum, I’m pretty sure (unlike an organization) that he would not be responsible for what goes on if he is unaware. Although, he should be informed, to stay protected.
I didn’t threaten to sue Bjarne over the pictures of me, I made it pretty clear that I’ve got a couple years of law studies under my belt, so I know very well that I can’t sue over that.
Here’s the part of my email to Bjarne that spoke of a lawsuit.
“I’ve had my copyrighted graphics stolen on this site before and no action was taken to stop it. I let that one slide. But I WILL use it against you if I have to. I don’t want to be an asshole like this. But I’ve been given no other choice."
I’m speaking about what happened a couple months back when somebody took some of my graphics, not the signatures, that I had created for use with my business and which I hold a copyright on. No action was taken against that person, and thus as Bjarne said in his reply to me, he has to remove things breaking law when it is brought to his attention. I merely added on the bans and the removal of my images for my own “malicious intent” as you so kindly labeled it.
So please don’t jump to conclusions without the full story. Though I do apologize for your wasted time in making this topic.
Obvious Troll wrote:
I didn’t threaten to sue Bjarne over the pictures of me, I made it pretty clear that I’ve got a couple years of law studies under my belt, so I know very well that I can’t sue over that.
Here’s the part of my email to Bjarne that spoke of a lawsuit.
“I’ve had my copyrighted graphics stolen on this site before and no action was taken to stop it. I let that one slide. But I WILL use it against you if I have to. I don’t want to be an asshole like this. But I’ve been given no other choice."
I’m speaking about what happened a couple months back when somebody took some of my graphics, not the signatures, that I had created for use with my business and which I hold a copyright on. No action was taken against that person, and thus as Bjarne said in his reply to me, he has to remove things breaking law when it is brought to his attention. I merely added on the bans and the removal of my images for my own “malicious intent” as you so kindly labeled it.
So please don’t jump to conclusions without the full story. Though I do apologize for your wasted time in making this topic.
So what precisely did that have to do with your photo being posted here then?
If you claimed intrusion of privacy to do with the person who initially posted them, that I can understand. But you made it sound as if you demanded that anyone who commented in the thread be banned, although none of them were involved in the initial posting of the photo, nor the copyright issues of which you’re speaking.
