EFF, MoveOn.org sue Viacom over YouTube takedown notice

EFF, MoveOn.org sue Viacom over YouTube takedown notice
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has requested that a federal court protect the free speech rights of activism site MoveOn.org and Brave New Films after a Viacom DMCA takedown notice resulted in the removal of a legitimate video. The video, titled "Stop the Falsiness," was a parody of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report". It pokes fun at both host Stephen Colbert and MoveOn's own political activism.

The video was uploaded to YouTube in August 2006, and does in fact include clips from The Colbert Report. However, as far as the EFF is concerned, use of these clips is protected by the same fair use that protects comedians such as Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart. "Our clients' video is an act of free speech and a fair use of 'Colbert Report' clips," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "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."



The EFF has challenged many abusers of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's takedown notice system, saying that even just an allegation of copyright infringement is enough to result in content removal; a "shoot first, ask questions later" later policy that the group says can silence online artists and critics, creating unfair hurdles to free speech.

"Online sites like YouTube have revolutionized political expression and can give the little guy an audience of millions for a political point of view. An entertainment powerhouse like Viacom must not be allowed to muzzle independent video creators and their free speech," said Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action. "Copyright owners need to double-check their claims and think about free speech rights before erasing political content from sites like YouTube and misusing the DMCA."

The lawsuit asks for a declaratory judgment that "Stop the Falsiness" does not infringe any Viacom copyright, as well as damages and injunctive relief restraining Viacom from bringing any more copyright claims in connection with the video. EFF is working with Stanford's Center for Internet and Society in this case.

Source:
EFF

Written by: James Delahunty @ 22 Mar 2007 11:48
Advertisement - News comments available below the ad
  • 96 comments

  • ZippyDSM

    the NFL has also got the DMCA turned on them ^^

    22.3.2007 14:50 #1

  • handsom

    This EFF countersuit business is HUGE.

    Personally, I'm waiting for something that may take a while... But I feel may be inevitable if all this continues for a long time. The RIAA uses the DMCA in it's legal actions; it seems inevitable that as time goes on, the RIAA may eventually make another big error (As they often do) and try to charge someone based on LAWFUL music. There is public domain music that many people share, and there's a lot that ISN'T owned by these big companies, that they DON'T have rights to; I'm waiting for the RIAA to pull a case on someone for this type of activity(Hey, they've sued granny, ten year olds, and a CORPSE! Stranger things have happened with them...) and then the EFF would go after them. Imagine that! Potentially, these guys could take them for everything they're worth in compensatory fees! lol.

    K' maybe I'm dreaming a bit here, but I can do that, right?

    22.3.2007 16:14 #2

  • ZippyDSM

    you not the only one!

    22.3.2007 16:31 #3

  • aalucard1

    Sorry...but in this case both the EFF and the twits at MoveOn.org will lose. It is standard law that clearly states that you cannot use an image nor voice of another person without their express written permission UNLESS you clearly state that it is an imitation. In this case they were using actual clips of the show and that is a major no-no. Even trying to state that this is protected political speech is not going to work either as the US Supreme Court has already stated that you can speak with the political person and they know it is an interview...but you CANNOT use their image or voice without their permission if it is not an interview.

    And the Colbert Report is clearly copywrited, as such this is going to be one MAJOR blow and setback and there is not a darned thing they can do about it.

    23.3.2007 05:35 #4

  • ZippyDSM

    Originally posted by aalucard1:Sorry...but in this case both the EFF and the twits at MoveOn.org will lose. It is standard law that clearly states that you cannot use an image nor voice of another person without their express written permission UNLESS you clearly state that it is an imitation. In this case they were using actual clips of the show and that is a major no-no. Even trying to state that this is protected political speech is not going to work either as the US Supreme Court has already stated that you can speak with the political person and they know it is an interview...but you CANNOT use their image or voice without their permission if it is not an interview.

    And the Colbert Report is clearly copywrited, as such this is going to be one MAJOR blow and setback and there is not a darned thing they can do about it.    and fair use states I can SOME of it and parody it so BOOO!!! :P

    23.3.2007 05:44 #5

  • aalucard1

    Quote:Originally posted by aalucard1:Sorry...but in this case both the EFF and the twits at MoveOn.org will lose. It is standard law that clearly states that you cannot use an image nor voice of another person without their express written permission UNLESS you clearly state that it is an imitation. In this case they were using actual clips of the show and that is a major no-no. Even trying to state that this is protected political speech is not going to work either as the US Supreme Court has already stated that you can speak with the political person and they know it is an interview...but you CANNOT use their image or voice without their permission if it is not an interview.

    And the Colbert Report is clearly copywrited, as such this is going to be one MAJOR blow and setback and there is not a darned thing they can do about it.    and fair use states I can SOME of it and parody it so BOOO!!! :P    And NO the law does NOT allow you to use actual clips of the show. You can make up someone to look like the actor and the set and that IS parody and protected, but when you start using ACTUAL likeness of the person or take parts of the show without written permission, then you CANNOT use it and claim protection as a parody. Any first year law student will tell you that.

    So boo to you, and please know what your speaking of before you start popping off as it makes you look completely foolish. Even a simple google search will show that your statement is based more on your opinion then actual factual data and law. Check out Findlaw.com next time before you spout off on something you obviously know nothing about.

    23.3.2007 06:54 #6

  • ZippyDSM

    Quote:[quote]Originally posted by aalucard1:Sorry...but in this case both the EFF and the twits at MoveOn.org will lose. It is standard law that clearly states that you cannot use an image nor voice of another person without their express written permission UNLESS you clearly state that it is an imitation. In this case they were using actual clips of the show and that is a major no-no. Even trying to state that this is protected political speech is not going to work either as the US Supreme Court has already stated that you can speak with the political person and they know it is an interview...but you CANNOT use their image or voice without their permission if it is not an interview.

    And the Colbert Report is clearly copywrited, as such this is going to be one MAJOR blow and setback and there is not a darned thing they can do about it.    and fair use states I can SOME of it and parody it so BOOO!!! :P    And NO the law does NOT allow you to use actual clips of the show. You can make up someone to look like the actor and the set and that IS parody and protected, but when you start using ACTUAL likeness of the person or take parts of the show without written permission, then you CANNOT use it and claim protection as a parody. Any first year law student will tell you that.

    So boo to you, and please know what your speaking of before you start popping off as it makes you look completely foolish. Even a simple google search will show that your statement is based more on your opinion then actual factual data and law. Check out Findlaw.com next time before you spout off on something you obviously know nothing about.[/quote]But I am a fool ^^
    some of these laws are draconian and need to be ignored/removed/revamped for the times,if they don't like it,make a product worth buying then *L*
    Now I am showing my arse ><
    *cralws back under a rock*

    23.3.2007 06:57 #7

  • SD2

    Some people thing they know everyhting and have no problem telling other how dump they are. When you do things like that you just look like a big A###SS.

    23.3.2007 08:41 #8

  • ZippyDSM

    Originally posted by SD2:Some people thing they know everyhting and have no problem telling other how dump they are. When you do things like that you just look like a big A###SS.I know I know I try not to...but sometimes the voices demand it of me :P

    23.3.2007 09:13 #9

  • aalucard1

    Quote:Originally posted by SD2:Some people thing they know everyhting and have no problem telling other how dump they are. When you do things like that you just look like a big A###SS.I know I know I try not to...but sometimes the voices demand it of me :PThen you and SD2 need to stop listening to the voices and start living in reality as if either of you tried that argument in a court, you would be laughed at first, and convicted second.

    and SD2, the only big A###SS I see here are you and your irrational buddy that bewteen the two of you have enough knowledge about the law to fill an atom

    23.3.2007 10:00 #10

  • ZippyDSM

    aalucard1
    sorry mate,the meds are not powerfull enough :P

    23.3.2007 10:17 #11

  • SD2

    I'm so sorry I'm as perfect as you. Why are you so angry? Can't you just say Hey I don't think your right or I don't agree instead of putting people down? I think you just proved my point!

    23.3.2007 10:25 #12

  • aalucard1

    Originally posted by ZIppyDSM:aalucard1
    sorry mate,the meds are not powerfull enough :P    Your right, your meds are not powerful enough

    23.3.2007 10:28 #13

  • aalucard1

    Originally posted by SD2:I'm so sorry I'm as perfect as you. Why are you so angry? Can't you just say Hey I don't think your right or I don't agree instead of putting people down? I think you just proved my point!Not angry at all, just amused at someone that is clearly ignorant of established law that is older then he is, to try and justify an illegal action. And sorry bud, you have proved nothing except that you have no idea what your talking about

    23.3.2007 10:36 #14

  • ZippyDSM

    Quote:Originally posted by SD2:I'm so sorry I'm as perfect as you. Why are you so angry? Can't you just say Hey I don't think your right or I don't agree instead of putting people down? I think you just proved my point!Not angry at all, just amused at someone that is clearly ignorant of established law that is older then he is, to try and justify an illegal action. And sorry bud, you have proved nothing except that you have no idea what your talking about
    laymen dont always have to make their ignorance clear :P
    Anyway is their a site or a essa someone wrote going over the basic nuances of fair use,where its easy enough for a layman to understand?
    I do tend to claim fairuse and godwin and use them to pummel the corporate horde mindlessly =0-o=

    23.3.2007 10:43 #15

  • GernBlan

    Originally posted by aalucard1:And NO the law does NOT allow you to use actual clips of the show. You can make up someone to look like the actor and the set and that IS parody and protected, but when you start using ACTUAL likeness of the person or take parts of the show without written permission, then you CANNOT use it and claim protection as a parody. Any first year law student will tell you that.

    So boo to you, and please know what your speaking of before you start popping off as it makes you look completely foolish. Even a simple google search will show that your statement is based more on your opinion then actual factual data and law. Check out Findlaw.com next time before you spout off on something you obviously know nothing about.    Where's your common sense? If using clips from copyrighted shows is illegal, then how does Jon Stewart do it or the old Saturday Night Live news skit or any other parody news show/skit? Parody is parody -- whether it's a big money name show like Jon Stewart or a YouTube video that I made with my mobile phone.

    I also question how, for example, Fox News can show clips of CNN news shows erroneously reported election results, etc., when these news shows are obviously copyrighted as well.

    There is a reason why this case will see the inside of courtroom, and that's because it's a complaint with merit. The outcome of the case will be interesting.

    23.3.2007 12:00 #16

  • SD2

    Where did you go to law school?

    23.3.2007 12:02 #17

  • ZippyDSM

    GernBlan
    I thought I was losing my mind for main,I thought clips are under fair use.

    23.3.2007 13:32 #18

  • GernBlan

    Originally posted by ZIppyDSM:GernBlan
    I thought I was losing my mind for main,I thought clips are under fair use.    I don't know if they fall under fair use or not, but it's just a matter of common sense. How do all the other parody shows use the real clips? I really don't think Jon Stewart's legal team worked out a license to use copyrighted video clips only to make fun of the people that are in the clips or even those who made the clips (like the various news agencies). Who in their right mind would allow him to do that? Jon Stewart makes people look like idiots on a daily (pun intended) basis. No one would give him a license to use their own clips for that kind of abuse.

    23.3.2007 13:48 #19

  • ZippyDSM

    GernBlan
    parody falls under fair use thus in this instacne these clips fall under fair use.

    clips in general I am unsure what they fall under,but I find it very funny that ads can some how not be showed on youtube and the like when thier vary function is to get the word out over what the ad is about.

    23.3.2007 14:28 #20

  • aalucard1

    Quote:Originally posted by aalucard1:And NO the law does NOT allow you to use actual clips of the show. You can make up someone to look like the actor and the set and that IS parody and protected, but when you start using ACTUAL likeness of the person or take parts of the show without written permission, then you CANNOT use it and claim protection as a parody. Any first year law student will tell you that.

    So boo to you, and please know what your speaking of before you start popping off as it makes you look completely foolish. Even a simple google search will show that your statement is based more on your opinion then actual factual data and law. Check out Findlaw.com next time before you spout off on something you obviously know nothing about.    Where's your common sense? If using clips from copyrighted shows is illegal, then how does Jon Stewart do it or the old Saturday Night Live news skit or any other parody news show/skit? Parody is parody -- whether it's a big money name show like Jon Stewart or a YouTube video that I made with my mobile phone.

    I also question how, for example, Fox News can show clips of CNN news shows erroneously reported election results, etc., when these news shows are obviously copyrighted as well.

    There is a reason why this case will see the inside of courtroom, and that's because it's a complaint with merit. The outcome of the case will be interesting.    So where is your common sense? It is called "written permission" and you would know that if you read the credits at the end of the show

    23.3.2007 14:39 #21

  • aalucard1

    Originally posted by ZIppyDSM:GernBlan
    parody falls under fair use thus in this instacne these clips fall under fair use.

    clips in general I am unsure what they fall under,but I find it very funny that ads can some how not be showed on youtube and the like when thier vary function is to get the word out over what the ad is about.    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.

    23.3.2007 14:48 #22

  • skeeterd

    First Copyright laws are far from cut & dry and except for Parody, also complex. For example: I can use the actual FOX LOGO in a Parody and the law allows it.

    Quote:[i][quote]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.[/quote][/i]

    aalucard1 I think you are misunderstanding what your reading or I have misunderstood what your saying but... public figures in a public place)in a public place is concidered "Fair Use" so to speak. If i take a photo of a political figure and even record audio & video I dont need anyones permission to use that however I decide to.

    If I have audio/video and still images I make of you lets say in a public place YOU have no claim to anything and I would actually hold the Copyright it that case.

    Also depending on many issues there can be more than one Copyright holder of some "content" such as music. Record companies hole the copyright to the actuall recording but someone else holds the copyright to the actuall song and not always the artist singing it. Thats one of many reasons RIAA is about to fall on its ass. I know several who own copyrights to songs RIAA has sued over and they are now going after RIAA officials. Im sure this will hit the news someday soon.

    OK thats my 2 cents worth

    24.3.2007 17:53 #23

  • aalucard1

    Quote:First Copyright laws are far from cut & dry and except for Parody, also complex. For example: I can use the actual FOX LOGO in a Parody and the law allows it.

    [quote][i][quote]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.    [/quote][/i]

    aalucard1 I think you are misunderstanding what your reading or I have misunderstood what your saying but... public figures in a public place)in a public place is concidered "Fair Use" so to speak. If i take a photo of a political figure and even record audio & video I dont need anyones permission to use that however I decide to.

    If I have audio/video and still images I make of you lets say in a public place YOU have no claim to anything and I would actually hold the Copyright it that case.

    Also depending on many issues there can be more than one Copyright holder of some "content" such as music. Record companies hole the copyright to the actuall recording but someone else holds the copyright to the actuall song and not always the artist singing it. Thats one of many reasons RIAA is about to fall on its ass. I know several who own copyrights to songs RIAA has sued over and they are now going after RIAA officials. Im sure this will hit the news someday soon.

    OK thats my 2 cents worth[/quote]


    If you have a video of me in a public place, and you do not get my permission to use it and use it anyway, then yes I can sue as you have taken my likeness without permission and there is no judge in the US that will allow that. Look at the former members of the rock group KISS. They had their makeup on and wanted to protect their personal lives before they removed the makup. Rolling Stone wanted an exclusive and actually caught Gene Simmons and Peter Criss coming out of a party and snapped their pictures in public without their makeup and this was in 1978. Rolling Stone got a cease and desist letter from KISS's attorneys and they threatened to sue if they published the pictures. Rolling Stone insisted they had the right to publish and stated they were going to press with the pictures, they tried anyway. A US District Judge in Albany New York placed a "stay" on the magazine and they then tried to appeal it to the USSC as that was the next court in line. The USSC refused to hear the case and in that position the ruling was upheld and enforced.

    Just recently, Tom Cruise took his new daughter out for a stroll (this was before there were pictures) and the photogs snapped and were going to publish them. Cruise sued to stop the pictures and won in the 9th US District Court. Not only were the pictures never published and all traces of them destroyed, but the photog had to pay a $25,000.00 fine for invasion of privacy even though Cruise was in a public area.

    And if you are wondering, I was a legal aide with the JAG Corps from 1982-1985 so I would guess that my knowledge of the law far outstrips most people in this forum. And no that is not a dig at you, so please dont take it as such.

    24.3.2007 19:08 #24

  • GernBlan

    @aalucard1: So I guess we are to assume that Jon Stewart, CNN, Fox News, and all the other shows that show clips of people, including of each other's shows, have obtained written permission to do so? So, President Bush gave Jon Stewart written permission to make him look like a complete and total jackass in all the parody news sketches he does on a weekly basis?

    Who's not using their common sense now? I guess poor Jon Stewart can expect a HUGE lawsuit any day now...

    This case will get dismissed or otherwise thrown out of court, and I will be coming back here to make fun of you WHEN it does.

    24.3.2007 19:12 #25

  • aalucard1

    Originally posted by GernBlan:@aalucard1: So I guess we are to assume that Jon Stewart, CNN, Fox News, and all the other shows that show clips of people, including of each other's shows, have obtained written permission to do so? So, President Bush gave Jon Stewart written permission to make him look like a complete and total jackass in all the parody news sketches he does on a weekly basis?

    Who's not using their common sense now? I guess poor Jon Stewart can expect a HUGE lawsuit any day now...

    This case will get dismissed or otherwise thrown out of court, and I will be coming back here to make fun of you WHEN it does.


    You seemingly are not using the common sense God gave you or else you would know that Clinton sued to stop people from using his likeness in Carl Sagan's movie Contact. He lost. The reason is that political figures like Bush and Clinton are not covered by this law therefor you can make fun of them all day long. Ever see SNL? They made fun of people all day long but they got permission to use images BEFORE they used it.

    Sorry, you have no idea what you are talking about and if my image is used and I sue...I will win and then I will come back and laugh at the pitiful people that think they are correct when the laws will blow them out of the water.

    24.3.2007 19:37 #26

  • GernBlan

    Originally posted by aalucard1:Sorry, you have no idea what you are talking about and if my image is used and I sue...I will win and then I will come back and laugh at the pitiful people that think they are correct when the laws will blow them out of the water.I'll tell you what, Mr. Famous -- if I ever use your image for anything, you are more than welcome to sue me. It's a little on the "scarey-weird" side of things that you actually think anyone would want to use your image....but...okay. If that's your fantasy, who am I to burst your bubble.

    I can't help to notice you didn't bother to wager on the outcome of the case at hand, and instead of made the impressive legal threat only about using your image.

    And I wasn't talking about just using George Bush's image -- I was talking about using news clips of him. I've seen Jon Stewart where clips were shown of Bush being interviewed by hosts of new shows. Are you telling me that Stewart got permission to use (and make fun of) those clips?

    24.3.2007 19:55 #27

  • aalucard1

    Quote:Originally posted by aalucard1:Sorry, you have no idea what you are talking about and if my image is used and I sue...I will win and then I will come back and laugh at the pitiful people that think they are correct when the laws will blow them out of the water.I'll tell you what, Mr. Famous -- if I ever use your image for anything, you are more than welcome to sue me. It's a little on the "scarey-weird" side of things that you actually think anyone would want to use your image....but...okay. If that's your fantasy, who am I to burst your bubble.

    I can't help to notice you didn't bother to wager on the outcome of the case at hand, and instead of made the impressive legal threat only about using your image.

    And I wasn't talking about just using George Bush's image -- I was talking about using news clips of him. I've seen Jon Stewart where clips were shown of Bush being interviewed by hosts of new shows. Are you telling me that Stewart got permission to use (and make fun of) those clips?

    Tell you what Mr.No-Clue, I was using myself as an example. You DO know what an example is do you not? And why wager on something that I am sure to win? Sort of takes all the fun out of it as well as the suspense...you have heard of a slam-dunk/open and closed case have you not? This is a perfect example of same

    Again your refusal to read the posts before you start on your keyboard is astounding. If you had you would have seen that the courts have already stated that using a politician's image is NOT covered under any law and you can use them to your heart's content and there is not a thing they can do about it. And yes, if you would have taken the time to read the blasted credits, you would have seen that there is a statement that says "USED WITH PERMISSION OF" and it lists the different news shows who's clips have been used.

    You people really need to start doing your homework BEFORE you use the keyboard.

    25.3.2007 06:16 #28

  • GernBlan

    Yeah, okeedokee. Unfortunately for you, Oh Wise One, I record The Daily Show on my computer daily (pun intended), including the credits. I just checked the last four episodes and see no such "Used with permission of" line that includes all sources that they used. Now, I'm sure that if the Daily Show wanted to use Tonight Show or Late Night footage, they would show their peers the courtesy of asking. However, I seriously doubt that they would ever ask a true news channel for permission, because any real news channel or show in the right mind would not want to be made fun of on such a popular show, now would they? This is where you're not using common sense. Now add that to the fact that you're only speaking half-truths about all these supposed laws and pulling the rest out of your posterior, and then you'll know why NO ONE READING THIS BELIEVES MOST OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

    Face it, bud (and I include myself in this), if anyone reading this site takes anyone posting these comments as irrefutable experts then they readers are stupid. It begs the question that if you were such a great, reliable, genius, professional source then....what the hell are you doing here? Don't you have some place better to go? Like court? Parliment? Congress? United Nations assembly? or maybe even just work? Get over yourself and stop correcting posts here. Post your opinion on the original article, shut up, and move on.

    Thanks and have a great day!

    25.3.2007 18:02 #29

  • aalucard1

    Originally posted by GernBlan:Yeah, okeedokee. Unfortunately for you, Oh Wise One, I record The Daily Show on my computer daily (pun intended), including the credits. I just checked the last four episodes and see no such "Used with permission of" line that includes all sources that they used. Now, I'm sure that if the Daily Show wanted to use Tonight Show or Late Night footage, they would show their peers the courtesy of asking. However, I seriously doubt that they would ever ask a true news channel for permission, because any real news channel or show in the right mind would not want to be made fun of on such a popular show, now would they? This is where you're not using common sense. Now add that to the fact that you're only speaking half-truths about all these supposed laws and pulling the rest out of your posterior, and then you'll know why NO ONE READING THIS BELIEVES MOST OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

    Face it, bud (and I include myself in this), if anyone reading this site takes anyone posting these comments as irrefutable experts then they readers are stupid. It begs the question that if you were such a great, reliable, genius, professional source then....what the hell are you doing here? Don't you have some place better to go? Like court? Parliment? Congress? United Nations assembly? or maybe even just work? Get over yourself and stop correcting posts here. Post your opinion on the original article, shut up, and move on.

    Thanks and have a great day!

    Then you are not reading it all the way as I just checked my copy and it was there clear as day. "Video Clips property of CNN" just for one listing. Face it bud....you got trumped and all you are trying to do now is save face.

    And you should get over yourself. I am not the one that started whining I didnt know what I was talking about. I gave you federal code and I gave you examples of the law. If you are too ignorant to listen or want to open yourself to a lawsuit by illegally using clips that you dont have permission to use, then be my guest.

    25.3.2007 18:52 #30

  • GernBlan

    Quote:Then you are not reading it all the way as I just checked my copy and it was there clear as day. "Video Clips property of CNN" just for one listing. Face it bud....you got trumped and all you are trying to do now is save face."Video Clips property of CNN" is a VERY far cry from "USED WITH PERMISSION OF..." like you insisted were in the credits just a few posts up from this one. Just to make sure you don't edit it out (since it seems to be your style to change your story), here's the quoted sentence -- these are your words:

    Quote:And yes, if you would have taken the time to read the blasted credits, you would have seen that there is a statement that says "USED WITH PERMISSION OF" and it lists the different news shows who's clips have been used.See, any nitwit first-year law student would know that there's a HUGE difference between what you're saying in your two posts. One says that The Daily Show must ask permission to use news clips and video footage from other shows, the other says that The Daily Show simply has to acknowledge the copyright in the credits. See, I was looking for "USED WITH PERMISSION OF" and not copyright credits. There's a big...as in HUGE...difference, and if you were such a legal mastermind as you seem to claim, you would know this. So make up your mind -- which is it...copyright...or prior permission?

    Quote:And you should get over yourself. I am not the one that started whining I didnt know what I was talking about. I gave you federal code and I gave you examples of the law. If you are too ignorant to listen or want to open yourself to a lawsuit by illegally using clips that you dont have permission to use, then be my guest.Oh, thanks so much for the legal tips! Oh, my goodness! You saved me! Because right after I was done posting this message here, I was going to step into my own studio and produce my nightly comedy show that uses nothing but other people's copyrighted clips without permission! Whew! The lawsuit you just saved me! How much do I owe you, Mr. Legal Eagle?

    This is how you just continue to show yourself to be a puffed up nitwit instead of anyone knowledgeable on the matter. I never said *I* was using video clips, actor's images, etc. News flash: I DON'T HAVE A TV SHOW. I've been simply stating fact that these parody shows and comedy skit shows that use real news footage doesn't have to get prior permission to use it. Granted, they may be required to list a copyright at the end of the show in the credits, but that doesn't mean they asked permission prior and it doesn't mean they have to.

    I just saw this -- probably because you were editing it after I viewed the original post:

    Quote:And if you are wondering, I was a legal aide with the JAG Corps from 1982-1985 so I would guess that my knowledge of the law far outstrips most people in this forum. And no that is not a dig at you, so please dont take it as such.Dude, that was 20 frickin' years ago! 20 years ago I was a taxi cab driver in Japan (not kidding), but that sure as hell doesn't mean that I can assume I'm a better driver than anyone here. This is a perfect example of how you need to get over yourself, and maybe realize that it's...brace yourself...2007. You do know that, right? Okay, when then let's jump forward a couple of decades and quit living in the past back when you used to empty the garbage cans in the JAG office each night so now you feel that makes you a Hollywood attorney.

    25.3.2007 20:43 #31

  • skeeterd

    Im gonna say again it would all depend on when, where and why in many cases.

    Quote:If you have a video of me in a public place, and you do not get my permission to use it and use it anyway, then yes I can sue as you have taken my likeness without permission and there is no judge in the US that will allow that.I would and will chalange that issue anytime. News stations do it everyday and i have yet to see anyone stop it. The WHERE is a Public Place.

    Im not saying I know everything about copyright since No One does and most Copyright lawyers even do specialty work since its so complex.

    Quote:And if you are wondering, I was a legal aide with the JAG Corps from 1982-1985 so I would guess that my knowledge of the law far outstrips most people in this forum.That was JAG (no jusisdiction in the real world) and alot has changed since 1985 in the real world. I didnt take it as a dig and no that is not a dig at you either, so please dont take it as such.

    Oh and I AM involved in Entertainment Copyright Issues where I work now 1992-2007

    26.3.2007 01:18 #32

  • aalucard1

    Quote:Im gonna say again it would all depend on when, where and why in many cases.

    [quote]If you have a video of me in a public place, and you do not get my permission to use it and use it anyway, then yes I can sue as you have taken my likeness without permission and there is no judge in the US that will allow that.    I would and will chalange that issue anytime. News stations do it everyday and i have yet to see anyone stop it. The WHERE is a Public Place.

    Im not saying I know everything about copyright since No One does and most Copyright lawyers even do specialty work since its so complex.

    Quote:And if you are wondering, I was a legal aide with the JAG Corps from 1982-1985 so I would guess that my knowledge of the law far outstrips most people in this forum.That was JAG (no jusisdiction in the real world) and alot has changed since 1985 in the real world. I didnt take it as a dig and no that is not a dig at you either, so please dont take it as such.

    Oh and I AM involved in Entertainment Copyright Issues where I work now 1992-2007[/quote]

    Sure you are...and Pigs fly as well. Your attempt at one upmanship does not bode well for your credibility. And if you were in copywrite as you try and claim, then you would have posted the CFR's well before I did, and you would have already known about Clinton and the fuss he made about him being used in Contact, and how he lost that argument because political figures are not covered under the imgae sections of copywrite law.

    And you show your ignorance yet again when you try and say that JAG has no jusisdiction in the real world. JAG attorneys hold the same JD degree as any civilian attorney and can argue case in a military trial as well as a civilian trial, just like a civilian attorney can argue a case in a JAG courtroom. And your ignorance really hits rock bottom when you try to imply that CFR's do not have legal standing in a JAG court or verse-visa. Just like JAG Legal Aides do the exact same work as any other Legal Aide.

    So argue all you want, and you will lose your argument in any court of law. So keep trying to show that you have an inkling if what your speaking of as everytime you try to disprove it, you show that you really have no idea what your talking about.

    And your idea of the "public" is wrong yet again. Go ask any movie producer if they do not have to get release forms for people that accidentally get into their films (starting to understand now why they do shooting on a closed set or a closed location?) and listen to them tell you 1001 reasons why they hate that law that makes them do this. Now if you are correct, then why the need for a release form?

    If I were you I would stop while I was ahead (in your mind anyway, not in reality) as the more you open your mouth, the more you show your ignorance.

    Oh and BTW, I AM a Legal Aide for Bish, Roth and Butler LTD and our fields of law are persdonal injury/death claims/insurance claims/product defects/business disputes/copywrites/accidents/probate/estate planning/real estate disputes/buisness law/credit-debtor law and governmental law. We are so large we operate out of three states, Ohio-Indiana-Michigan (and that is where most of the major manufacturing businesses are located...Ford-Chrysler-GM-Midwest Division of Proctor and Gamble-Dinner Bell-Echrich Meats and quite a few others)

    So now you know my background...so pray tell us, where did you get your legal background and what is the name of the company and division you work in now? You opened your mouth now you had better be able to back it up or all will know you for what you really are.

    26.3.2007 04:37 #33

  • GernBlan

    Quote:Sure you are...and Pigs fly as well. Your attempt at one upmanship does not bode well for your credibility.Oh, but your claim to legal fame being a LEGAL AIDE with JAG 20 years ago bodes so well for your credibility? 20 years ago we barely had cable television -- most people did not. Most people did not have video cameras, and there definitely was no internet or YouTube. This is a new, modern issue, so whatever you learned 20 years ago with JAG (who typically has little to nothing to do with copyright law) is completely irrelevant. Plus, dude, you're a LEGAL AIDE...not an attorney. Come back and brag when you're a lawyer. Also, you've been a legal aide for over 20 years now? 20 years?! Don't have much initiative, do you?

    Quote:And if you were in copywrite as you try and claim...and how he lost that argument because political figures are not covered under the imgae sections of copywrite law.And if you were in copyRIGHT law as you claim, you would know that it's copyright and not copyWRITE. These words are not interchangeable, as they mean very different things and really have nothing to do with the other. Google it and feel foolish.

    Quote:And you show your ignorance yet again when you try and say that JAG has no jusisdiction in the real world. JAG attorneys hold the same JD degree as any civilian attorney and can argue case in a military trial as well as a civilian trial, just like a civilian attorney can argue a case in a JAG courtroom. And your ignorance really hits rock bottom when you try to imply that CFR's do not have legal standing in a JAG court or verse-visa. Just like JAG Legal Aides do the exact same work as any other Legal Aide.Yeah, and I'm sure that JAG is just neck deep in copyright lawsuits right now. Those poor people! I seriously doubt you were ever working for JAG, but even if you were you were definitely not working in copyright law.

    Quote:And your idea of the "public" is wrong yet again. Go ask any movie producer if they do not have to get release forms for people that accidentally get into their films (starting to understand now why they do shooting on a closed set or a closed location?) and listen to them tell you 1001 reasons why they hate that law that makes them do this. Now if you are correct, then why the need for a release form?They have the form and get people to sign it so they don't have to pay them royalties from the movie. It's all about money - not copyright. On the Fox and Friends morning show, I guess they have all those people sign releases to stand behind the hosts outside and wave through the window, eh?

    Quote:Oh and BTW, I AM a Legal Aide for Bish, Roth and Butler LTD and our fields of law are persdonal injury/death claims/insurance claims/product defects/business disputes/copywrites/accidents/probate/estate planning/real estate disputes/buisness law/credit-debtor law and governmental law. We are so large we operate out of three states, Ohio-Indiana-Michigan (and that is where most of the major manufacturing businesses are located...Ford-Chrysler-GM-Midwest Division of Proctor and Gamble-Dinner Bell-Echrich Meats and quite a few others)Why come out with this now? Sounds to me like you're pulling this info out of your posterior. Why would you lay claim to being a legal aide with JAG 20 years ago in attempt to make you look credible in this dicussion (when it doesn't because it's 20 years ago and has nothing to do with copyright law), and yet in actuality you are REALLY still a legal aide and working for a huge law firm in three states?

    Bull$hit. Plain and simple.

    If you really did this for a living now, you wouldn't have used the JAG line -- you would've just said you are a long-time career legal aide working in a large lawfirm that works in copyright (not copywrite) law, and left it at that.

    Go back to surfing the porn sites -- you're wasting our time here and have completely lost all credibility (not that you ever had any because NO ONE here has any).

    26.3.2007 08:17 #34

  • aalucard1

    Quote:[quote]Sure you are...and Pigs fly as well. Your attempt at one upmanship does not bode well for your credibility.Oh, but your claim to legal fame being a LEGAL AIDE with JAG 20 years ago bodes so well for your credibility? 20 years ago we barely had cable television -- most people did not. Most people did not have video cameras, and there definitely was no internet or YouTube. This is a new, modern issue, so whatever you learned 20 years ago with JAG (who typically has little to nothing to do with copyright law) is completely irrelevant. Plus, dude, you're a LEGAL AIDE...not an attorney. Come back and brag when you're a lawyer. Also, you've been a legal aide for over 20 years now? 20 years?! Don't have much initiative, do you?

    Quote:And if you were in copywrite as you try and claim...and how he lost that argument because political figures are not covered under the imgae sections of copywrite law.And if you were in copyRIGHT law as you claim, you would know that it's copyright and not copyWRITE. These words are not interchangeable, as they mean very different things and really have nothing to do with the other. Google it and feel foolish.

    Quote:And you show your ignorance yet again when you try and say that JAG has no jusisdiction in the real world. JAG attorneys hold the same JD degree as any civilian attorney and can argue case in a military trial as well as a civilian trial, just like a civilian attorney can argue a case in a JAG courtroom. And your ignorance really hits rock bottom when you try to imply that CFR's do not have legal standing in a JAG court or verse-visa. Just like JAG Legal Aides do the exact same work as any other Legal Aide.Yeah, and I'm sure that JAG is just neck deep in copyright lawsuits right now. Those poor people! I seriously doubt you were ever working for JAG, but even if you were you were definitely not working in copyright law.

    Quote:And your idea of the "public" is wrong yet again. Go ask any movie producer if they do not have to get release forms for people that accidentally get into their films (starting to understand now why they do shooting on a closed set or a closed location?) and listen to them tell you 1001 reasons why they hate that law that makes them do this. Now if you are correct, then why the need for a release form?They have the form and get people to sign it so they don't have to pay them royalties from the movie. It's all about money - not copyright. On the Fox and Friends morning show, I guess they have all those people sign releases to stand behind the hosts outside and wave through the window, eh?

    Quote:Oh and BTW, I AM a Legal Aide for Bish, Roth and Butler LTD and our fields of law are persdonal injury/death claims/insurance claims/product defects/business disputes/copywrites/accidents/probate/estate planning/real estate disputes/buisness law/credit-debtor law and governmental law. We are so large we operate out of three states, Ohio-Indiana-Michigan (and that is where most of the major manufacturing businesses are located...Ford-Chrysler-GM-Midwest Division of Proctor and Gamble-Dinner Bell-Echrich Meats and quite a few others)Why come out with this now? Sounds to me like you're pulling this info out of your posterior. Why would you lay claim to being a legal aide with JAG 20 years ago in attempt to make you look credible in this dicussion (when it doesn't because it's 20 years ago and has nothing to do with copyright law), and yet in actuality you are REALLY still a legal aide and working for a huge law firm in three states?

    Bull$hit. Plain and simple.

    If you really did this for a living now, you wouldn't have used the JAG line -- you would've just said you are a long-time career legal aide working in a large lawfirm that works in copyright (not copywrite) law, and left it at that.

    Go back to surfing the porn sites -- you're wasting our time here and have completely lost all credibility (not that you ever had any because NO ONE here has any).[/quote]

    The only bullshit I see is from you. Read the messages moron, I WAS ASKED where I got my legal background and I was answering it and you at the same time.

    I gave you legal opinion via the Codified Federal Regulations=CFR (Federal Law) I gave you examples of how you were wrong, I told you what courts would toss you out on your ass with that kind of argument that you are using. I even told you who my employer was and where we were located, and instead of telling us WHO YOUR employer was who you claimed to have background in this issue, YOU NEGLECTED TO SAY and expect us to just believe you..

    Tell you what troll, go back and hide under your rock. You have had your arse so soundly thrashed that you will have to change your names to have any credibility in anything you say here ever again. The only people we know who are lying through their teeth are people like you that give smoke and mirrors or neglect to answer when asked a direct point. So go away script kiddie, you have been found out and you have been soundly spanked. HAND!

    26.3.2007 08:33 #35

  • GernBlan

    Quote:The only bullshit I see is from you. Read the messages moron, I WAS ASKED where I got my legal background and I was answering it and you at the same time.

    I gave you legal opinion via the Codified Federal Regulations=CFR (Federal Law) I gave you examples of how you were wrong, I told you what courts would toss you out on your ass with that kind of argument that you are using. I even told you who my employer was and where we were located, and instead of telling us WHO YOUR employer was who you claimed to have background in this issue, YOU NEGLECTED TO SAY and expect us to just believe you..

    Tell you what troll, go back and hide under your rock. You have had your arse so soundly thrashed that you will have to change your names to have any credibility in anything you say here ever again. The only people we know who are lying through their teeth are people like you that give smoke and mirrors or neglect to answer when asked a direct point. So go away script kiddie, you have been found out and you have been soundly spanked. HAND!    Uh...yeah.

    1. Learn how to use the comment software. Your quotes are all screwed up.

    2. Take your own advice and go back up and read through the thread. You seem to be disregarding the posters' names. I never claimed to work in copyright law. You're grouping two different people together, acting as if we're one person.

    3. You're the one who has yet to address issues I have raised. What about news channels not needing to get waivers from everyone they film? What about you apparently lying about the credits of The Daily Show saying "USED WITH PERMISSION OF" or whatever, what about you claiming to currently work in copyright law only after claiming that you did over 20 years ago earlier, what about your mixing up the words copyright and copywrite when you're supposedly neck-deep in copyright issues on a daily basis in the tri-state area. You just continue to spout B.S. without answering any questions or contradictions we've raised with your last round of B.S.

    Basically, you have at least two people here completely disagreeing with you. So slouch your shoulders, suck your chest back in, and quit strutting around. You haven't spanked anyone (except maybe yourself), and I definitely don't see you having won even one single point in this entire debate/discussion.

    I can assure you I will continue to use my username without any shame. You? I would've changed it already if I was in your situation. Frankly, I'm embarassed for you.

    26.3.2007 13:47 #36

  • aalucard1

    Quote:[quote]The only bullshit I see is from you. Read the messages moron, I WAS ASKED where I got my legal background and I was answering it and you at the same time.

    I gave you legal opinion via the Codified Federal Regulations=CFR (Federal Law) I gave you examples of how you were wrong, I told you what courts would toss you out on your ass with that kind of argument that you are using. I even told you who my employer was and where we were located, and instead of telling us WHO YOUR employer was who you claimed to have background in this issue, YOU NEGLECTED TO SAY and expect us to just believe you..

    Tell you what troll, go back and hide under your rock. You have had your arse so soundly thrashed that you will have to change your names to have any credibility in anything you say here ever again. The only people we know who are lying through their teeth are people like you that give smoke and mirrors or neglect to answer when asked a direct point. So go away script kiddie, you have been found out and you have been soundly spanked. HAND!    Uh...yeah.

    1. Learn how to use the comment software. Your quotes are all screwed up.

    2. Take your own advice and go back up and read through the thread. You seem to be disregarding the posters' names. I never claimed to work in copyright law. You're grouping two different people together, acting as if we're one person.

    3. You're the one who has yet to address issues I have raised. What about news channels not needing to get waivers from everyone they film? What about you apparently lying about the credits of The Daily Show saying "USED WITH PERMISSION OF" or whatever, what about you claiming to currently work in copyright law only after claiming that you did over 20 years ago earlier, what about your mixing up the words copyright and copywrite when you're supposedly neck-deep in copyright issues on a daily basis in the tri-state area. You just continue to spout B.S. without answering any questions or contradictions we've raised with your last round of B.S.

    Basically, you have at least two people here completely disagreeing with you. So slouch your shoulders, suck your chest back in, and quit strutting around. You haven't spanked anyone (except maybe yourself), and I definitely don't see you having won even one single point in this entire debate/discussion.

    I can assure you I will continue to use my username without any shame. You? I would've changed it already if I was in your situation. Frankly, I'm embarassed for you.[/quote]



    I have replied to every post sent to me. And I have answered honestly. If you people want to try and convince a judge that you have the right to use any film clip or an image of any person without their permission or compensation, feel free. Just post the court that you will be in and I will be sitting in the back row eating popcorn and laughing my ass off when the judge takes you people down about three feet and then fines you 5 or six figures for doing what you think you can do.

    That will be better then a 3 stooges marathon.

    26.3.2007 15:22 #37

  • GernBlan

    Quote:I have replied to every post sent to me. And I have answered honestly. If you people want to try and convince a judge that you have the right to use any film clip or an image of any person without their permission or compensation, feel free. Just post the court that you will be in and I will be sitting in the back row eating popcorn and laughing my ass off when the judge takes you people down about three feet and then fines you 5 or six figures for doing what you think you can do.

    That will be better then a 3 stooges marathon.    And yet for all your legal genius, you still can't seem to use the quote function properly. I think that says a lot about you.

    Once again though, you're missing the point. No one here ever said they were going to use film clips, become a lawyer, and fight the copyright system. I'm pretty sure all anyone said (definitely all that I said) was a prediction on who would win. I still stand on my prediction and only time will tell. That's where the only real "spanking" will occur, whether it's to you or me, because in the end I'm definitely not trying this case, and neither are you even though you seem to think you are the worlds most supreme legal eagle...er...legal aide (who can't even try a case whether your with JAG or Bish, Fish, Bomish or whatever.

    26.3.2007 16:17 #38

  • aalucard1

    Quote:[quote]I have replied to every post sent to me. And I have answered honestly. If you people want to try and convince a judge that you have the right to use any film clip or an image of any person without their permission or compensation, feel free. Just post the court that you will be in and I will be sitting in the back row eating popcorn and laughing my ass off when the judge takes you people down about three feet and then fines you 5 or six figures for doing what you think you can do.

    That will be better then a 3 stooges marathon.    And yet for all your legal genius, you still can't seem to use the quote function properly. I think that says a lot about you.

    Once again though, you're missing the point. No one here ever said they were going to use film clips, become a lawyer, and fight the copyright system. I'm pretty sure all anyone said (definitely all that I said) was a prediction on who would win. I still stand on my prediction and only time will tell. That's where the only real "spanking" will occur, whether it's to you or me, because in the end I'm definitely not trying this case, and neither are you even though you seem to think you are the worlds most supreme legal eagle...er...legal aide (who can't even try a case whether your with JAG or Bish, Fish, Bomish or whatever.[/quote]

    As I said, go ahead and try your little theory out on a Judge and see what happens. Just do me the favor of telling me what courtroom and where you will try it as I love to watch live theater. And it will be so enjoyable to see people like you who think they know it all being taken down a large peg ot two.

    Am I the best source for legal advice? Nope, no attorney nor legal aide is, but in this case I am dead positive that I am correct and that you would be..as my neice likes to say "Cuffed and Stuffed" so fast you would not know what hit you. I mean there are thousands of people right now being charged with using clips from any documentary filmed in public places and are being charged with violations of the DMCA. And they ALL have to win as all it will take is one to lose, and your pitiful theory is history, and so far, they have all lost. Just go ask Clinton about his lawsuit about using his image in Contact and how he lost. Or ask Naomi Campbell about her lawsuit against photogs who were in public areas and took pictures of her entering a rehab..and ended up having to pay Naomi Campbell over $250,000. for using her likeness without her permission.

    You lost the argument troll, so go away and come back when you have your JD degree.

    26.3.2007 18:26 #39

  • POEE

    aalucard1:

    You are embarrassing yourself. Stop it. Inept lawyers like you -- who are too arrogant to see their own errors -- give us all a bad name.

    When the EFF wins this case, I hope you have the integrity to come back here and apologize for your unsolicited and unwarranted rudeness.

    26.3.2007 22:25 #40

  • skeeterd

    Copyright - When Kinkos does it correctly.

    Gezz I remember the days befor every idiot could get online for 10.00 and repeat something they heard Nancy P say on Court TV yet have no clue what it related to.

    Ohh and the Film Producers.. Yeah they get releases because its "Film" and not TV... Oh and befor Mr. JAG questions my ability let me refer to the following Interview I did and the following Credits scroll down to Casting

    I must admit I dont know the diferance between a Copyright & Copy machine....

    26.3.2007 23:22 #41

  • aalucard1

    Originally posted by skeeterd:Copyright - When Kinkos does it correctly.

    Gezz I remember the days befor every idiot could get online for 10.00 and repeat something they heard Nancy P say on Court TV yet have no clue what it related to.

    Ohh and the Film Producers.. Yeah they get releases because its "Film" and not TV... Oh and befor Mr. JAG questions my ability let me refer to the following Interview I did and the following Credits scroll down to Casting

    I must admit I dont know the diferance between a Copyright & Copy machine....
    ---------------
    Why dis yourself, everyone knows the difference between a copyright and a copy machine and you sound like you have been quoting Court TV way too much yourself.

    So please... all of you; if you think you can do what thousands of people have tried before and failed...people with more attorneys and money and clout (professional AND political) then you or I would ever have in 300 lifetimes..then please do.

    Just dont take offense when I sit back and laugh at you and tell you "I told you so"

    27.3.2007 03:41 #42

  • GernBlan

    Quote:As I said, go ahead and try your little theory out on a Judge and see what happens. Just do me the favor of telling me what courtroom and where you will try it as I love to watch live theater. And it will be so enjoyable to see people like you who think they know it all being taken down a large peg ot two.

    Am I the best source for legal advice? Nope, no attorney nor legal aide is, but in this case I am dead positive that I am correct and that you would be..as my neice likes to say "Cuffed and Stuffed" so fast you would not know what hit you. I mean there are thousands of people right now being charged with using clips from any documentary filmed in public places and are being charged with violations of the DMCA. And they ALL have to win as all it will take is one to lose, and your pitiful theory is history, and so far, they have all lost. Just go ask Clinton about his lawsuit about using his image in Contact and how he lost. Or ask Naomi Campbell about her lawsuit against photogs who were in public areas and took pictures of her entering a rehab..and ended up having to pay Naomi Campbell over $250,000. for using her likeness without her permission.

    You lost the argument troll, so go away and come back when you have your JD degree.    Oh...my...God. Are you a blind legal aide? Is that why you're having so much trouble with all this? I suspect you are blind, dislexic, and mentally retarded. Again:

    1. If you're going to post here, learn how to use the "Quote" function properly. I don't think you've used it correctly in this entire thread. This likely because you are base level stupid about basic, common sense things like how to post a comment using a quote, and it only further comes out when you start spewing legal stuff that is not only wrong, but just as obviously as stupid as you not being able to post correctly to an online forum.

    2. AGAIN, no one ever said that I was going to argue the case, no one ever said that I was going to use film clips, and no one ever said that I wanted to talk to Bill Clinton. I simply made a prediction that the EFF will win, which they will. Please don't think for one second that I will not track you down (through email address or even IP number) to deliver the world's largest I-FRICKIN'-TOLD-YOU-SO, because I will.

    3. You just continue to show your lack of legal knowledge/education the more you cite information here that is completely irrelevant to this case. There is a huge difference between copyright law and privacy. If you truly were a legal aide (with over 20 years experience), you would know this. Most of the cases you are citing above are privacy related -- not copyright.

    4. Please go back and review the entire thread. There isn't a single person who agrees with you on any of this. So, I guess we all lost the argument against you, eh? Gosh, you're so smart. I wish we could all be as smart as you are (that would be sarcasm, but you probably won't get it since you're as dumb as a rock).

    As for getting a JD, why should I? I don't have to be an attorney to make an educated prediction on the outcome of a lawsuit. Besides, if you knew how many degrees I already have, you would know that one more would be a waste of my time. Not to mention that I'm retired. When you're financially capable of retiring well under the age of 40, let me know and then I start taking education advice from you, someone who's been a frickin' legal aide for 25 years. Given that, I guess it's safe to assume that you don't have a JD or you wouldn't be just a legal aide -- you'd be a lawyer. Or wait -- what's the matter? Did you get your JD from Bubba's School of Law and Barber Shop (mail order), but can't pass the Bar to save your life? Yeah. Either way, I think I'll trust the legal advice and knowledge of just about anyone but you. If you had any sort of successful law career, you wouldn't be a legal aide after 25 years.

    28.3.2007 11:38 #43

  • GernBlan

    Originally posted by POEE:aalucard1:

    You are embarrassing yourself. Stop it. Inept lawyers like you -- who are too arrogant to see their own errors -- give us all a bad name.

    When the EFF wins this case, I hope you have the integrity to come back here and apologize for your unsolicited and unwarranted rudeness.    He's not a lawyer. At worst, he's giving legal aides a bad name, but then again anyone who stays a legal aide for 25 years is already giving the career field a bad name, and that bad name is "sedentary."

    28.3.2007 11:42 #44

  • AUDIOMIND

    I would suggest anyone in this forum who hasn't taken the time yet to go over right now and join the EFF and their great cause. They are fighting to help the consumer......the individual.....for our rights, in a time when most corporations and government entities are attempting to destroy our fundamental basic rights.

    http://action.eff.org/

    For those unaware of the term Fair Use I give you:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u...07----000-.html

    28.3.2007 18:23 #45

  • aalucard1

    Originally posted by AUDIOMIND:I would suggest anyone in this forum who hasn't taken the time yet to go over right now and join the EFF and their great cause. They are fighting to help the consumer......the individual.....for our rights, in a time when most corporations and government entities are attempting to destroy our fundamental basic rights.

    http://action.eff.org/

    For those unaware of the term Fair Use I give you:
    " target="_blank">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u...0-.html[/quote]






    Anyone that wishes to use an image of someone other then a politician for any reason and not get their permission, feel free to jump. Just let me know what court room you are going to be in as I will take a vacation to watch you get thumped by a judge.

    31.3.2007 14:51 #46

  • GernBlan

    Quote:Anyone that wishes to use an image of someone other then a politician for any reason and not get their permission, feel free to jump. Just let me know what court room you are going to be in as I will take a vacation to watch you get thumped by a judge.So you've said...about twenty frickin' times...regardless of how many people leave the same reply basically telling you that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure I speak for everyone here when I say that the last thing we want is you spending your vacation anywhere near us. Get a life and go find some other place to pass on your misinformation.

    31.3.2007 16:16 #47

  • trainmstr

    if you take photos of someone ..or video for that matter ... in a publicly viewable place ... even if you were sitting on a sidewalk taking pictures of your neighbor changing inside their home ... its legal.

    You can also take video and pictures of anyone or anything in public. There is a fine line though ... if you are using that picture/video for profit ..THEN you must receive consent. For political points of view ... public is fair game for anyone at any time.

    1.4.2007 03:23 #48

  • aalucard1

    Originally posted by trainmstr:if you take photos of someone ..or video for that matter ... in a publicly viewable place ... even if you were sitting on a sidewalk taking pictures of your neighbor changing inside their home ... its legal.

    You can also take video and pictures of anyone or anything in public. There is a fine line though ... if you are using that picture/video for profit ..THEN you must receive consent. For political points of view ... public is fair game for anyone at any time.



    No, sorry it is not. Is it public use for you to get the scene in, say of the Taj Mahal and by accident get personal images, yes ...AS LONG as you have a personal use for them like a scrapbook or vacation pictures.

    Now on the other hand, IF you intend to post these pictures on the net or use them in a film or a TV show, then YES YOU MUST get a release form and have it signed. That is why Hollywood has these people sign a form when they hire "extras" and has to pay them standard union rates per day. Just ask the extras they used in Cleveland when they filmed Spiderman for the downtown scenes. Or just contact SAG and ask them. Just dont be too upset when you find your ideals that you thought were fact are now shot to heck and so full of holes that they wont hold water.

    Same thing for TV shows using clips from other shows. At the closing credits you WILL see all of them listed as to where they received the clips from and if you read the fin print it clearly states they were used with "permission from"

    Sorry. Your opinion may be valid to you, but will not hold up in a court of law.

    1.4.2007 05:02 #49

  • GernBlan

    Quote:Same thing for TV shows using clips from other shows. At the closing credits you WILL see all of them listed as to where they received the clips from and if you read the fin print it clearly states they were used with "permission from"

    Sorry. Your opinion may be valid to you, but will not hold up in a court of law.    Yeah, I think we already established that you are full of crap on "USED WITH PERMISSION" statements that you claim in the credits of every TV show and movie. See, I've been looking at the credits of a lot of TV shows and movies over the last week, and I haven't seen a single "USED WITH PERMISSION" statement in any credits. I've seen statements like, "Special thanks to the City of New York" or "Fox News Network logo copyright Fox", etc. or "News footage clips courtesy of CNN", but I haven't seen a single list of credits that say, "USED WITH PERMISSION" and, yes, that includes in "the fine print", which you don't typically find in credits, but whatever.

    The fact is that you are actually correct with some of your information, but the stuff that you seem to harp on about is the exact information where you're wrong. You've already been "served" once when I verified your lie about "The Daily Show" obtaining permission to air news clips and listing "USED WITH PERMISSION" in their credits -- they don't do any of this, because they simply do not have to. All they have to do is announce the copyright. They do not have to ask permission to use it.

    Whether or not movie studios are required to get releases from extras or whether or not I can use Clinton's image as much as I want is completely irrelevant to this topic. The topic is about someone using video clips from a show without permission and being sued for it. Use of video clips without prior permission is something done every day on comedy shows, news casts, and especially amateur video (which is what this lawsuit is about anyway).

    You know, it's illegal to make your own rocket and launch it in attempt to go to the moon, too, but that really doesn't have much to do with this topic either, now does it?

    1.4.2007 17:06 #50

  • aalucard1

    Quote:[quote]Same thing for TV shows using clips from other shows. At the closing credits you WILL see all of them listed as to where they received the clips from and if you read the fin print it clearly states they were used with "permission from"

    Sorry. Your opinion may be valid to you, but will not hold up in a court of law.    Yeah, I think we already established that you are full of crap on "USED WITH PERMISSION" statements that you claim in the credits of every TV show and movie. See, I've been looking at the credits of a lot of TV shows and movies over the last week, and I haven't seen a single "USED WITH PERMISSION" statement in any credits. I've seen statements like, "Special thanks to the City of New York" or "Fox News Network logo copyright Fox", etc. or "News footage clips courtesy of CNN", but I haven't seen a single list of credits that say, "USED WITH PERMISSION" and, yes, that includes in "the fine print", which you don't typically find in credits, but whatever.

    The fact is that you are actually correct with some of your information, but the stuff that you seem to harp on about is the exact information where you're wrong. You've already been "served" once when I verified your lie about "The Daily Show" obtaining permission to air news clips and listing "USED WITH PERMISSION" in their credits -- they don't do any of this, because they simply do not have to. All they have to do is announce the copyright. They do not have to ask permission to use it.

    Whether or not movie studios are required to get releases from extras or whether or not I can use Clinton's image as much as I want is completely irrelevant to this topic. The topic is about someone using video clips from a show without permission and being sued for it. Use of video clips without prior permission is something done every day on comedy shows, news casts, and especially amateur video (which is what this lawsuit is about anyway).

    You know, it's illegal to make your own rocket and launch it in attempt to go to the moon, too, but that really doesn't have much to do with this topic either, now does it?[/quote]

    See my last post. You can claim whatever you want but I will bet that if this gets before a judge, you take your side and I will take mine and I will win every time. And I only bet on things I know I am going to win.

    So if anyone here feels froggy, step up to the plate and try it...you will only lose up to $250,000.00 and 10 years of your life for trying to prove a point that even people with more smarts and money then either you or I will ever have, have tried and lost each and every time.

    You can continue to try and prove me wrong by your posts and that will show nothing, or you can step up and try it in a case in the courts like the EFF is doing. Now when they lose, I will expect everyone here that said I was wrong to come back post that they were sorry. If they win I will do the same thing.

    Problem is that since the DMCA went into effect and how many people have been hit with this and lost cases doing exactly what you are saying you can do legally...the chances of me losing on this issue is well over 92% against me losing and 8% of you winning. So if you like them odds, then feel free to test it. All it will cost you is a simple $200. filing fee with your local clerk of courts and you are off and running. And if you win I will be right there to pay your court costs and filing fee's so you are out nothing but your time and effort, that is till the judge hands down his/her/their decision.

    Like I said. have fun as all I am asking is that you tell me what court room and judge your going to have. I want to be there when your "imagined" right get's blown out of the water faster then a straw in a tornado.

    1.4.2007 19:32 #51

  • lonernz

    aalucard1 ur fill of sh*t and a total waste of space no matter what people say u slang them not everyone is full of crap like u .You just wont admit u got it wrong so sad so sad,you must be getting tired of hearing the echo inside ur empty head. stop wasting forum space ,

    2.4.2007 00:26 #52

  • lonernz

    sorry about the spelling.IM not perfect just human,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    2.4.2007 00:31 #53

  • trainmstr

    yes it will hold up in a court of law. I challenged it and lost ...as someone video taped ..and took pictures of my then g/f and I in various acts of sexual behavior along with everyday stuff... all because we were "visible from a public place"

    It does not matter if you are outside tajmahal ..or even God's home ... its been challenged many times ..and this new era of instantaneous information ..cell phone cams, digital cams , broadband ..the internet ..there is no assumption of privacy ..or privilege for that matter in public ... or from public.

    As far as news and journalism ... anything "of interest" to public knowledge is just that ..and aside from a few instances ... there is no need for permission to report on someone ..say an investigation for murder ... but if one already has produced the video ... then to replay or reuse the video for different or even the same use, but a different instance ..then permission must be gained... in most instances.

    The problem with your rebuttal ..its based on personal ..and even what you think is common sense ...and i feel the way you do, but if i must... id be happy to dig up the statutes and recent precedence in US courts.

    So before you call someone out and say they are wrong .. please be sure to get the facts exactly right ..and not "your take" on them. Why would a law be like this ... i really don't know ... but i figure its based on freedom of speech, or freedom of press. There is ABSOLUTELY no guarantee or a right to privacy in today's day and age.

    2.4.2007 00:40 #54

  • aalucard1

    Originally posted by trainmstr:yes it will hold up in a court of law. I challenged it and lost ...as someone video taped ..and took pictures of my then g/f and I in various acts of sexual behavior along with everyday stuff... all because we were "visible from a public place"

    It does not matter if you are outside tajmahal ..or even God's home ... its been challenged many times ..and this new era of instantaneous information ..cell phone cams, digital cams , broadband ..the internet ..there is no assumption of privacy ..or privilege for that matter in public ... or from public.

    As far as news and journalism ... anything "of interest" to public knowledge is just that ..and aside from a few instances ... there is no need for permission to report on someone ..say an investigation for murder ... but if one already has produced the video ... then to replay or reuse the video for different or even the same use, but a different instance ..then permission must be gained... in most instances.

    The problem with your rebuttal ..its based on personal ..and even what you think is common sense ...and i feel the way you do, but if i must... id be happy to dig up the statutes and recent precedence in US courts.

    So before you call someone out and say they are wrong .. please be sure to get the facts exactly right ..and not "your take" on them. Why would a law be like this ... i really don't know ... but i figure its based on freedom of speech, or freedom of press. There is ABSOLUTELY no guarantee or a right to privacy in today's day and age.

    While I agree with you that there is no guarenteed Constitutional right to privacy (and never has been so any and all laws based on that are illegal) the right to use your own image is indeed covered under the law and allows you to sell your image to others. Take for instance the new Reddenbacher Popcorn commercial. To be able to use this guy's image, even though he is dead; they HAD TO get a release from his family! Carl Sagen, again while dead...still must have a signed release from the family before you can use his image. I could go on and on for another 3000 pages showing you the same results over and over again but I wont as space does not provide for that. But rest assured that each one of these cases takes a rather large bite out of your argument and very soon there will not be any of your argument or premis left.

    So I say again, you are wrong and any who think for one second that they can do what thousands of others have been denied the right to do, to feel free and start being froggy. Just let me know what judge/Courtroom you are going to be in as I want to watch this train wreck of yours if only just to meet your eyes as they are leading you away just to say "Told you so."

    2.4.2007 05:14 #55

  • GernBlan

    Quote:...You can claim whatever you want but I will bet that if this gets before a judge, you take your side and I will take mine and I will win every time. And I only bet on things I know I am going to win...

    ...the chances of me losing on this issue is well over 92% against me losing and 8% of you winning.    First of all, yet once again, learn how to use the quote function. Sigh. This, above all else, is a perfect example of what a moron you are.

    Second, see the above snipped quote. Which is it? Is it "every time" that I would lose or is it 92% of the time? This is why no one feels you're credible. You do nothing but talk out of your posterior and even contradict yourself.

    Again, this discussion and lawsuit isn't about right to privacy. It's about whether or not someone can use clips from a copyrighted show. My stance is that if that cannot be done, then I know several comedic news and spoof shows right now who break the law every week, if not even every day (ie, The Daily Show). I guess Jon Stewart has naked pictures of a judge or something, because he's getting away with a lot on every single show. I guess his lawyers must be REALLY smart to get away with this. Wait, we're talking about lawyers here and we all know that they aren't any smarter than any average joe, so it must be, yes, that you simply don't know what you're talking about, which is a much more believable situation anyway.

    2.4.2007 14:14 #56

  • aalucard1

    Sorry Glenn, I know more then you do on this issue. Again I have stated over and over, you can state that I dont know what I am talking about but better people then either you or I have lost this battle in the courts over and over again. I have given you numerous different examples on how you are wrong and sited different court cases where you are wrong and yet you still insist that you are right.

    Ok let's do this in terms that you can understand. IF you are correct then why the need for the lawsuit in the first pace?? Or why are there laws that say this is wrong? It all shows that either all the people that passed these laws and the people that lost these cases are all wrong and you are the correct one, or they are all the correct ones and you have no idea what your talking about.

    Personally, I tend to side with the lawmakers in this case as it is established law no matter if you like it or not. So unless you are going to continue to blow smoke up our collectives arses, I would suggest that you force the issue. Post an image of a famous person (not a politician) and see what happens. Or better yet, contact Alyssia Malino's agent and ask what happened to all the webpages that posted images of her without her permission. That alone should prove to anyone reading this baseless argument of yours that you are completely in error on this subject.

    But hey, if you want to continue your irrational tirade on this; feel free

    2.4.2007 20:31 #57

  • AUDIOMIND

    Originally posted by aalucard1:
    Anyone that wishes to use an image of someone other then a politician for any reason and not get their permission, feel free to jump. Just let me know what court room you are going to be in as I will take a vacation to watch you get thumped by a judge.

    Site numerous examples where someone has sued and WON, following your flawed logic and scenario(s).

    http://www.abreakapart.com - A community where DJs, producers, mixers and fans can unite and share their inspirations, music, production techniques, graphic and web design principles, together with their social ideals.

    "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive.......I like a little rebellion now and then."

    3.4.2007 07:44 #58

  • aalucard1

    http://www.abreakapart.com - A community where DJs, producers, mixers and fans can unite and share their inspirations, music, production techniques, graphic and web design principles, together with their social ideals.







    How amusing....You are going to try and use musical sampling to prove your point? PUH-LEAZE! At LEAST show some intelligence. Danger Mouse was SUED IN COURT for sampling the Beatles White Album, the exact same thing that you think this site supposedly allows you to do; the end result was that Danger Mouse no longer does this as he is STILL paying off the fine. RUN DMC HAD to get permission from Aerosmith to use Perry's guitar workings in their version of "Walk This Way" and the bands authorization for them to cover the song. And why do you think DJ's albums and samples clearly state on the cd covers "NOT FOR PUBLIC USE"

    Why dont you sit back and think about it before you try that again as you clearly went off the deep end with this one as you people are clearly scratching the bottom of the barrel in trying to prove your illegal points

    3.4.2007 13:03 #59

  • AUDIOMIND

    Quote:Originally posted by aalucard1:
    Anyone that wishes to use an image of someone other then a politician for any reason and not get their permission, feel free to jump. Just let me know what court room you are going to be in as I will take a vacation to watch you get thumped by a judge.    Site numerous examples where someone has sued and WON, following your flawed logic and scenario(s).    Stop shifting the goal posts and answer the question there expert.

    3.4.2007 19:45 #60

  • aalucard1

    Quote:[quote]Originally posted by aalucard1:
    Anyone that wishes to use an image of someone other then a politician for any reason and not get their permission, feel free to jump. Just let me know what court room you are going to be in as I will take a vacation to watch you get thumped by a judge.    Site numerous examples where someone has sued and WON, following your flawed logic and scenario(s).    Stop shifting the goal posts and answer the question there expert.[/quote]



    Was not shifting anything, my response was very clear. It is not my fault that you cannot understand it. Maybe a tad more schooling would help, or maybe we should wait till you graduate from high school before we wonder why you shifted the conversation from images and clips to "sampling" musical items?

    3.4.2007 20:32 #61

  • GernBlan

    Originally posted by aalucard1:Sorry Glenn, I know more then you do on this issue. Again I have stated over and over, you can state that I dont know what I am talking about but better people then either you or I have lost this battle in the courts over and over again. I have given you numerous different examples on how you are wrong and sited different court cases where you are wrong and yet you still insist that you are right."Glenn"? Who the heck is "Glenn"? Just for record, your honor, let the court show that counsel for the prosecution cannot read. That would be GernBlan, Mr. aaludyslexia.

    The only court cases you continue to cite are privacy issue cases -- not the use of copyright clips for a spoof video. If you were such a great, ah, legal aide, you would know the difference between the two. Again, try addressing my specific example of the Daily Show, which uses clips all the time without obtaining prior permission -- all they do is list that the footage is copyright CNN, FNN, etc.

    Originally posted by aalucard1:Ok let's do this in terms that you can understand. IF you are correct then why the need for the lawsuit in the first pace?? Or why are there laws that say this is wrong? It all shows that either all the people that passed these laws and the people that lost these cases are all wrong and you are the correct one, or they are all the correct ones and you have no idea what your talking about.First of all, don't talk down to me. Just because I don't feel the need to post my supposed resume in this thread like you do doesn't mean that I am not intelligent, well educated, and well experienced. Sometimes more is less. You are a perfect example of that. The more you spout off about your credentials, the less credible you appear.

    You have yet to cite any laws that say using copyrighted video clips is illegal. And if they are so illegal, then why do comedic spoof news shows do it so often? Again, I cite the Daily Show as an example, one that you have yet to respond to other than a flat out lie about what is listed in the credits. Again, there is no way that Fox News Network or CNN is going to give permission in advance for THe Daily Show to use their footage to make fun of their news stories, employees, etc. This is why the Daily Show doesn't get permission in advance -- they simply list the copyright in the credits, which is all they have to do.

    Given that listing the copyright in the credits is all anyone has to do, the argument COULD be made that if the maker of the original video did not list the copyright in the credits, then the prosecution MAY have a case...albeit a very miniscule one. In the end, no profit was made from this video and no damage was done to anyone who appeared in the video, whether they gave permission or not. All that really happened was further publicity for Comedy Central and the Colbert Report, which is something that will come out when the judge asks what damages they are seeking and why.

    Originally posted by aalucard1:Personally, I tend to side with the lawmakers in this case as it is established law no matter if you like it or not. So unless you are going to continue to blow smoke up our collectives arses, I would suggest that you force the issue. Post an image of a famous person (not a politician) and see what happens. Or better yet, contact Alyssia Malino's agent and ask what happened to all the webpages that posted images of her without her permission. That alone should prove to anyone reading this baseless argument of yours that you are completely in error on this subject.Again, this is not a matter of privacy -- the photos of Alyssa Milano (which is the correct spelling) were nude, which is the only objection she had to it. Otherwise, people can use whatever photo they want of any public figure. Obviously, there are limits. For example, I cannot take a seductive photo of Alyssa Milano, make it a T-Shirt, and sell thousands of them for profit. However, if I write a blog article about her, I can put her image (especially an image that I took and therefore I own) with that article and there's nothing she can do about it. All of the cases you cite seem to be purely privacy issues.

    Does it have to be someone famous? I already have an unwilling photo of someone on my blog. A nitwit eBay PowerSeller decided to rip off thousands of people (one being me), and despite the fact that this nitwit had 20,000 feedbacks and was considered untouchable, thanks to my website and a few hundred customers who visited it, the nitwit has been formally charged on over three dozen separate counts of theft by deception by a joint taskforce of the FBI and NJ State Attorney Generals Office. Early on in the process, I posted his photo (which I lifted from an online magazine article about him being an "eBay Millionaire"), it's still there, and although he's threatened several other people with legal action, he has yet to do any such thing to me. Probably because his brother's great-aunt's nephew's brother (who was an esteemed legal aide like you) told him that his complaint has zero merit.

    If posting a photo without permission was something so federally protected and illegal, then why do schools have to have their own photography/privacy rules that parents must sign? Shouldn't they automatically be protected by state and federal statutes, since you're claiming these are current laws? Isn't that a bit redundant? Wouldn't a school just simply send home a letter, reminding parents of the federal or state laws restricting them from taking pictures of the children of others?

    I went to one of Michael Jordan's last basketball games, took a photo of him standing with a relative, and have both printed and posted it online dozens of times. Why haven't Michael's people contacted me with takedown demands? Especially since I have numerous photos of him during the game as well.

    Originally posted by aalucard1:But hey, if you want to continue your irrational tirade on this; feel freeYeah, my tirade is irrational. Sure. All you've done is cite irrelevant privacy cases and list your embarrassingly underachieving resume (including the name of your employer)....on a rogue news blog. Who's irrational and looks the fool now? I guess it doesn't matter that not one...NOT ONE...other person posting here has agreed with what you've said. But then again, we're all just irrational, under-educated idiots instead of a superior, genius...ah...legal aide...like you.

    Suddenly, I feel so inadequate. I wish I was (what amounts to) a lawyer's secretary instead of just being a loser who was so successful in my 10-year career of choice that I was able to retire before turning 40 years old. I'm going to go slit my wrists now...out of envy or your incredible law career (I'm softly quaking with slow tears of disappointment in my life). There is s reason why I am able keep responding to this ridiculous thread -- I have nothing better to do. Retirement does that to you. Talk to me when you've successfully retired at this age, which appears you've already missed the boat since you've been a legal aide for over 20 years now, which puts you at least at the age of 38. One half the years invested in my career, and I'm retired and obviously bored. Meanwhile, you're replying to the same rogue news blog articles that I am. What does that make you?

    4.4.2007 07:35 #62

  • aalucard1

    Quote:Originally posted by aalucard1:Sorry Glenn, I know more then you do on this issue. Again I have stated over and over, you can state that I dont know what I am talking about but better people then either you or I have lost this battle in the courts over and over again. I have given you numerous different examples on how you are wrong and sited different court cases where you are wrong and yet you still insist that you are right."Glenn"? Who the heck is "Glenn"? Just for record, your honor, let the court show that counsel for the prosecution cannot read. That would be GernBlan, Mr. aaludyslexia.

    The only court cases you continue to cite are privacy issue cases -- not the use of copyright clips for a spoof video. If you were such a great, ah, legal aide, you would know the difference between the two. Again, try addressing my specific example of the Daily Show, which uses clips all the time without obtaining prior permission -- all they do is list that the footage is copyright CNN, FNN, etc.

    [quote=aalucard1]Ok let's do this in terms that you can understand. IF you are correct then why the need for the lawsuit in the first pace?? Or why are there laws that say this is wrong? It all shows that either all the people that passed these laws and the people that lost these cases are all wrong and you are the correct one, or they are all the correct ones and you have no idea what your talking about.    First of all, don't talk down to me. Just because I don't feel the need to post my supposed resume in this thread like you do doesn't mean that I am not intelligent, well educated, and well experienced. Sometimes more is less. You are a perfect example of that. The more you spout off about your credentials, the less credible you appear.

    You have yet to cite any laws that say using copyrighted video clips is illegal. And if they are so illegal, then why do comedic spoof news shows do it so often? Again, I cite the Daily Show as an example, one that you have yet to respond to other than a flat out lie about what is listed in the credits. Again, there is no way that Fox News Network or CNN is going to give permission in advance for THe Daily Show to use their footage to make fun of their news stories, employees, etc. This is why the Daily Show doesn't get permission in advance -- they simply list the copyright in the credits, which is all they have to do.

    Given that listing the copyright in the credits is all anyone has to do, the argument COULD be made that if the maker of the original video did not list the copyright in the credits, then the prosecution MAY have a case...albeit a very miniscule one. In the end, no profit was made from this video and no damage was done to anyone who appeared in the video, whether they gave permission or not. All that really happened was further publicity for Comedy Central and the Colbert Report, which is something that will come out when the judge asks what damages they are seeking and why.

    Originally posted by aalucard1:Personally, I tend to side with the lawmakers in this case as it is established law no matter if you like it or not. So unless you are going to continue to blow smoke up our collectives arses, I would suggest that you force the issue. Post an image of a famous person (not a politician) and see what happens. Or better yet, contact Alyssia Malino's agent and ask what happened to all the webpages that posted images of her without her permission. That alone should prove to anyone reading this baseless argument of yours that you are completely in error on this subject.Again, this is not a matter of privacy -- the photos of Alyssa Milano (which is the correct spelling) were nude, which is the only objection she had to it. Otherwise, people can use whatever photo they want of any public figure. Obviously, there are limits. For example, I cannot take a seductive photo of Alyssa Milano, make it a T-Shirt, and sell thousands of them for profit. However, if I write a blog article about her, I can put her image (especially an image that I took and therefore I own) with that article and there's nothing she can do about it. All of the cases you cite seem to be purely privacy issues.

    Does it have to be someone famous? I already have an unwilling photo of someone on my blog. A nitwit eBay PowerSeller decided to rip off thousands of people (one being me), and despite the fact that this nitwit had 20,000 feedbacks and was considered untouchable, thanks to my website and a few hundred customers who visited it, the nitwit has been formally charged on over three dozen separate counts of theft by deception by a joint taskforce of the FBI and NJ State Attorney Generals Office. Early on in the process, I posted his photo (which I lifted from an online magazine article about him being an "eBay Millionaire"), it's still there, and although he's threatened several other people with legal action, he has yet to do any such thing to me. Probably because his brother's great-aunt's nephew's brother (who was an esteemed legal aide like you) told him that his complaint has zero merit.

    If posting a photo without permission was something so federally protected and illegal, then why do schools have to have their own photography/privacy rules that parents must sign? Shouldn't they automatically be protected by state and federal statutes, since you're claiming these are current laws? Isn't that a bit redundant? Wouldn't a school just simply send home a letter, reminding parents of the federal or state laws restricting them from taking pictures of the children of others?

    I went to one of Michael Jordan's last basketball games, took a photo of him standing with a relative, and have both printed and posted it online dozens of times. Why haven't Michael's people contacted me with takedown demands? Especially since I have numerous photos of him during the game as well.

    Originally posted by aalucard1:But hey, if you want to continue your irrational tirade on this; feel freeYeah, my tirade is irrational. Sure. All you've done is cite irrelevant privacy cases and list your embarrassingly underachieving resume (including the name of your employer)....on a rogue news blog. Who's irrational and looks the fool now? I guess it doesn't matter that not one...NOT ONE...other person posting here has agreed with what you've said. But then again, we're all just irrational, under-educated idiots instead of a superior, genius...ah...legal aide...like you.

    Suddenly, I feel so inadequate. I wish I was (what amounts to) a lawyer's secretary instead of just being a loser who was so successful in my 10-year career of choice that I was able to retire before turning 40 years old. I'm going to go slit my wrists now...out of envy or your incredible law career (I'm softly quaking with slow tears of disappointment in my life). There is s reason why I am able keep responding to this ridiculous thread -- I have nothing better to do. Retirement does that to you. Talk to me when you've successfully retired at this age, which appears you've already missed the boat since you've been a legal aide for over 20 years now, which puts you at least at the age of 38. One half the years invested in my career, and I'm retired and obviously bored. Meanwhile, you're replying to the same rogue news blog articles that I am. What does that make you?[/quote]
    ----------------------



    No, I am replying to you, so if that bothers you so much then maybe you should stop replying?

    And this is not a privacy issue as you try and state. Nor is it a "sampling" issue as one tried tp spin it as. It all boils down to do you have the right to protect your image or property. And no matter how you try and spin it, the courts have constantly stated that YES YOU DO. So at this time, the courts hold sway on this and since they have stated that you do have a right to stop someone from using your images without your permission, then no matter what you say or how you try and spin it; the law is clear on this issue.

    And sadly for you, your opinion does not hold water.

    4.4.2007 14:47 #63

  • ZippyDSM

    aalucard1
    wow I wish my IQ was on high like that,lately it seems to want to troll the gutter ><
    I suck LOL

    So clips and pics are fair game till you print them on merchandise and try and sale them,I have a question if you alter a picture enough can it be sold as parody/novelty without offending the IP/CP/trademark?

    4.4.2007 15:03 #64

  • aalucard1

    Originally posted by ZIppyDSM:aalucard1
    wow I wish my IQ was on high like that,lately it seems to want to troll the gutter ><
    I suck LOL

    So clips and pics are fair game till you print them on merchandise and try and sale them,I have a question if you alter a picture enough can it be sold as parody/novelty without offending the IP/CP/trademark?
    -----------------------------




    That is still up in the air. In some cases the answer would be yes it can as long as it was of a politician since they are not covered under this law. That is why you see so many altered pictures of politicians and nothing happens when they are sold. It would also depend on what country you live in as the laws in the US do not apply to the UK and verse-visa

    Now if you are doing a parody on a hollywood star-famous private citizen or just private citizen, the majority of the courts (depending on where you live) will also tell you that you have to get permission before you do it, the only other exception to this rule is if the characters are so messed up that even though you know who they are suppose to be; they do not look anything like the person they are suppose to be. In that case you would be safe. See there is the small problem of if you are intentionally trying to cash in on a persons reputation and by using a persons image without asking them first or getting a "release" form allowing you to use the image, the courts have constantly ruled that you are intentionally trying to use that persons reputation to help sell your movie or parody...and that is illegal in all 50 states. Take for instance MTV's Death Match shows. They not only got permission to use the images (as you clearly knew who they were suppose to be) but they also had that clearly shown at the beginning and end of the show. In this case they were safe. had they not went and received permission and tried to show that, parody or not; they would have been sued out of existance if someone took offense. Most of the people they showed the clay images to look like were flattered and freely gave their permission as they thought it was funny. The reason that show is not on TV any longer is because of Jerry Falwell. Death Match used his image without his permission and he sued...and the courts agreed with him that this harmed his reputation (like anything could) and ordered MTV to cease and desist as well as pay a rather large fine.

    This is why I have stated over and over that the posters in here that think they can just start using images or people without their permission and do whatever they want with them and call it a parody and think they are safe; will have a VERY nasty wake up call and there is nothing they can do but take the punishment.

    4.4.2007 15:27 #65

  • GernBlan

    Originally posted by aalucard1:No, I am replying to you, so if that bothers you so much then maybe you should stop replying?Not really sure where this came from -- YOU were the one who got my forum name completely wrong ("Glenn"). How the heck am I supposed to know who you're replying to. Not only can you not use the forum's quote function properly (yet again), but you also can't seem to figure out who you're replying to. Not very organized for a 20-year-career legal aide, are you?

    Originally posted by aalucard1:And this is not a privacy issue as you try and state. No, that would be YOU who seems to be focussing on this being a privacy issue, as that's the only examples you seem to be citing.

    Originally posted by aalucard1:Nor is it a "sampling" issue as one tried tp spin it as. It all boils down to do you have the right to protect your image or property. And no matter how you try and spin it, the courts have constantly stated that YES YOU DO. So at this time, the courts hold sway on this and since they have stated that you do have a right to stop someone from using your images without your permission, then no matter what you say or how you try and spin it; the law is clear on this issue.

    And sadly for you, your opinion does not hold water.    I'm still waiting for you to cite a RELEVANT case that doesn't have anything to do with privacy (ie, newborn babies, nude photos, blatantly using someone's image for profit, etc.). Still waiting. Still waiting. This would be me....still waiting....

    4.4.2007 20:01 #66

  • GernBlan

    Originally posted by aalucard1:Now if you are doing a parody on a hollywood star-famous private citizen or just private citizen, the majority of the courts (depending on where you live) will also tell you that you have to get permission before you do it...Yeah, because Saturday Night Live always gets permission before doing a parody of a famous Hollywood star. That would be sarcasm, because it's simply not true.

    Originally posted by aalucard1:The reason that show is not on TV any longer is because of Jerry Falwell. Death Match used his image without his permission and he sued...and the courts agreed with him that this harmed his reputation (like anything could) and ordered MTV to cease and desist as well as pay a rather large fine. This is why I have stated over and over that the posters in here that think they can just start using images or people without their permission and do whatever they want with them and call it a parody and think they are safe; will have a VERY nasty wake up call and there is nothing they can do but take the punishment.Funny, since MTV's Celebrity Deathmatch had a very popular online following, one would think that if I were to seach for "Jerry Falwell MTV Celebrity Deathmatch" that something would turn up, especially since it's apparently a case that ended that series' run on television (according to you). One may think it would show up, but it doesn't. Let me guess -- the reverend got all references to it removed from the internet, too?

    What I did find in my search for your citing was a lawsuit between Jerry Falwell and a man named Gary Cohn. Seems Mr. Cohn went and registered the www.JerryFalwell.com domain name and made a parody site of the esteemed reverend. Yeah, that case was thrown out, citing "a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue". Parody was also specifically cited in the findings, saying that it was free speech to criticize or parody another person. Cohn still owns the domain name, and there's nothing Falwell can do about it. This was the decision of the World Intellectual Property Organization, and it was also determined that the local state court of Virginia (where Falwell resides) had no jurisdiction over the matter since the owner of the domain names did not reside in Virginia.

    You can't get more blatant than that -- what's more intellectual property than your own famous name, especially when his entire religious ministry/organization uses the trademarked name, Jerry Falwell? This court decision clearly shows the power of parody.

    Still waiting for a relevant, TRUE citing from you....

    4.4.2007 20:26 #67

  • aalucard1

    Quote:Originally posted by aalucard1:Now if you are doing a parody on a hollywood star-famous private citizen or just private citizen, the majority of the courts (depending on where you live) will also tell you that you have to get permission before you do it...Yeah, because Saturday Night Live always gets permission before doing a parody of a famous Hollywood star. That would be sarcasm, because it's simply not true.

    [quote=aalucard1]The reason that show is not on TV any longer is because of Jerry Falwell. Death Match used his image without his permission and he sued...and the courts agreed with him that this harmed his reputation (like anything could) and ordered MTV to cease and desist as well as pay a rather large fine. This is why I have stated over and over that the posters in here that think they can just start using images or people without their permission and do whatever they want with them and call it a parody and think they are safe; will have a VERY nasty wake up call and there is nothing they can do but take the punishment.    Funny, since MTV's Celebrity Deathmatch had a very popular online following, one would think that if I were to seach for "Jerry Falwell MTV Celebrity Deathmatch" that something would turn up, especially since it's apparently a case that ended that series' run on television (according to you). One may think it would show up, but it doesn't. Let me guess -- the reverend got all references to it removed from the internet, too?

    What I did find in my search for your citing was a lawsuit between Jerry Falwell and a man named Gary Cohn. Seems Mr. Cohn went and registered the www.JerryFalwell.com domain name and made a parody site of the esteemed reverend. Yeah, that case was thrown out, citing "a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue". Parody was also specifically cited in the findings, saying that it was free speech to criticize or parody another person. Cohn still owns the domain name, and there's nothing Falwell can do about it. This was the decision of the World Intellectual Property Organization, and it was also determined that the local state court of Virginia (where Falwell resides) had no jurisdiction over the matter since the owner of the domain names did not reside in Virginia.

    You can't get more blatant than that -- what's more intellectual property than your own famous name, especially when his entire religious ministry/organization uses the trademarked name, Jerry Falwell? This court decision clearly shows the power of parody.

    Still waiting for a relevant, TRUE citing from you....[/quote]
    -------------------------------

    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.

    I already GAVE you a site with namoi campbell and her entering the rehab unit and how the photogs were sued and campbell won, but I guess that also does not fit your rant.

    I already GAVE you Sony Motion Pictures and how the extra's in Cleveloand were required to sign a release form for Sony to use their images in the movie Spiderman...but yet again I guess that was ignored by you because it does not fit your rant.

    I already GAVE you a source (AP News) where Danger Mouse was sued out of existance because he sampled from the beatles white album without Apple records permission.

    So I guess it is like that. You have been given sources and yet you ignore them because they dont fit your view on things. Tell ya what. Take off them rose colored glasses you are wearing and join the rest of us in the real world. The EFF is going to lose this case and then whine that it has a "chilling effect" on fair use when in fact it has not a damn thing to do with fair use.

    So you go right on ahead and spit out your smoke and mirrors...I just want your silly arse to be back here when the EFF loses this and apologize for all the ignorant posts you have placed here. IF the EFF wins (and I seriously doubt that considering the track record of lost lawsuits on this issue by better people then either of us and a whole lot more money) then I will come back and apologize. Until then all you are doing is posting your opinion, while I am siting factual documented law.

    Try actually READING the DMCA for once in your life...oh that's right, you won't as it also will destroy your whole point and argument.

    4.4.2007 21:32 #68

  • AUDIOMIND

    Methinks aalucard1 has forgotten that the courts interpret the law, not make law. The law clearly states that images in the public domain are pretty much free game.

    However, in the current climate of 'legislating from the bench', there may very well be a few cases (however, I've been unable to locate your specific case cites) that have slipped past muster just enough to extend completely past their flawed ignorance of copyright law. However, I'm looking for a systematic pattern of judgments that justify your claims. A Supreme Court decision even.

    And please cite specific sections of the DMCA that justify your claims as well bub.

    5.4.2007 06:57 #69

  • aalucard1

    Originally posted by AUDIOMIND:Methinks aalucard1 has forgotten that the courts interpret the law, not make law. The law clearly states that images in the public domain are pretty much free game.

    However, in the current climate of 'legislating from the bench', there may very well be a few cases (however, I've been unable to locate your specific case cites) that have slipped past muster just enough to extend completely past their flawed ignorance of copyright law. However, I'm looking for a systematic pattern of judgments that justify your claims. A Supreme Court decision even.

    And please cite specific sections of the DMCA that justify your claims as well bub.
    -----------------------------

    Here we go again. more of the "I'm right but Aalucard is wrong because I said so" crap. Tell you what bucko, if you are so sure you will win in a court case, then bring one. If not then hush child as you are begining to bore me.

    And if you would have bothered to read previous posts, you would have seen where I not only told you that it was the DMCA, but what part of the Federal Code that you "supposed" right violates.

    missed that one intentionally didn't ya all because it didnt fit your rant. Graduate middle school and get into Sr.High and then maybe we will talk as you are spending way to much time on your parents computer trying to defeat something you neither have the intelligence time or money to overturn. So please continue...you are tearing apart any shread of hope you ever had with your constant and continued
    "prove it" chants as everytime I do, then you yell it again.

    5.4.2007 14:39 #70

  • AUDIOMIND

    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.

    http://www.abreakapart.com - A community where DJs, producers, mixers and fans can unite and share their inspirations, music, production techniques, graphic and web design principles, together with their social ideals.

    "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive.......I like a little rebellion now and then."

    5.4.2007 20:51 #71

  • aalucard1

    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.

    6.4.2007 04:43 #72

  • 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.

    7.4.2007 09:57 #73

  • aalucard1

    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.

    7.4.2007 19:03 #74

  • GernBlan

    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.

    8.4.2007 13:55 #75

  • aalucard1

    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.

    8.4.2007 15:44 #76

  • GernBlan

    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.

    9.4.2007 14:46 #77

  • aalucard1

    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.

    9.4.2007 15:13 #78

  • 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?

    9.4.2007 22:10 #79

  • aalucard1

    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.

    10.4.2007 05:01 #80

  • 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.

    10.4.2007 07:37 #81

  • aalucard1

    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.

    10.4.2007 08:42 #82

  • 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....

    10.4.2007 12:15 #83

  • aalucard1

    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?

    10.4.2007 12:43 #84

  • 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).

    10.4.2007 13:01 #85

  • aalucard1

    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?

    10.4.2007 13:04 #86

  • GernBlan

    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 ....

    10.4.2007 13:31 #87

  • AUDIOMIND

    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.

    10.4.2007 13:53 #88

  • aalucard1

    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.

    10.4.2007 17:57 #89

  • GernBlan

    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"?

    11.4.2007 05:01 #90

  • aalucard1

    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.

    11.4.2007 05:07 #91

  • GernBlan

    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....

    11.4.2007 05:22 #92

  • janrocks

    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... ;-)



    irc.OFTC.net #debian-women .. Stuff Vista.. Stuff Micro$oft!!
    The revolution has happened.. Now we just need to TELL people!

    11.4.2007 05:57 #93

  • GernBlan

    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.

    11.4.2007 13:09 #94

  • AUDIOMIND

    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

    11.4.2007 14:04 #95

  • aalucard1

    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.

    11.4.2007 14:46 #96

© 2024 AfterDawn Oy

Hosted by
Powered by UpCloud