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
- 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!!! :PAnd 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!!! :PAnd 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 :PYour 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
