iOwnTheWorld.com

Patti H, you lie!

+7

Is a picture of a picture still a copywrite violation?

Umm. Don’t tell Jim Hoft,but, ya. -bfh

+1

Responder #10 (Michael P.) in the Gateway Pundit comments had the answer to what I was wondering:
how so would a screengrab be OK if the photo itself wasn’t? The fact that one can properly/legally use such a photo for commentary is illuminating (if not also sorta scary) to me.

0

Ah, the left-
Free speech for me, but not for thee.
Very progressive.

JWM

+9

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by iOwnTheWorld. iOwnTheWorld said: Stunner. Leftist Yanks Pep Rally “Applause” Photo & Threatens Lawsuit http://goo.gl/fb/BuQXA [...]

0

I am a big fan of Jim Hoft, but I don’t know what copyright law he’s citing.

If the photographer had this on Flckr with a copyright notice that said unauthorized use without express written consent of the copyright holder is forbidden, then she has a case.

It doesn’t matter if you take a screenshot of it, it’s an electronic copy, which doesn’t distance you from copyright infringement.

However. I’m in the clear with my re-do, Tackytron, because I developed the piece into an entirely different point by adding to it and changing elements.

+2

@ Fur

Please see comments #10 and #64 to the article at Gateway Pundit. “Fair Use.” Do you agree?

0

It is a blur to the current copyright law. If I take a picture of a picture it is mine. Video too.

This is one loophole that the new Internet laws coming down will close for good.

No. Electronic scanning, photographing, or videoing is not a loophole to copyright.
That’s like saying I can duplicate a movie and it’s mine. Of course that isn’t true. Try videoing a movie inside a theater and then plead your case that it’s yours now. Or recording a concert on an audio device. =bfh

0

If it’s not a big deal, then why is a lib screaming to get it taken down?

+3

czar-
No. I do not. Because this photo was not released as a news piece or a photo accompanying a news article. It was part of a private, copyright protected, catalog. The photo was never released.
Fair use applies to art or photos or writing that have been published.
This was not.
You can’t raid it and then declare you’re only making commentary on it as if it was a piece run by WAPO.
Hoft made it the news item.

0

Ironically, people can now use the screenshot that was published as a news piece to talk about the copyright infringement.
But Hoft wouldn’t be off the hook as the initial infringer.
It’s like how everyone posted the Fairey poster after it was tagged for infringement. AP couldn’t go after people reporting the story and showing the poster, but Fairey was still on the hook.

0

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: -19

BFH – Yes that is true about boot leg video and audio. And photos do fall under the same category, but I can take a photo of a photo. People do it all the time. On vacation I photo a painting, or a print. What you can see you can capture. He can screen print all day and all night without a hint of a problem. BUT he published it, that could give him some trouble from the sharks in the water now. If he had it of GW there would not be a peep. But he did it in a time where they are just looking for an excuse to shutdown bloggers.

0

Someone must not like having their work critiqued.

+3

Threatened by Munchkins.

+1

Dumbba — Proof is in the pudding. It is not a story, the FACT that someone wants to push copyright infringement is a testament to its Factual content. This action alone makes the photo real you idiot.

+6

This is such thin ice for Cow Patti.

Make a stink about the photo…it becomes viral…good luck chasing down all versions and facsimiles of of the photo, much less bringing action against them all.

This “(applause)” indicator is lifted directly from the speech text. It’s actually a prompt for President Dumbo to pause in his speech.

Thus, it should be called the “Dumbotron”

+5

“You have to have written permission from the artist….bla…bla…bla…”
I am actually a certified professional artist & this flikr image does not qualify as ART….so proceed Croft & IOTW et al., and make it into art….

( People calling themselves artists…sheeesh! )

+1

That “applause” line was clearly only a prompt for the deaf folks in the audience, so they’d know when to applaud.

It was their obligation, since everyone received a free souvenir T-Shirt of the rally.

+1

Typical dumb photog. Put your pictures on a light box with a loop, for Chrissakes.

I fired one of mine in 1933 when she accidentally snapped a pix of my wheel-chair behind the podium.

+2

@Working Class, Do you have to have a card to be called an the “actual” artist? There are a lot of folks calling themselves that out in the world.

+2

Too late anyway. Cat’s out of the bag.

0

Go ahead and sue.
It will cost you more than you think.
And it will give the photo more recognition than you ever expected.

+5

Of course the media will never touch this one because they’re lefties. The absolute irrational dishonesty and dishonor by this President, his administration, and the majority of Democrats who are/were in congress is beyond what we’ve EVER seen in this nation.

+1

scratchNsniff….although artists don’t have guilds or unions anymore you are correct in that the title has lost it’s meaning…I am “certified” in that I have obtained the highest degree dispensed by my academic peers…an MFA in Painting / U of Penn 89′.
This makes me a qualified and educated critic as well as practitioner of the ancient crafts…although lately I have had mixed results for my efforts…it happens

** Her photo aint’ ART but this political quibble could inspire others to elevate through manipulation said image into a work of art…just sayin’ **

0

[...] Absolutely shameful. [...]

0

My bet is that that this is not a prompt to applause but a closed caption, for the hard of hearing, of what the school said at that time.

0

FYI, looks like GM and jmm are probably right, assuming Rush is right (as usual). He just talked about it on his show and (as a near deaf person) is pretty convinced it was a closed caption.

0

Whether or not it’s a closed caption or an applause prompt, the bigger story is that this photographer is so upset that her photo may hurt “The One.” Apparently, anything that might insult Der Fuehrer must be removed.

+3

[...] did Patti H, who apparently took the Flickr picture of the Jumbotron, take down the picture and threaten to sue the BigFurHat site that ran with [...]

0

[...] did Patti H, who apparently took the Flickr picture of the Jumbotron, take down the picture and threaten to sue the BigFurHat site that ran with [...]

0

[...] did Patti H, who apparently took the Flickr picture of the Jumbotron, take down the picture and threaten to sue the BigFurHat site that ran with [...]

0