|
Originally Posted by RTW1
(Post 24249514)
They don't rip of peoples images to use them for free... that's the discussion here. Not who else does the same.
|
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 24252677)
There is, at least to my understanding of the law, no requirement to credit a photo taken from a media kit. I can think of plenty of reasons it is a good idea and when I bother to remember I do so, but that's usually low on my list of things I'm worried about when producing content.
ETA: I also could not care less if someone chooses to rename the file or not. The only impact that has is on SEO and even there it is minimal. I believe there was a publicized case of a popular media/entertainment blogger who would use images without permission. The blogger's defense was that since they had scribbled "funny" images on the photos they satire and covered under fair use. |
Originally Posted by CMK10
(Post 24252787)
I created a picture this summer making fun of United's MileagePlus changes which I posted on Facebook. It was taken and reposted without my permission or attribution by two bloggers including Gary Leff.
|
Originally Posted by cruisr
(Post 24253603)
What did they say when you caught them doing this.
|
Originally Posted by CMK10
(Post 24252787)
I created a picture this summer making fun of United's MileagePlus changes which I posted on Facebook. It was taken and reposted without my permission or attribution by two bloggers including Gary Leff.
|
Originally Posted by Delta Points
(Post 24254133)
Not saying one way or the other, but did you create the page that you used to re-do? Or was that a screen shot from Delta.com. #JustSayin ;)
|
Originally Posted by CMK10
(Post 24254152)
What does that matter? I took a screen shot of the Delta page which clearly indicates where it's from and then created from there. Hell, I even left the copyright on the bottom of the page which gave Delta their citation. Stealing someone's original content for your blog without attribution is quite different.
I will accept an apology if offered. ^ |
Originally Posted by Delta Points
(Post 24254414)
Sir (or Madam). Unlike your person attack, I did NOT steal your original content on my blog or publish it. Nor did I take sides in this as clearly posted. All I pointed out was that your efforts to claim ownership of a work from Delta.com is lost in your argument.
I will accept an apology if offered. ^ He will accept an apology if offered. ^ |
Originally Posted by Delta Points
(Post 24254133)
Not saying one way or the other, but did you create the page that you used to re-do? Or was that a screen shot from Delta.com. #JustSayin ;)
|
Originally Posted by Delta Points
(Post 24254414)
Sir (or Madam). Unlike your person attack, I did NOT steal your original content on my blog or publish it. Nor did I take sides in this as clearly posted. All I pointed out was that your efforts to claim ownership of a work from Delta.com is lost in your argument.
I will accept an apology if offered. ^ |
Originally Posted by freeloader
(Post 24255565)
you should look up "fair use" and "parody"... i'll let those with a more legal background explain it, but yes he CAN claim ownership of his work, even when the original image was created by delta. so your point is pretty off base
The US Supreme Court has held that "the heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." Perhaps some intrepid law student can discuss further :p |
Originally Posted by Delta Points
(Post 24254414)
I will accept an apology if offered. ^
|
Originally Posted by Bulldog83
(Post 24257088)
Other fair use issues aside, the parody issue is complicated by the fact that CMK10 used the copyrighted material of one party (Delta) to mock another party (United).
The US Supreme Court has held that "the heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." Perhaps some intrepid law student can discuss further :p |
Originally Posted by lwildernorva
(Post 24257625)
If I recall correctly, CMK10 is qualified in that area.
|
Originally Posted by lwildernorva
(Post 24257625)
If I recall correctly, CMK10 is qualified in that area.
Originally Posted by Canarsie
(Post 24257637)
You recall correctly.
But what I do know is that theft of something stolen is still theft. "It was already stolen" is not an affirmative defense. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:06 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.