It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Does matter what i believe?" she wrote. "Its my own personal opinion which I as a private citizen which do not want publicized in any form and if you do not abide my wishes i constitute your disregard as slander."
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: vasaga
There are a lot of things I find wrong with the Edward Snowden case, but I'm not entirely sure it is a free speech issue. I think it has more to do with violating security protocols and leaking classified information. It's a gray that you may have a point with. Though it is certainly more complicated than just a "freedom of speech" issue.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jamie1
Holy crap! That girl is DUUUUUUUUMB. Like she isn't just hateful, she is moronic. Leaving her grammar aside, I think this gem really speaks to her intelligence (keep in mind, she posted this to Twitter):
"Does matter what i believe?" she wrote. "Its my own personal opinion which I as a private citizen which do not want publicized in any form and if you do not abide my wishes i constitute your disregard as slander."
If you don't want your opinions publicized, don't post them to Twitter for the world to see!
I hope she isn't studying law. Though the way she gets agitated about race relations, we may just have the next Al Sharpton on our hands. YAY! *puke*
originally posted by: Annee
Question: what is the difference between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press?
And, I believe, photos are copyrighted. You can't take a photo off the internet and reprint it without permission.
But, it's OK to reprint someone's text without permission?
Just curious.
As far as the student goes? I have zero tolerance for "Victimhood".
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Photos are only copyrighted if the company that released it goes out of its way to copyright it. If they don't explicitly do that, then the picture isn't copyrighted and it is in the public domain.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Photos are only copyrighted if the company that released it goes out of its way to copyright it. If they don't explicitly do that, then the picture isn't copyrighted and it is in the public domain.
I don't know about that.
I know laws are still catching up to the Internet. But, I believe there was recent legislation on photos. I believe photos are automatically copyrighted to the photographer.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee
Well you are going to have to produce some evidence to those claims because that is news to me.
What are the rules about copyright of images and photos? Copyright is a form of legal protection that is automatically assigned to content creators at the moment of creation. In other words, the moment you take a photograph, you own the copyright to it. You don’t have to register it with a special organisation, you don’t have to fill in a form or add a legal notice to the image. The rights to use, amend or sell that image are yours and yours alone. You are also allowed to give away or sell those rights, if you wish - and that’s how many professional photographers make money; by selling rights to their work. That also means that no one else is allowed to use your work without your permission. Many people assume that if content is online that it is "public domain" and that it's not copyrighted. That’s just a myth.
originally posted by: TKDRL
Copyright for photos do not need to be registered, at least in the US. Copyright is automatic for the photographer, unless it is work done under a contract that states otherwise. Registration is helpful, if you plan to enforce your copyright if anyone infringes. A lot of people have been screwed by wedding photographers because of that.
In new guidance the USCO has ruled that only works created by a human can be copyrighted under US law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Annee
According to the DMCA, you are correct.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: TKDRL
I think it is wrong to fire someone for using their free speech on their own time.
That's fine for you to think it's wrong. But getting fired for saying something doesn't mean their Free Speech was violated, which is what many people claim.
originally posted by: Annee
If you can't reprint photos without permission ----- is it, should it, be legal to reprint what someone writes without their permission?