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.
Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by cerebralassassins
This is FALSE
Parody is protected under FAIR USE. If you would have watched that video I posted you would have understood.
Please, look into the law before making unfounded claims like this. A parody is NOT breaking copyright, in fact it is expressly allowed under copyright law. I will be posting direct links soon, just sayin' I have the sources. Though they are not hard to hunt down.
Originally posted by Xertious
reply to post by truthinfact
First of, as established, copyright has not been abused.
Secondly, no they couldn't. It wouldn't even go as far as legal action. Probably at most a takedown if copyright has been infringed. I wish retards would stop fearmongering the internet it doesn't do anyone any favoura except fox news having a story to get people worked up about.
Also, read this woman's blog. She's not a lawyer, she's a bloody photojournalist. She also takes back everything she said in the next post after receiving a phone call from the founder and calling it a date.
She seems to be an idiot that got worked up by a facebook group.
An appeal to probability is a justification based on probability, sometimes regarded as a logical fallacy,[citation needed] when an unwarranted assumption that something will happen, because it can happen, or when the odds of an occurrence are unrealistically played down in lieu of appropriate precaution.
Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by cerebralassassins
Completly untrue!
I DO write parodies, ALL the time. Of course I write musical parodies, IE songs only.
But I can link you to thousands of others that do the same, Weird Al Yankovic. Ever hear of this guy?
He does these songs/videos ALL THE TIME. Has been doing them for years, got his start on Dr. Demento (Radio program that specialized in parodies). But, I am done PROVING my claims. Could you please post the laws that state parodies are illegal.
Again, you keep claiming they are illegal. You need to post the proof to your claim, or your claim is unfounded. I posted evidence, only fair that you do the same.
REGARDLESS, the "lawyer" was commenting on pictures. Which IS NOT AGAINST copyright, as I have shown already in this thread. So your whole argument is faulty, considering that no laws are being broken. Unless you are going to post the law you are claiming is being violated...
EDIT
(Almost forgot)
An appeal to probability is a justification based on probability, sometimes regarded as a logical fallacy,[citation needed] when an unwarranted assumption that something will happen, because it can happen, or when the odds of an occurrence are unrealistically played down in lieu of appropriate precaution.
en.wikipedia.org...
Just because they might persecute wrongfully, does not mean they will.edit on 3/1/2012 by adigregorio because: Appealing to probability
Originally posted by cerebralassassins
So having read and listened to everything you posted up and your obviously far more knowledge than me given your occupation or your hobby regarding parody music and videos if i understand you correctly...
Originally posted by cerebralassassins
i then would assume it would be okay for me to brand a clients drink as coca-cola with a parody twist and go ballistic on the net along with some national prints.
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]
Seriously, it looks like she is not a very good lawyer. I mean, I can see this crap and I only have my armchair degree.
Applying layman logic to the twisted world of legal realities may uncover situations that seem improbable, unfair, or illogical, but this is why these people STUDY to be a lawyer.
Im not being rude, I agree with a lot of what you say, however, in reality what you say it is not the reality. it's only common sense.
Therefore given the situation, do you not think it prudent to to cease advocating to others a legal position that could be questionable, Based on nothing more than an untrained understanding of "the law" which in fact means that you have no more real idea what you are saying, other than the value of "in my opinion"
Also worthy of note, (and to all here) citation of Wikipedia, is not allowed even at university degree study level (nor youtube videos) so they are certainly not admissible in a legal debate.
Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.[4]
An appeal to probability is a justification based on probability, sometimes regarded as a logical fallacy,[citation needed] when an unwarranted assumption that something will happen, because it can happen, or when the odds of an occurrence are unrealistically played down in lieu of appropriate precaution.
Originally posted by JakiusFogg
You are a very aggressive person are you not? As I stated you may advocate a logical position this will not stop you getting you ass hauled into court or anyone else who decides that your posts have reason which they do.
Originally posted by JakiusFogg
The arguments of the lawyer may seem flawed to you. and many others, however hers is a position of legal training, It may seem like nonsense, and as if "she needs to go back to school" because a layman cannot make sense of it. But that is the very essence of what this is about.
Originally posted by JakiusFogg
As for moving the goalposts. ha weak!. no. I am current doing a Master degree, any citation from wikipedia means you get marked down. I am not moving the goal posts at all, you are trying to argue legally using wikipedia and youtube as source data.
Originally posted by JakiusFogg
While I commend you effort to back you arguments and wish that others would do the same. if you wish to assert a heavy weight position, try citing peer reviewed journals, They too are available on the net, with a little searching. Just a tip.
Originally posted by JakiusFogg
As for whatever else you have to say. I am not interested. I will not follow your say so, that it is actually OK by your armchair degree interpretation of laws you DO NOT fully understand, against that of a qualified and certified legal professional you, stated that while there was some hope in this case, in general terms the terms were written in such a way to legally protect the company, while exposing its users to what may be a legal mine field.
Originally posted by JakiusFogg
However, maybe you are already heavily exposed to this site and are rattled by it. maybe you are just paranoid. but in the end whatever argument that the law is wrong, not matter how logical it may be. Will not stop the inevitable.
Originally posted by JakiusFogg
If you pin one of my photos without my permission, I will sue you for unlawful distribution which is my right, and I will win. end of.
Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Note the text you quotes, The mods on Wikipedia have inserted a [citation needed] which translates as...
Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Rule one, protect yourself at all time. Why do you think ATS have the rules about external content and citation. it is called intellectual property.
Oh, and you have no right to reproduce this article or any portion thereof. But feel free to share the link! ddkportraits.com...
The article discusses the application of fair use analysis and copyright law to photographs on social networking sites to evaluate the validity of photographs republished for news reporting purposes. It says that the original authorship creators fixed in any medium of expression are entitled