Did he follow the protocols for whistleblowing and exhaust all other avenues? Or did he just take the law into his own hand? Honest question. I'm curious too if you think it's OK for soldiers entrusted with classified information to decide for themselves which information to make public. I don't. And please explain how all the information he released related to wrongdoings that were covered up. Do you really think all of the hundreds of thousands of documents exposed cover ups? Give me a break. This is a punk who got caught betraying his country, and he deserves whatever he gets.
My honest answer is that I am curious what Mike Masnick really believes. I have no agenda but to understand him. Does he *really* think that *any* part of copyright is "good"? I think it's a fair question. If he thinks any part of is "good," then shouldn't he also think those parts should be enforced? My concern is that he'll lie and pretend like he thinks parts of it are "good," but really he doesn't think those "good" parts should ever be enforced. He'll say it's OK to have the right, but only if there's no remedy for the violation of that right. It's part of a pattern that I've seen where he attempts to appear reasonable out of some fear that if he actually admits his true beliefs he'll be taken even less seriously (he's already seen as an extremist by many). I think he's a dishonest person, and the fact that he refuses to ever be pinned down on his position is highly indicative of deceit. I want him to just be honest and open about what he believes, and it fascinates me that that's something he appears never willing to do.
There's been no demand. I asked a question and then pointed out his continued refusal to answer any questions normally. Make excuses for him all you want. At the end of the day the fact exists that Mike refuses to discuss his beliefs with anyone who dares challenge him. His refusals only strengthen my resolve. If he wants to deal with me, it'll have to be by actually engaging me openly and honestly. He can dish it, but he sure as hell can't take it. Funny how he refuses to discuss his beliefs. I've never met anyone so critical of others but so completely uncritical of himself.
No one cares how you personally read what others say.
These are the comments where people are invited to share their thoughts on the issues at hand. You obviously care very much about what I said, or else you wouldn't have taken the time to write a long reply. If you don't like my comments, don't read them and don't comment on them. Trying to shut down a dissenting point of view, as so many on Techdirt do with alarming regularity, is not productive. I'm here for an open and honest discussion about these issues with Mike. Obviously nothing scares him more than that. Should make you wonder about what he's hiding.
Even if Mike's position is that IP laws should be abolished, what's your point anyways? I don't care either way, I think they should, or they should substantially move in that direction.
What's wrong with asking the author of this article about copyright law to state his position about copyright law? You guys get all worked up when anyone dares to ask Mike anything meaningful. It's a cult around here. If you really don't care what I post, don't comment on it. I wasn't asking your opinion. I'm asking Mike what he believes. And as you can see, nothing scares him more than having that conversation. It's amazing, really. He spends his life tearing apart everyone else's beliefs about copyright, but he's too much of a coward to have a normal conversation about his own beliefs. I've never seen such a person before.
You're the one that believes IP laws are a good thing, why can't you defend your own position? Why must you ask your critics to defend your position for you?
I defend my position all the time. More so than Mike or anyone else on Techdirt I am willing to discuss my beliefs and to provide citations for the arguments I make. I get stuff wrong all the time, and I'm happy to admit it. I make lots of mistakes, and I'm far from being a perfect human being. I recognize my faults. But I also am fascinated by copyright and I spend many, many hours every week learning as much about it as I can. I hope to one day be able to call myself an expert on copyright law. I have years of hard work ahead of me to get to that point, but I'm dedicated and I work hard and I will get there eventually. I value all points of view, and I don't pretend like only my view matters. I'm an open book. I don't run from debate and questions like Mike does.
You have a vivid imagination don't you? You also have an astonishing capacity for self-delusion. Did you go off your meds and take a little adventure? Seriously, your behavior wreaks of someone with a maladaptive cognitive disorder. You're absolutely obsessed with Mike and your twisted perception of him. Get help.
LOL! Yeah, asking Mike what he believes is such a terrible thing. No one should ever do that. Please pass the Kool-Aid.
Of course, it's the over aggressive attempts to keep information secret that may have resulted in this case even existing in the first place, as Manning allegedly believed that the over-classification of documents was harming US interests.
Apologist much? Classified information is supposed to be kept secret. That's the whole point of it being classified. Individual soldiers don't get to decide which classified information should be released to the public. I don't care what he "allegedly believed." You really won't anyone responsible for what they do with a computer, will you?
So no, you won't respond. That's not at all surprising. The funny thing is, you point to one of your posts where you at length give all sorts of excuses for why you won't answer a question. But then of course you and I both know that you shortly thereafter actually answered the question. You hemmed and hawed and threw multiple hissy fits for months and months, but then you did in fact answer the question directly.
Look, you and I both know that you never want to talk about what you actually believe in. This to me proves that it's because you don't want anyone peering at the insecure man behind the curtain. I couldn't live my life that way. I'm an open book. I'm not ashamed of what I believe in, and when people want to discuss my beliefs I'm happy to oblige. You on the other hand will go to great lengths to never answer a direct question about any of your fundamental beliefs about subjects that you write about incessantly.
Why the subterfuge, Mike, if not for the purpose of deceit?
You can point to things I've said and done that were not kind. I can do the same to you, but I don't. I'm a moody person. I get fed up easily. I hate bullshit. I can be a total asshole. I don't like it when people scurry away when asked simple and direct questions. From what I can tell, all you care about is inciting the masses in your crusade against IP. You don't ever want to take a step back and discuss your beliefs with those who ask difficult questions. Like all cult leaders, you don't want your beliefs to be questioned.
So you'll trot out excuse after excuse, but what you will never do is just be an honest person engaged in an honest discussion. I'm not sure when you turned so sour, but it was obviously way before I ever showed up. It's a shame, Mike, 'cause I think you're a really smart guy. But you close yourself off to dissenting views and you stand up on your soapbox and mock anyone who thinks differently than you. I've never seen anyone so opinionated yet so afraid of debate.
I could never live like that. I'm just too honest of a person. The fact that you won't even engage ANYONE (not just me) says it all. Oh sure, you'll engage when it's a simple issue and when you think it's safe. But you won't engage with someone like me who wants to talk about the difficult stuff that isn't so safe. I guess you're happy being the king of Techdirt. Honestly, I'd want better for myself. But I suppose a demagogue takes who he can get.
I know you'll NEVER just have a regular discussion with me, and I know it's because you're too insecure and dishonest. It has nothing to do with me. It's you, Mike. You're the one that runs from a debate. Every time. You're the reason that you won't have a normal discussion. But like so many things, I suppose, you won't actually lay the blame on the person who is truly at fault. Funny how you're so judgmental and so able to rip everyone else apart, but you can't even have the simplest discussion about yourself. Overcompensating, I suppose.
Yeah. So you answered the first question in that paragraph and the only one that I had already assumed the correct answer to.
Please enlighten me as to how the legality of the issue is the only aspect that should be addressed. Do you believe that legality is morality? Do you, personally, believe that it's okay to suppress the expression of the truth in order to make money?
The truth isn't being suppressed. You, I, and Tim are all free to say that Child used Thermador products. The First Amendment protects us. Once the speech turns commercial, the First Amendment protection is not as strong. And untruths in advertising are not protected at all. The issue here isn't the truth that she used Thermador, it's the untruth that she endorsed it. The facts, as I understand them, was that she refused to endorse the product commercially. The immoral act, in my opinion, is using her image and name to sell products, i.e., to give the impression of endorsement, when it's a known fact that she wouldn't have liked it. Nor do the current holder of her IP rights like it, apparently. I think too you need to understand that the issue is not the primary meaning of Julia Child, which is the person. The issue is the secondary meaning of Julia Child, which is like a brand name. It's their property and if they don't want it used to promote Thermador's products, then that's their right to stop. As to whether I believe that legality = morality, I'm not sure I have a good answer. I think that more often than not, if not almost always, the legal path is the moral one. They develop hand in hand. The right of publicity and the right against false endorsement recognize that we shouldn't force people to be used commercially when they don't want to be. That is the law, and I think it's quite moral. Hope I answered your questions.
You're begging the question here. You're assuming the only good that can come from a copyright law is a 'right holder' invoking it.
I'm trying to avoid the situation where Mike pretends like some part of copyright law is "good," but really he doesn't think that anyone should ever enforce it. So if he claims that there is a "good" part (which he will never do), I'd like some evidence to back it up (which he'll never give). The real question is why Mike can't just be open and honest about his beliefs. I've never seen somebody run away faster from a direct question than him. Doesn't matter who's asking either.
Maybe he scurries away from these types of discussions like a cockroach because you're like a dick. Just saying.
He runs away from having a human, open, and awesome discussion with anyone who questions him on his beliefs. It's not just me. Mike refuses to ever be pinned down on anything. He'll do anything to get out of just having a normal conversation.
He just defended Canadian law as generally good while pointing some issues that could be worked on....
No, he said it was "reforming copyright in the right direction." I read that to mean "in the direction of copyright abolition." But I'm not asking about Canadian copyright, and I'm not asking for everyone's views. I'm asking Mike for his views. I want Mike to answer for himself. Can he point to *any* of U.S. copyright that he thinks is "good," and if so, can he point out where he celebrated that "good" law's enforcement? I can't help but feel that he frames these things like he's trying to be reasonable (e.g., implying he's only interested in getting rid of the "bad" parts of the law), but in fact his views are quite extreme (he actually thinks it's all "bad"). I await Mike's answer should he choose to give one (and history has shown that he scurries away from these types of discussions like a cockroach when the lights get turned on, so I don't expect that he'll actually meet the substance of my query with a response).
Just to be clear, Mike. In your opinion, are there any "good" copyright laws? If so, please specify which are good and why you think them so. And if possible, please point to even one article you've written where you defend the particular "good" law and any right holder invoking it. Thanks.
And the mention of "moron in a hurry" insults everyone who understands that "moron in a hurry" is not the test used to determine false endorsement (or anything else in unfair competition/trademark law).
Julia is dead and has no goodwill to trade on.
On the contrary, her IP rights and goodwill are still quite valuable.
They're stating fact.
They're using her name and image *in commerce*. That it's factual is not the issue. The issue is likelihood of confusion (for the Section 43(a) claim) and identifiability (for the publicity claim).
Have you spent five minutes learning and understanding the applicable law?
So your wife thought a dead person endorsed something? I think you need someone else for your "moron in a hurry" test.
My wife is apparently more sophisticated than you and understands that since Child is dead it would be the right holder that would be authorizing the Child endorsement and not Child herself.
What Tim did was take maybe 50% of applicable law, the part he likes, and ignored the rest of the law.
You give him far too much credit. I don't think he even made any effort to look at or understand the actual law when writing this piece purportedly about the law.
He says stuff like: "The material, it would appear, was used simply to state a historical fact. Using Child's image may fall into more of a grey area, but I would think historical facts are not subject to publicity rights."
That ignores the copyright aspect completely, ignores the likelihood of confusion analysis on the unfair competition claim, and ignores the actual law on publicity rights.
All he did was read their "but it's facts!" argument and then ran with it. It's the epitome of working backwards, and it's a prime example of the fact that none of the TD second-stringers (other than perhaps Glyn) is qualified to even begin to tackle legal issues.
The key is that they weren't just stating the fact that Julia Child used Thermador products. They were using her name and image in their advertisements. The fact that she used Thermador products isn't the issue. The issue is whether a consumer would see those advertisements and think that Julia Child and/or the Foundation endorsed the products.
I showed some of the ads to my wife and asked her what she thought (without any prodding). Her reaction was that she thought Julia Child was endorsing Thermador products. That seems to be the whole point of using her name and image in the ads. I don't have all the facts and can't do the proper analysis, but I think this case isn't likely to be even a close one.
The "oh, we're just stating facts" argument is laughable. If Coca-Cola had a picture of Mitt Romney drinking a Coke, they couldn't use it in all their ads and just claim that it represented the fact that Romney drinks Coke. They would be using the image to imply an endorsement.
And that's just the 1125(a) claim. There's the publicity claim as well.
The crux of the issue from the foundation appears to be that they think BSH's material implies an endorsement by Child, despite the chef being historically reluctant to endorse products in general. I'm a bit confused as to how acknowledging Child using a product equates to an endorsement of that product. I'm perhaps even more confused as to how someone who has been dead for eight years could suddenly begin endorsing anything at all anyway. It seems to me that the kind of person who would be swayed by an edorsement by Child likely is aware of her current incapacity to endorse... well, anything.
If you read the Foundation's complaint, they make two claims. The first is a claim under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). By using the Julia Child name and image on their website, brochures, social media, advertising, etc., Thermador gave the false impression that Julia Child and/or her Foundation endorsed the Thermador product. The claim is that they are trading on Child's goodwill. The second claim is for copyright infringement for using copyrighted photographs without permission.
Your "but it's fact!" argument doesn't even address the legal issue, which is whether there's likelihood of confusion. In the Ninth Circuit you'd use the Sleekcraft factors. It's a fact-intensive inquiry, so without more details, I don't think you can accurately make that determination yet. I suppose the argument could be made that it's nominative fair use, but I don't think that even passes the laugh test.
I'm curious, Tim. What makes you qualified to write about celebrity endorsement cases? Have you even spent five minutes learning and understanding the applicable law? Was there ever any chance that you would take the right holder's side? Or did you just start with your conclusion and work backwards from there (as is the TD norm)?
Please provide evidence of any country that considers copyright to be a "human right". Seriously, tell us who genuinely thinks that way, or publicly retract your ridiculous claim that is an insult to actual important rights.
Try Googling it yourself and spending five minutes reading what you see. There's apparently a lot to this world than you are aware of.
What it definitely IS home to is a couple of annoying industry shills who have little to no reading comprehension and can't image anything outside the fucked up, out of touch, greedy cunt faced corporate box they live in.
There's no maybe. Just look at the shit storm Mike stirred up with this silly post. And the one's living in the "greedy cunts" are the pirates who think it's OK to take what they want without paying. There is no excuse for violating other people's property rights, and if you've drunk too much of Mike's Pirate Kool-Aid and believe that the victims are to blame, then you're the one that's "out of touch."
If pirates are sociopaths who just want free stuff then why do they need someone to apologize for them? That's just silly.
Mike's here day in and day out to convince them that the victims are to blame for their conscious decision to violate the victims' rights. He writes article after article about how copyright is pure evil and how everyone who believes in copyright is wrong. I could on, but it's depressing.
On the post: Too Much Secrecy: Press Ask The Court To Open Up Bradley Manning Court Martial
Re: Re:
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
These are the comments where people are invited to share their thoughts on the issues at hand. You obviously care very much about what I said, or else you wouldn't have taken the time to write a long reply. If you don't like my comments, don't read them and don't comment on them. Trying to shut down a dissenting point of view, as so many on Techdirt do with alarming regularity, is not productive. I'm here for an open and honest discussion about these issues with Mike. Obviously nothing scares him more than that. Should make you wonder about what he's hiding.
Even if Mike's position is that IP laws should be abolished, what's your point anyways? I don't care either way, I think they should, or they should substantially move in that direction.
What's wrong with asking the author of this article about copyright law to state his position about copyright law? You guys get all worked up when anyone dares to ask Mike anything meaningful. It's a cult around here. If you really don't care what I post, don't comment on it. I wasn't asking your opinion. I'm asking Mike what he believes. And as you can see, nothing scares him more than having that conversation. It's amazing, really. He spends his life tearing apart everyone else's beliefs about copyright, but he's too much of a coward to have a normal conversation about his own beliefs. I've never seen such a person before.
You're the one that believes IP laws are a good thing, why can't you defend your own position? Why must you ask your critics to defend your position for you?
I defend my position all the time. More so than Mike or anyone else on Techdirt I am willing to discuss my beliefs and to provide citations for the arguments I make. I get stuff wrong all the time, and I'm happy to admit it. I make lots of mistakes, and I'm far from being a perfect human being. I recognize my faults. But I also am fascinated by copyright and I spend many, many hours every week learning as much about it as I can. I hope to one day be able to call myself an expert on copyright law. I have years of hard work ahead of me to get to that point, but I'm dedicated and I work hard and I will get there eventually. I value all points of view, and I don't pretend like only my view matters. I'm an open book. I don't run from debate and questions like Mike does.
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL! Yeah, asking Mike what he believes is such a terrible thing. No one should ever do that. Please pass the Kool-Aid.
On the post: Too Much Secrecy: Press Ask The Court To Open Up Bradley Manning Court Martial
Apologist much? Classified information is supposed to be kept secret. That's the whole point of it being classified. Individual soldiers don't get to decide which classified information should be released to the public. I don't care what he "allegedly believed." You really won't anyone responsible for what they do with a computer, will you?
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, you and I both know that you never want to talk about what you actually believe in. This to me proves that it's because you don't want anyone peering at the insecure man behind the curtain. I couldn't live my life that way. I'm an open book. I'm not ashamed of what I believe in, and when people want to discuss my beliefs I'm happy to oblige. You on the other hand will go to great lengths to never answer a direct question about any of your fundamental beliefs about subjects that you write about incessantly.
Why the subterfuge, Mike, if not for the purpose of deceit?
You can point to things I've said and done that were not kind. I can do the same to you, but I don't. I'm a moody person. I get fed up easily. I hate bullshit. I can be a total asshole. I don't like it when people scurry away when asked simple and direct questions. From what I can tell, all you care about is inciting the masses in your crusade against IP. You don't ever want to take a step back and discuss your beliefs with those who ask difficult questions. Like all cult leaders, you don't want your beliefs to be questioned.
So you'll trot out excuse after excuse, but what you will never do is just be an honest person engaged in an honest discussion. I'm not sure when you turned so sour, but it was obviously way before I ever showed up. It's a shame, Mike, 'cause I think you're a really smart guy. But you close yourself off to dissenting views and you stand up on your soapbox and mock anyone who thinks differently than you. I've never seen anyone so opinionated yet so afraid of debate.
I could never live like that. I'm just too honest of a person. The fact that you won't even engage ANYONE (not just me) says it all. Oh sure, you'll engage when it's a simple issue and when you think it's safe. But you won't engage with someone like me who wants to talk about the difficult stuff that isn't so safe. I guess you're happy being the king of Techdirt. Honestly, I'd want better for myself. But I suppose a demagogue takes who he can get.
I know you'll NEVER just have a regular discussion with me, and I know it's because you're too insecure and dishonest. It has nothing to do with me. It's you, Mike. You're the one that runs from a debate. Every time. You're the reason that you won't have a normal discussion. But like so many things, I suppose, you won't actually lay the blame on the person who is truly at fault. Funny how you're so judgmental and so able to rip everyone else apart, but you can't even have the simplest discussion about yourself. Overcompensating, I suppose.
On the post: Julia Child Foundation Wants An Injunction Against Facts
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please enlighten me as to how the legality of the issue is the only aspect that should be addressed. Do you believe that legality is morality? Do you, personally, believe that it's okay to suppress the expression of the truth in order to make money?
The truth isn't being suppressed. You, I, and Tim are all free to say that Child used Thermador products. The First Amendment protects us. Once the speech turns commercial, the First Amendment protection is not as strong. And untruths in advertising are not protected at all. The issue here isn't the truth that she used Thermador, it's the untruth that she endorsed it. The facts, as I understand them, was that she refused to endorse the product commercially. The immoral act, in my opinion, is using her image and name to sell products, i.e., to give the impression of endorsement, when it's a known fact that she wouldn't have liked it. Nor do the current holder of her IP rights like it, apparently. I think too you need to understand that the issue is not the primary meaning of Julia Child, which is the person. The issue is the secondary meaning of Julia Child, which is like a brand name. It's their property and if they don't want it used to promote Thermador's products, then that's their right to stop. As to whether I believe that legality = morality, I'm not sure I have a good answer. I think that more often than not, if not almost always, the legal path is the moral one. They develop hand in hand. The right of publicity and the right against false endorsement recognize that we shouldn't force people to be used commercially when they don't want to be. That is the law, and I think it's quite moral. Hope I answered your questions.
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
Re: Re:
I'm trying to avoid the situation where Mike pretends like some part of copyright law is "good," but really he doesn't think that anyone should ever enforce it. So if he claims that there is a "good" part (which he will never do), I'd like some evidence to back it up (which he'll never give). The real question is why Mike can't just be open and honest about his beliefs. I've never seen somebody run away faster from a direct question than him. Doesn't matter who's asking either.
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He runs away from having a human, open, and awesome discussion with anyone who questions him on his beliefs. It's not just me. Mike refuses to ever be pinned down on anything. He'll do anything to get out of just having a normal conversation.
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
Re: Re:
No, he said it was "reforming copyright in the right direction." I read that to mean "in the direction of copyright abolition." But I'm not asking about Canadian copyright, and I'm not asking for everyone's views. I'm asking Mike for his views. I want Mike to answer for himself. Can he point to *any* of U.S. copyright that he thinks is "good," and if so, can he point out where he celebrated that "good" law's enforcement? I can't help but feel that he frames these things like he's trying to be reasonable (e.g., implying he's only interested in getting rid of the "bad" parts of the law), but in fact his views are quite extreme (he actually thinks it's all "bad"). I await Mike's answer should he choose to give one (and history has shown that he scurries away from these types of discussions like a cockroach when the lights get turned on, so I don't expect that he'll actually meet the substance of my query with a response).
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
On the post: Julia Child Foundation Wants An Injunction Against Facts
Re: Re:
And the mention of "moron in a hurry" insults everyone who understands that "moron in a hurry" is not the test used to determine false endorsement (or anything else in unfair competition/trademark law).
Julia is dead and has no goodwill to trade on.
On the contrary, her IP rights and goodwill are still quite valuable.
They're stating fact.
They're using her name and image *in commerce*. That it's factual is not the issue. The issue is likelihood of confusion (for the Section 43(a) claim) and identifiability (for the publicity claim).
Have you spent five minutes learning and understanding the applicable law?
I have. Clearly you and Tim have not.
On the post: Julia Child Foundation Wants An Injunction Against Facts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My wife is apparently more sophisticated than you and understands that since Child is dead it would be the right holder that would be authorizing the Child endorsement and not Child herself.
On the post: Julia Child Foundation Wants An Injunction Against Facts
Re: Re:
You give him far too much credit. I don't think he even made any effort to look at or understand the actual law when writing this piece purportedly about the law.
He says stuff like: "The material, it would appear, was used simply to state a historical fact. Using Child's image may fall into more of a grey area, but I would think historical facts are not subject to publicity rights."
That ignores the copyright aspect completely, ignores the likelihood of confusion analysis on the unfair competition claim, and ignores the actual law on publicity rights.
All he did was read their "but it's facts!" argument and then ran with it. It's the epitome of working backwards, and it's a prime example of the fact that none of the TD second-stringers (other than perhaps Glyn) is qualified to even begin to tackle legal issues.
On the post: Julia Child Foundation Wants An Injunction Against Facts
Re: Re: Re:
The key is that they weren't just stating the fact that Julia Child used Thermador products. They were using her name and image in their advertisements. The fact that she used Thermador products isn't the issue. The issue is whether a consumer would see those advertisements and think that Julia Child and/or the Foundation endorsed the products.
I showed some of the ads to my wife and asked her what she thought (without any prodding). Her reaction was that she thought Julia Child was endorsing Thermador products. That seems to be the whole point of using her name and image in the ads. I don't have all the facts and can't do the proper analysis, but I think this case isn't likely to be even a close one.
The "oh, we're just stating facts" argument is laughable. If Coca-Cola had a picture of Mitt Romney drinking a Coke, they couldn't use it in all their ads and just claim that it represented the fact that Romney drinks Coke. They would be using the image to imply an endorsement.
And that's just the 1125(a) claim. There's the publicity claim as well.
On the post: Julia Child Foundation Wants An Injunction Against Facts
If you read the Foundation's complaint, they make two claims. The first is a claim under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). By using the Julia Child name and image on their website, brochures, social media, advertising, etc., Thermador gave the false impression that Julia Child and/or her Foundation endorsed the Thermador product. The claim is that they are trading on Child's goodwill. The second claim is for copyright infringement for using copyrighted photographs without permission.
Your "but it's fact!" argument doesn't even address the legal issue, which is whether there's likelihood of confusion. In the Ninth Circuit you'd use the Sleekcraft factors. It's a fact-intensive inquiry, so without more details, I don't think you can accurately make that determination yet. I suppose the argument could be made that it's nominative fair use, but I don't think that even passes the laugh test.
I'm curious, Tim. What makes you qualified to write about celebrity endorsement cases? Have you even spent five minutes learning and understanding the applicable law? Was there ever any chance that you would take the right holder's side? Or did you just start with your conclusion and work backwards from there (as is the TD norm)?
On the post: Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try Googling it yourself and spending five minutes reading what you see. There's apparently a lot to this world than you are aware of.
On the post: Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe it is..Maybe it isn't...
What it definitely IS home to is a couple of annoying industry shills who have little to no reading comprehension and can't image anything outside the fucked up, out of touch, greedy cunt faced corporate box they live in.
There's no maybe. Just look at the shit storm Mike stirred up with this silly post. And the one's living in the "greedy cunts" are the pirates who think it's OK to take what they want without paying. There is no excuse for violating other people's property rights, and if you've drunk too much of Mike's Pirate Kool-Aid and believe that the victims are to blame, then you're the one that's "out of touch."
On the post: Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?
Re: Re: Re:
Mike's here day in and day out to convince them that the victims are to blame for their conscious decision to violate the victims' rights. He writes article after article about how copyright is pure evil and how everyone who believes in copyright is wrong. I could on, but it's depressing.
Next >>