Kelina’s Comments

• Jan 19th, 2013 @ 4:03am

  Re: (as Chris)

  on Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
  Dude, creative commons is still copyright law. There's a few points covered but the LEGAL rules for creative commons remains
  1. Giving credit where credit is due
  2. Must not be used to advertise for a company
  Fox broke both golden rules regarding creative commons. Get real.
• Dec 4th, 2012 @ 10:45pm

  (untitled comment)

  on Homeless Man Who Got Free Boots From Cop Now 'Wants His Cut' Of YouTube Attention
  How many boner pill ads did CNN show while this guy was being paraded around the news room? This isn't even civilized behavior. Humanity is cruel.
• Dec 4th, 2012 @ 10:41pm

  What Is Wrong With You People

  on Homeless Man Who Got Free Boots From Cop Now 'Wants His Cut' Of YouTube Attention
  This is someone who currently has nothing, might even have mental disease, and the only attention he's got in the last 6 months (it looks like) is a free pair of boots, a butt load of publicity and still has no food, shelter, water or any sense of security. His comment isn't an actual demand for people to pony up, except that people seem to want to look at him and make fun of him. Is he not a circus attraction for the news programs? Are you not entertained? We're constantly being told we need to vote with our dollars. If speech is money than what this man did was become part of a speech about his condition. If that's not worth anything in this world it's just proof capitalism doesn't exist, and that socialism is the only justifiable economy if you respect human dignity.
• Feb 9th, 2010 @ 4:56am

  Overreaching (as Chris)

  on Artist Sues Photographer For Transformative Photo Of Public Artwork, Even Though Photographer Took Down The Photo
  I'm still confused by the specifics of the case and how this is even being entertained. An artist made a piece of art for the city, using the city's money, and people go past it taking pictures of it because it's not only on a public sidewalk but an artistic interactive landmark.
  
  What reason does anyone have to seek his permission before showing it to people who may never visit Seattle? What possible reason does the state have in enforcing such draconian laws? I think if this other artist made, or was attempting to make, money off the work without any modifications it would be a different story, but I guess I'm just not seeing the harm in combining your work with others to make something better, which is exactly like what Jack did here.
  
  Jack lives in a time without the internet, and worries that the public art he created on a public sidewalk may be distributed to people who...he didn't authorize their consumption. What worse? The law is on his side.