Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Usenet photo galleries

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Usenet photo galleries

 
 
Will Dockery
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2005
Joy Twitcuntre wrote:
> "Joy Yourcenar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> >>> "Michael Cook" wrote
> >>> > "Will Dockery" wrote in message
> >>> > >
> >>> > > You're not paying attention, as usual, my jeering little

groupie-twit:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > As I wrote, JRS, these fat-n-ugly bimbos need no photo

manipulation:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > rec.arts.poems group shot:
> >>> > >snip
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Funny stuff *without* manipulation.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Oh, the humanity!
> >>> > >
> >>> > that was sooo uncool
> >>>
> >>> And what /you/ do is cool? You opened the door for parody-as-personal
> >>> attack, Cook, and JRS says that it's legal.

> >
> > They are not alone. The Supreme Court of the United States (which
> > includes Southern states too) said that in Leibovitz v. Paramount

>
> the plaintiff argued...
> ------
> ... principally on the ground that the defendant's use was commercial and
> therefore should receive little protection under the fair use defense.

While
> we agree that the commercial nature of Paramount's advertisement weighs
> against it in the fair use balance, we nonetheless conclude that this

advertisement
> qualifies as a parody entitled to the fair use defense under the analysis

set forth
> by the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. , 510 U.S. 569

(1994).
> ----------
>

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...977063&exact=1
>
> In all the Usenet stuff there is no commercial interest and largely no

case.
>
> > Pictures Corp/ Specifically, they ruled that when a movie company used
> > a photo of a naked pregnant woman and superimposed the head of actor
> > Leslie Nielsen on it, the photo was a parody using similar lighting
> > and body positioning of a famous photograph taken by Annie Leibovitz
> > of the actress Demi Moore for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.

>
> Public figures, yes. Plus they had permission for each individual photo.
>
> Liebowitz was sueing because of (intended simiarity) with her (famous)
> photo.
>
> Paramount didn't rip-off the Liebowitz image. Only mimiced it using
> legal photographs. That is what the case was about.


Exactly. Michael cook didn't create a bit of his "parody" of Chuck and
Bishop... he used photographs of their faces pasted onto images /stolen/
from a porn website.

> Didn't actually read it, dear?


She admitted to being /bobble-brained/ this morning...

> > Important factors: The movie company's use was transformative (because
> > it imitated the photographer's style for comic effect or ridicule) and
> > it was obvious the photo was an altered image,not an implied original,

>
> No. There was no photo theft.
> Only imitation.


Where in Cook's case, once again, photos were stolen from /three/ sources:
Bishop, Chuck /and/ the gay porn website... unless Cook claims that /he/ was
the photographer... which in that case /that/ concept of Cook the "swinging
gay photographer" provide ample fodder for /counter parody/... dig that
1970s disco cap in his picture:

<http://www.kookbusters.org/Sprite_32.jpg>

> It's purpose was not defamation of a private citizen using a stolen

photograph.
> Not very similar, really.


A closer similarity would have been pasting Demi Moore's face on, say,
Chuck's body.

> > and thus did not damage Ms. Leibovitz (Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures
> > Corp., 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. N.Y. 199.)

>
> Have anything similar to that on a private citizen, using stolen photos?
> I've heard it is different.
>
> Wonder what Tom Bishop will do? He seems crazy.


"Bug**** crazy!" -Harlan Ellison

> > .. and besides, i didn't even
> >>> /steal/ anything, just posted a link to Joy's own website.

> >
> > You can't be this brain damaged. You KNOW the poem Tom intentionally
> > and gleefully stole and butchered is the copyright theft I refer to.
> > For your sake, I really hope this is a bad snip and Tom got cut off.

>
> Don't look now, but I think someone is parodying your porn/poetry site
> methodically, and posting to Usenet, impersonating you.
>
> Mocking you.
>
> Karma, perhaps?
>
> Joy
> Joy Twitcuntre
> Mirthologies: www.revolvingbeauty.com/mirth
> Porn site: www.revolvingbeauty.com/porn
>
> I am the roil of your rolls,
> Everything else is lipid.
> ~Fat Baby~


The links don't work yet, Joy... looking forward to it, though.

Will there be a /photo gallery/? *grin*

--
The Shadowville/Netherlands project:
http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm

"Mirror Twins":
http://www.lulu.com/items/29000/2908...-_Track__3.mp3


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Usenet photo galleries Will Dockery Digital Photography 12 06-28-2005 08:15 PM
Re: Usenet photo galleries Will Dockery Digital Photography 4 06-27-2005 01:46 AM
Re: Usenet photo galleries Will Dockery Digital Photography 0 06-27-2005 12:51 AM
Re: Usenet photo galleries Will Dockery Digital Photography 2 06-26-2005 08:43 PM
Re: Usenet photo galleries Will Dockery Digital Photography 0 06-26-2005 06:43 PM



Advertisments