datagod's Feed

10-18-2021 at 06:44 AM
Rate this Entry

Billy and PacMan

Just posting this here so I can link to it.

This is a photograph of Billy Mitchell and PacMan. Taken in Fairfield Iowa, 2014. This photograph appears all over the internet. Publishers have taken the photo from Billy's twitter feed without giving me any credit at all. This goes against the wikicommons license that the photograph is released under. You must provide credit and the source. "Twitter" is not a source.

ThanksJJT_Defender thanked this post
LikesJJT_Defender, Rev John liked this post
  1. sdwyer138's Avatar

    That's a good picture.


    -TWIN GALAXY members want to know! If i take a photo of my computer screen with your photo displayed and share my photo is that allowed? I'm not directly sharing your photo, it just happens to be in my photo.

  2. datagod's Avatar

    Legally from a copyright point of view, not it is not allowed. That would be "copying and distributing works without prior authorization".

    For you though, I give permission.

    I am just sick and tired of "journalists" snagging photos from twitter and using them on their sites. They almost never give proper credit.

    This particular image is available on the wikimedia project. Anyone is allowed to use it for any reason as long as they:

    - give credit to the author

    - state the source

    UK Sun has failed to do so. Boom Roasted.

    Antstreaming video game service failed to do so. Boom Roasted.

    Playboy magazine failed to do so. Boom roasted.

    Vice magazine failed to do so. Boom roasted.

    I am just getting tired of having to track these down.

    LikesRedDawn, Snowflake liked this post
  3. datagod's Avatar

    Do a reverse image search -- heck, or any Billy Mitchell search -- and you will see plenty examples of violations. I don't even like the photo that much. Too much orange.

  4. sdwyer138's Avatar

    i'm not.. just curious how "my picture with your picture in the background" works out from a legal perspective

    Likesdatagod liked this post
  5. Snowflake's Avatar

    my wife likes that silly cat fish series, they were explianing once why theres always the same photos in every hotel room. for filming, they first take down all background photos and put new ones up. otherwise, they run the risk the artists sue for use of their photo. in movies in public places they'll often blur background photos. artists have sued if in the distance background for just a few seconds their photo is is just barely visible. they tend to lose those cases, but alot of people prefer avoid the headache.

    whats usually key is the semantics of, noone "owns" intellectual property, rather they own the right to sell. Most of the time the distinguishment is pure semantics but it becomes more relevant when looking at spirit of law and seeing if applicable.

  6. datagod's Avatar

    Intellectual property are things created by the human mind, and include:

    - films

    - paintings

    - sketches

    - books, novels, poems, etc.

    - dance routines

    - plays

    - designs

    - inventions

    I am not sure what you are referring to regarding ownership. I certainly own my photographs. I created them. I own them. I can transfer ownwership to somebody else.

  7. datagod's Avatar

    As for taking a photo of a photo, unless you are making a dramatic change and claiming artistic merit, it more than likely can still be found to be a violation of copyright.

    Fair Use is an exception to the law, not a law itself. As an exception, certain thresholds must be met. The law is firmly on the side of the owner but in court you could argue fair use. It is up to the court to determine on a case by case basis.

  8. Snowflake's Avatar

    by "own" since it is an idea and not an object, it doesnt fit typical ownerhship

    i can own a pen and own a paper, they're both mine, yet if i use them to write what someone else wrote i stole their intellectual propery (if i compete with them in sale)

    as you know law his no limit of semantics, and often times people who think they're smarter than they are point you cant truly own an idea -- you can stop someone else from thinking it. What these self declared genuises dont realize, is the law already forsaw that objection and acknowledges it. you dont own the idea, you own the right to sell the idea.

    you "own" the permissions on who gets to use your photos you dont own the photos themselves. we jsut refer to you as owning them cause well do you wanna say "i own selling right" or just say "i own" especially when in every day life the distinguishment doesnt matter

  9. datagod's Avatar

    Ah, you are wrong. The digital image is not an idea. It is a physical creation. When the law was written, the negative was produced using a chemical process.

    Today, the image is first created in buffer memory of the camera (transient) and them copied to the SD card. That is ownership. You can steal the card, copy the file, erase the card and give it back. You will be charged with theft. Not of an idea, but of the original and only copy of the photo.

    The law is not OwnerSellerRight. It is COPYright. You cannot copy the work without permission. It isnt' about selling. It is about copying.

    Humming Happy Birthday is a copyright violation.

  10. Snowflake's Avatar

    but you dont just own the physicial digitial image, if you did i could copy it. its not just that you own the tranistors and electricla charge,s you can stop copies cause you own perimssions on the idea itself being trasfered

  11. Snowflake's Avatar

    oh i should point out of course i realize you cant violate copyright (or the other forms of intellectual property for that matter) just for youself. you're still competing with sales in a sense so you removed the owners right to sell to you. i'm simultaneously explaining complex sematnics, while not using those complex semantics to make it more understandable and perhaps making it worse.

    property laws are meant to protect finite resources. in the case of idea, which can be copied without limit, the idea isnt the finite resource, the customer is. IP is about protecting your potential sales.

    copyright has been used to for privacy, and won in court BUT it led to quite the argument since privacy laws are meant for privacy and IP/copyright laws meant for sales, and if the person is keeping it private their is no lost sale.

  12. Blackflag82's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by datagod

    Humming Happy Birthday is a copyright violation.

    Actually, Happy Birthday is now in the public longer under copyright

    Likesdatagod liked this post
  13. datagod's Avatar

  14. Snowflake's Avatar

    i was trying to find the discussion, this is just the conclusion so this may not be that helpful, but if you can find the debate on the point you'll see what i'm talking about how competing sales becomes a factor. I will say at this point, now the IP is being used for privacy, that even though i stand by the creation of the law andintenton of the law all made it clear it was about protecting the right to make money of the idea as opposed to owning the idea itself, now that copyright can be used for privacy, ok sure, yes, you really do own the idea now. the interpertation that allows it to go to C&Ds does remove that distinguihsment BUT that distinguishemnt is still a major factor (not the only factor, free speech is a big one too) in determining fair use

  15. datagod's Avatar

    A photograph is not simply intellectual property, like an idea though. But regardless, copyright is not purely about sales.

  16. datagod's Avatar

    What it boils down to is this: you dispute something with regards to copyright, trademark, IP, patent, whatever. We either resolve it out of court, or a judge decides. It is not cut and dry. There are exceptions. It is a complex world with many law firms at the ready to hash things out.

    LikesSnowflake liked this post
  17. Snowflake's Avatar

    hold on thats interesting, are you saying photos in particular have other sets of rules to them that other coyprights dont?

  18. Snowflake's Avatar

    thats fair too.
    theres the law
    the intent of the law
    what we think the intent of the law is
    what a judge thinks the intent of the law it
    what a judge's poltiics is
    who paid the judge the most money

    Likesdatagod liked this post
  19. timmell's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by datagod

    UK Sun has failed to do so. Boom Roasted.

    Antstreaming video game service failed to do so. Boom Roasted.

    Playboy magazine failed to do so. Boom roasted.

    Vice magazine failed to do so. Boom roasted.

    I am just getting tired of having to track these down.

    Sue them keep it going so we have more YouTube updates. Sue Mitchell and Pac-man for stress and hardship of the ongoing media coverage.

    LikesSnowflake, datagod liked this post
  20. Intellivision Master's Avatar

    If you look closely at the photograph, it doesn't even look like Pac-Man. I would bet that's a person in a Pac-Man costume. Pac-Man was roughly 15 years old in 1980. That would make him 49 years old in this photograph from 2014; yet he hasn't aged a day ! He sprouted cat-ears but still ... I'm calling BS !!!

    LikesSnowflake, datagod, Rev John liked this post
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Join us