The fact that it's posted even when the article has nothing to do with copyright is part of the gag. Title of the article: Miami Heat Owner Hit With $155,000 In Legal Fees After Losing His Bogus Copyright Infringement Lawsuit You were saying?
Giving accurate credit to the source is showing respect. That's all that ought to be needed or expected. Once somebody posts something publicly, its... public. Yeah? You gonna be saying that after somebody posts one of your ebooks or artworks online for people to download without payment, making sure to credit you as the original creator? (-_Q)
Copyright as censorship . Only this time, someone's actually out a fair bit of cash for abusing the system. That, in and of itself, is an anomaly. Hopefully, this anomaly will become like those in which non-infringing works are taken down via automated processes. ;)
@Bradley_Hampton Great photo. May we use your photos with credit for our news coverage? Please reply. TX — MailOnline Pictures (@MailOnline_Pics) September 8, 2015 The above paper has a history of not bothering with permission for what they use. I guess the Daily Fail's bad rep finally caught up to them.
Investigating a privacy breach by breaching the privacy of the reporter who exposed it is... perhaps not the proper response. Oh, it's absolutely the proper response if you're trying to scare people out of whistleblowing and reporting on the issues thus uncovered. Whether or not it's the moral response, Vodafone clearly just doesn't care. :(
Craigslist was under attack, and caved this week by shutting down its Adult Services section (and replacing it with a black bar that read "censored"). Some people, at least, were beginning to stand up and point out that forcing Craigslist to do this actually helps the criminals it's supposed to stop [...] Indeed. I remember seeing a TV programme about a guy who was known as the Craigslist Killer and how he was caught because he used Craigslist to attract his victims. Can you imagine how long it would have taken to catch him if he had had to use the darknet?
Trunk is claiming that 2600 has infringed the copyright of an image that they represent. If they only represent the work, then they have no more right to sue over it than I do. They have no idea about Loadus. Well, the person who made the photograph with the ink splatters certainly has an idea of the work they borrowed from, if not its creator.
I beg to differ. Trunk Archive appears to be arguing that 2600 Magazine has copied a part of the image on their website (which they do hold copyright in), when the fact is that both parties used a part of the same freely licensed work. Do try to keep up.