"In the end, we stand by our initial analysis: almost all of the complaints against Instagram's new terms of service were quite similar to complaints made against other terms of service in the past few years when someone got around to reading the details, which are hard to understand because of the annoying legalese that the lawyers want you to put in. "
That's not entirely true. In this instance, the wording of the TOS (new, mind you, not existing), did give the impression they would sell your photos to advertisers. So the concern was very real. Instagram just farked up their meaning when putting it down in legal mumbo-jumbo.
While your interpretation as what they were trying to do is correct, the complaints over the language was quite valid.
Re-release on Viamo? How about embedding on his site using HTML5? Have other users host the video in their channels? Put it on PirateBay for others to pull down and post to their discretion?
There are many ways to get the video air play. While this is a obvious display of censorship, it's very, very easy to "play around" Finesse's "commercial use" claim. Dan Bull can easily "fight back" without falling under the terms of the counter-notices.
I'm sure this is a response from Disney being ask by a third party if this was authorized or if Disney is connected with the performance (in efforts to get info. about said woman).
I'm a little disappointed. You make it sound like Disney is threatening Kim John Un for the illegal use of Disney characters. Now, if I'm wrong, and this is a real legal threat; then yes, Disney is jumping the "MUCH PROTECT IP" gun before realizing China doesn't care about US IP.
AA, ones in the public eye, are the most technological illiterate folks you'd ever come across.
There is a control aspect of things, too. But it's more AA concerned on perception, than anything else. They concern themselves over every little detail that may "offend" somebody.. It's crazy. AA is a control freak, controlled by "political correctness."
Historically, it was actually to protect the art. Earlier flashes could actually cause physical deterioration of paintings. And, as with all rules (think no electronics on plane take orr of landing), it just remained and updated itself to current technology.
Now, people have skewed the original meaning, and reasoning, into that of "copyright" (all the latest copyright pushes), when in reality the rule originally had nothing to do with copyright. The rule has suck, and being broadened where ever possible.