It doesn't matter how much louder the megaphone makes the offensive acts, you hold the person holding the megaphone responsible for its misuse, not the manufacturer of the device.
Then why do people try to sue gun manufacturers for shootings?
This is important. And the ruling [PDF] rolls back consecutive lower court decisions that said Canadian cops can arrest people if they think some lawlessness might be imminent.
I wonder if this ruling can be used to thwart 'conspiracy' charges. If you're just talking about committing a crime, why would your free speech rights be curtailed if police think lawlessness might be imminent?
You are correct. Someone is making money off the use of the image. It doesn't matter if it is the photographer or someone else. By putting images on Flickr, you are putting them into a commercial domain, even if you don't profit from them.
Remember, it wouldn't be any different from publishing them in a magazine or selling them on the street corner. There isn't a magic amount of money that makes something commercial, just intent.
Commercial use is when you use a photo in an advertisement to sell something. Editorial use is use that is news-related or used to showcase an item, but not directly sell it (like a photo spread in Vogue).
If the photographer posts it online as just an image from, in this case, the Olympics, it's an editorial use. If he had taken one of the photos and turned it into an advertisement for the company making the clothing, it would be a commercial use.
Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves ever since I had an argument with a guy who insisted people walking in public in the background of a video in a training course I had created was commercial use.
The fact that you're too stupid to understand the difference between a website and physical infrastructure does not mean you have a valid point.
In other words, you can't respond to my argument, so you resort to calling me stupid. Such a well thought out response you have there!
Besides, do you think anyone could wrest the users of Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter on the cheap? Do you think any of these three has minimal physical infrastructure?
Why not just do what I was told to do when I complained about censorship on social media: make your own broadband service and you can charge the lowest fees that keep the door open. You have a few extra billion laying around to create your own service, don't you?
And before anyone comes in and says no one told me that (just one of many examples):
Trump himself openly called for China’s interference with the 2020 election on camera for the world to see and hear (I really can’t stress that enough).
Again, investigating crimes is not interference. If Hunter Biden and his father illegally profited from Joe's position as vice president, why would you want to look the other way (other than for purely partisan reasons).
If nothing is shady about it, then Biden should welcome the investigation. Hopefully they will go as deeply into the Bidens' actions as they did with Trump.
Please explain how Biden's son receiving money illegally or Biden having it covered up would make Trump a victim of those crimes? I await your pretzel-logic response.
No need for pretzel logic: There's a reason why court cases initiated by the government are labeled "United States v. __" or "The State of _ v. ___ ." Biden and his son committed a crime against all of us, Trump (and you) included. You might not like that Biden and his son are criminals, but investigating their actions is not beyond the pale.
That's all well and good, but we have a treaty with Ukraine on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. So Trump asking them for assistance in a criminal probe, whether he's running against that person or not, is perfectly legal, especially when you have the person of interest saying on video that they withheld aid until the prosecutor investigating his son was fired.
what, exactly, would releasing that information prove, and how would the information have disqualified him for office
I didn't say it would disqualify him for office. I'm making a parallel between the two actions. When Trump does it, it's because he's hiding something that shows he's guilty, when Obama does it, it's no big deal.
If this CBP officer took a second or two to think about saying this, then decides not to and just waves the person through, you think that's an "abuse of authority"?
You're the one who said, "Holding up someone’s legal travel for even a millisecond because of a personal issue with their job is an abuse of authority." I just want to be sure that you really, truly believe such an absurd statement.
Nobody was detained, denied entry or turned away.
Doesn’t matter. Holding up someone’s legal travel for even a millisecond because of a personal issue with their job is an abuse of authority. It cannot be justified and it should not be excused.
So if this CBP officer took a second or two to think about saying this, then decides not to and just waves the person through, you think that's an "abuse of authority"?
making left-wing sites look bad if they keep repeating the false information.
Really? Because they spent two-plus years trying to tell us Trump and Russia 'stole' the election through Facebook ads. And millions of Democrats believed it. If it made the sites look bad, it didn't show, at all.