Sorry, unless the ohitograph had bee used by or was taken of one of the candidate PAUS is opposing, I can see no basis for a fair use argument. Use in criticism or comment presumes the work being copied is part if the dialog. In this case, this is a photograph unrelated to the discussion or parties except for the fact that it pictures a loving act which some find offensive on moral grounds. Preventing its use is not censorship, but protecting the photographer's financial interest in and control over the photograph.
Begin with: Although we have freedom of speech, certain types of speech are not protected. For example, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. In this case, the speech is both yelling FIRE and setting FIRE. Free speech does not include purely malicious speech like this.
Except you know the reason Richard the Third ordered "first we kill all the lawyers"? Because in order to assume complete power over the kingdom he had to remove those who would protect the rights of the people.
Just saying.
I agree SXSW was heavy-handed, but there's a terrible fear now of losing one's trademark to third party uses. Unless we guarantee companies that this sort of use won't affect their rights, they have to do this. It's sad, but the alternative is buying tickets to a SXSW in Topeka.
Except, you know the reason Richard the Third advised "First we kill all the lawyers?" So he could take full control without the hindrance of those who would protect the rights of the people.
Leave it to an MPAA member to believe that talking with Law School students about theft, without understanding the basic concepts of the limitations on the copyright monopoly or the correct use of the term "infringement" will help their case in pushing another SOPA/PIPA. I would think that engaging in some real open discussions might be a useful step towards content industry's development of distribution systems which ensure free culture and profit from their creations. However, the tone of the invitation is "Let us come and infect your brains with the notion of theft without infringement, and non-adoptive culture." As though every new work must ignore all that has come before it.
The Atlanta Braves' challenge is a terrific (literally and ironically) example of the problem in utilizing a term with a dictionary meaning as a trademark -- it can lead to an unfair monopolization of the word beyond the goods and services for which limited trademark rights exist. It also demonstrates a terrible lack of perspective by the Braves -- not a brave thing to do.
One of the proudest Father-Son moments I had with my dad was back when he bought me a boy scout bugle so I could play the 6 notes leading up to "Charge" at the home games of the Kansas City Chiefs in their first years in Kansas City. This had to have been 1964-66, and I KNOW I wasn't the first to play it. Maybe the fellow has rights to a particular arrangement -- but it can't be of the notes. Da-da-da-daa-da-daaaaa-CHARGE!
Michael R.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by MGraham.
Moral Rights Claim?
Sorry, unless the ohitograph had bee used by or was taken of one of the candidate PAUS is opposing, I can see no basis for a fair use argument. Use in criticism or comment presumes the work being copied is part if the dialog. In this case, this is a photograph unrelated to the discussion or parties except for the fact that it pictures a loving act which some find offensive on moral grounds. Preventing its use is not censorship, but protecting the photographer's financial interest in and control over the photograph.
Innocence of Muslims video takedown request
Begin with: Although we have freedom of speech, certain types of speech are not protected. For example, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. In this case, the speech is both yelling FIRE and setting FIRE. Free speech does not include purely malicious speech like this.
Richard the Third and Trademarks
Except you know the reason Richard the Third ordered "first we kill all the lawyers"? Because in order to assume complete power over the kingdom he had to remove those who would protect the rights of the people.
Just saying.
I agree SXSW was heavy-handed, but there's a terrible fear now of losing one's trademark to third party uses. Unless we guarantee companies that this sort of use won't affect their rights, they have to do this. It's sad, but the alternative is buying tickets to a SXSW in Topeka.
Re: Re: How it could have been worded...
Except, you know the reason Richard the Third advised "First we kill all the lawyers?" So he could take full control without the hindrance of those who would protect the rights of the people.
Just saying.
Paramount's Discussion Solicitation
Leave it to an MPAA member to believe that talking with Law School students about theft, without understanding the basic concepts of the limitations on the copyright monopoly or the correct use of the term "infringement" will help their case in pushing another SOPA/PIPA. I would think that engaging in some real open discussions might be a useful step towards content industry's development of distribution systems which ensure free culture and profit from their creations. However, the tone of the invitation is "Let us come and infect your brains with the notion of theft without infringement, and non-adoptive culture." As though every new work must ignore all that has come before it.
Home Of the Free?
The Atlanta Braves' challenge is a terrific (literally and ironically) example of the problem in utilizing a term with a dictionary meaning as a trademark -- it can lead to an unfair monopolization of the word beyond the goods and services for which limited trademark rights exist. It also demonstrates a terrible lack of perspective by the Braves -- not a brave thing to do.
"Charge" Music
One of the proudest Father-Son moments I had with my dad was back when he bought me a boy scout bugle so I could play the 6 notes leading up to "Charge" at the home games of the Kansas City Chiefs in their first years in Kansas City. This had to have been 1964-66, and I KNOW I wasn't the first to play it. Maybe the fellow has rights to a particular arrangement -- but it can't be of the notes. Da-da-da-daa-da-daaaaa-CHARGE!
Michael R.