If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired UK)   In other news, TechnoViking doesn't get how the internet works   (wired.co.uk) divider line 67
    More: Asinine, Matthias Fritsch, personality rights  
•       •       •

11977 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2013 at 12:59 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-15 11:50:32 AM
The  Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the  of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the.  -Wikipedia
 
2013-10-15 11:56:17 AM
Huh, never saw the video until today.

THANKS, TECHNOVIKING!
 
2013-10-15 11:56:58 AM

the_sidewinder: Streisand effect


Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.
 
2013-10-15 12:07:55 PM

t3knomanser: Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.


True, but one of the courts rulings was that the offending party would have to edit the videos so that the plaintiff's face was not identifiable, and that's where this comes into effect.

The part about the one guy making a fair it of money off the other guy without his consent is something I understand the want or need for legal action, but the part about getting "Technoviking's" likeness off the web isn't going to happen
 
2013-10-15 12:09:17 PM
Again?::checks article::Oh, it's the same article that was published in June.
 
2013-10-15 12:09:51 PM
So really he's Luddite viking?
 
2013-10-15 12:24:36 PM
Oh ye$ he doe$.
 
2013-10-15 12:28:40 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-15 12:45:32 PM
Him and  Streisand can have drinks together
 
2013-10-15 01:07:37 PM

t3knomanser: the_sidewinder: Streisand effect

Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.


So we can finally stop all the "Che" t-shirts?

/aka "hipster pseudo-leftist future Republican voter" identifiers
 
2013-10-15 01:08:58 PM

brimed03: t3knomanser: the_sidewinder: Streisand effect

Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.

So we can finally stop all the "Che" t-shirts?

/aka "hipster pseudo-leftist future Republican voter" identifiers


But they're using in identifying people.
 
2013-10-15 01:10:35 PM

brimed03: t3knomanser: the_sidewinder: Streisand effect

Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.

So we can finally stop all the "Che" t-shirts?

/aka "hipster pseudo-leftist future Republican voter" identifiers


But then what I am suppose to wear while I am telling you how much better I am to you?
 
2013-10-15 01:11:56 PM

PainInTheASP: Huh, never saw the video until today.

THANKS, TECHNOVIKING!


He always seemed like a douche in the video anyways bullying those around him so fark off German douchebag.
 
2013-10-15 01:12:04 PM
The video still makes me laugh after all these years. If he was smart he would start making appearances as Technoviking
 
2013-10-15 01:13:53 PM

steamingpile: PainInTheASP: Huh, never saw the video until today.

THANKS, TECHNOVIKING!

He always seemed like a douche in the video anyways bullying those around him so fark off German douchebag.


You know what other German like bullying people around him?
 
2013-10-15 01:16:27 PM
This is old.. I read the same story last year... Recycled news cycle.
 
2013-10-15 01:16:43 PM

t3knomanser: the_sidewinder: Streisand effect

Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.


recording in public is perfectly allowed. that guy did not exist as technoviking until the film maker's effort made him famous. its not realistic to demand money from everyone who takes a draws or takes or films a picture of public events.

if he wishes to dofus viking should trademark his likeness and seek portion of proceeds on those grounds. before he was trademarked or a celebrity, he had nothing.
 
2013-10-15 01:16:56 PM
Did someone screw with fark or is every person commenting in this thread illiterate?

Missing words, missing letters, terrible composition... seriously guys, it's like trying to read 4th grade homework.  This is above and beyond the typical "I don't care" typing we get here most often, this is an outright assault on grammar.
 
2013-10-15 01:17:13 PM

comhcinc: steamingpile: PainInTheASP: Huh, never saw the video until today.

THANKS, TECHNOVIKING!

He always seemed like a douche in the video anyways bullying those around him so fark off German douchebag.

You know what other German like bullying people around him?


Merkel
 
2013-10-15 01:21:07 PM

comhcinc


You know what other German like bullying people around him?


David Hasselhof


'Cause his name sounds like 'hassle'.
 
2013-10-15 01:21:28 PM

Kahabut: Did someone screw with fark or is every person commenting in this thread illiterate?

Missing words, missing letters, terrible composition... seriously guys, it's like trying to read 4th grade homework.  This is above and beyond the typical "I don't care" typing we get here most often, this is an outright assault on grammar.


Did your Babelfish fall out of your ear maybe?  Or did you forget to install your Dvorak keyboard filter?  Personally, I'm only typing in Esparanto for the rest of the day.
 
2013-10-15 01:23:02 PM
comhcinc:

You know what other German like bullying people around him?

Hitler was an Australian, not a German.
As for Che Guevara, he posed for the photo that's on all the Che shirts in Target. He had a small t.shirt company in Miami back in the 80s and totally sold himself out for a few bucks. All the modern versions are just 'fair use', same as if I put a Ferrari badge on a Neon so as to sell the Neon for $20 more, it's a free planet, laws are just suggestions.
 
2013-10-15 01:23:34 PM

deforge: t3knomanser: the_sidewinder: Streisand effect

Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.

recording in public is perfectly allowed. that guy did not exist as technoviking until the film maker's effort made him famous. its not realistic to demand money from everyone who takes a draws or takes or films a picture of public events.

if he wishes to dofus viking should trademark his likeness and seek portion of proceeds on those grounds. before he was trademarked or a celebrity, he had nothing.


I generally agree. If I'm a photographer and take a picture of someone in public, I should be allowed to sell that picture. Like that famous picture of the Afghan girl in National Geographic. But making additional products on someone's likeness beyond the picture is going too far.
 
2013-10-15 01:24:13 PM

Kahabut: Did someone screw with fark or is every person commenting in this thread illiterate?

Missing words, missing letters, terrible composition... seriously guys, it's like trying to read 4th grade homework.  This is above and beyond the typical "I don't care" typing we get here most often, this is an outright assault on grammar.


Techno Viking has that effect on people.
 
2013-10-15 01:24:32 PM

Kahabut: Did someone screw with fark or is every person commenting in this thread illiterate?

Missing words, missing letters, terrible composition... seriously guys, it's like trying to read 4th grade homework.  This is above and beyond the typical "I don't care" typing we get here most often, this is an outright assault on grammar.


It is not the being of our not grammer speaking or in this case writing of it that is screw.  Its you.
 
2013-10-15 01:29:47 PM

Kahabut: Did someone screw with fark or is every person commenting in this thread illiterate?

Missing words, missing letters, terrible composition... seriously guys, it's like trying to read 4th grade homework.  This is above and beyond the typical "I don't care" typing we get here most often, this is an outright assault on grammar.


You'll over it.
 
2013-10-15 01:30:36 PM

trotsky: The video still makes me laugh after all these years. If he was smart he would start making appearances as Technoviking


It sort of reminds me of the way that the "Numa Numa" guy ran away from that image for years, and when his internet fame was way past its expiration date, he tried to come back and make something out of it. If Technoviking had gotten together with the video owner and made some kind of deal, they'd probably both be cashing checks off of it today. As it stands, the only ones making money are the lawyers.

And I suppose it's possible that Technoviking isn't interested in the money or the fame, but sometimes fame gets you whether you want it or not. The funny thing about that is that there are thousands of people trying really hard to get "internet famous" at this very moment, who will never have a fraction of the fame that Technoviking got without even trying.
 
2013-10-15 02:09:16 PM

YoOjo: comhcinc:
As for Che Guevara, he posed for the photo that's on all the Che shirts in Target. He had a small t.shirt company in Miami back in the 80s and totally sold himself out for a few bucks. All the modern versions are just 'fair use', same as if I put a Ferrari badge on a Neon so as to sell the Neon for $20 more, it's a free planet, laws are just suggestions.


At some point, however, he got tired of the T-shirt business, jumped into his Time Machine and went back to 1967 and was executed by the Bolivian government.
 
2013-10-15 02:10:17 PM

YoOjo: Hitler was an Australian, not a German.


Really mate? I thought he was Austrian.
 
2013-10-15 02:13:32 PM
He won't be able to make the thing go away forever, that's obvious.  But he can sue to stop the guy who filmed it from making money off of it, or at the very least, pay out some royalties.  At the very VERY least, he can stop the revenue stream from YouTube, as the owner of the video has to prove in writing that all of the material is owned by him/her.  The creator of this video obviously cannot do that.  He probably doesn't even own the music rights.

If Technoviking were smart, he would get a friend with a camera and a large crowd, and film a sequel.  Upload THAT to YouTube.  Then he'd have is own revenue stream.

This sort of reminds me of that "Star Wars Kid" from Canada.  He could have made that hit into a HUGE money making enterprise.  Instead he decided to cry like a baby that he was being bullied and made fun of.  What a farking idiot.
 
2013-10-15 02:20:17 PM
I just want to come in say hi.  seems like right thing do.
 
2013-10-15 02:24:32 PM

Squigley: YoOjo: Hitler was an Australian, not a German.

Really mate? I thought he was Austrian.


thatsthejoke.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-15 02:32:35 PM

t3knomanser: the_sidewinder: Streisand effect

Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.


The video was taken during a live event with the guys own phone. Your logic would mean that any celebrity could stop any pictures of them from being published no matter where or how they were taken. The existence of the paparazzi disproves this

That's not how it works. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place
 
2013-10-15 02:33:59 PM

Squigley: YoOjo: Hitler was an Australian, not a German.

Really mate? I thought he was Austrian.


No, dumbass. Austria is the giant continent with kangaroos and koalas.
 
2013-10-15 02:37:51 PM

Morpher59: YoOjo: comhcinc:
As for Che Guevara, he posed for the photo that's on all the Che shirts in Target. He had a small t.shirt company in Miami back in the 80s and totally sold himself out for a few bucks. All the modern versions are just 'fair use', same as if I put a Ferrari badge on a Neon so as to sell the Neon for $20 more, it's a free planet, laws are just suggestions.

At some point, however, he got tired of the T-shirt business, jumped into his Time Machine and went back to 1967 and was executed by the Bolivian government.


Yeah, that's why the kids love him so, he invented Bolivian death squads while he was in Miami Sound Machine.
 
2013-10-15 02:41:21 PM

Warlordtrooper: t3knomanser: the_sidewinder: Streisand effect

Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.

The video was taken during a live event with the guys own phone. Your logic would mean that any celebrity could stop any pictures of them from being published no matter where or how they were taken. The existence of the paparazzi disproves this

That's not how it works. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place


But this isn't about privacy, as such.  This is about the defendant knowingly marketing and making money off of Technoviking.
If his lawyer is smart, he will be able to at least get a cut of the proceeds.
 
2013-10-15 02:43:34 PM

durbnpoisn: Warlordtrooper: t3knomanser: the_sidewinder: Streisand effect

Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.

The video was taken during a live event with the guys own phone. Your logic would mean that any celebrity could stop any pictures of them from being published no matter where or how they were taken. The existence of the paparazzi disproves this

That's not how it works. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place

But this isn't about privacy, as such.  This is about the defendant knowingly marketing and making money off of Technoviking.
If his lawyer is smart, he will be able to at least get a cut of the proceeds.


Based on a video he owns the copyright to
 
2013-10-15 02:49:14 PM
I know something about the legality of all of this stuff.

CSB:  (This is also shameless self promotion, but bare with me.)
About 10 years ago, I made this video:  Episode III Trailer
I did it as a Star Wars fan film, but the actors I used for the characters were all handpuppets inspired by Oobi.  Oobi was a kid's show that was shown on the Noggin Network at the time.  My kids were huge fans, so I was quite familiar with it.

I released it on the interwebs with no intention of making money off it.  2 things happened immediately after.
#1:  I got an email from the creator of Oobi telling me how much he liked it!  He burned it to a CD and showed it to the cast and crew.  I still chuckle about that one.
#2:  I got a call from the Noggin Network.  If it were up to their lawyers, I would have gotten a cease and desist order right away.  But the way the network saw it, it was good publicity, and they didn't want it taken down.  The only restriction was "You cannot make any money off of it, or enter it in any competitions."

To this day, I can't even put ads on the YouTube version I linked there because I cannot prove 100% ownership.  I did the whole thing.  I even built the damn props myself.  But I don't own the intellectual property of any of the characters.  Game over.
 
2013-10-15 02:50:28 PM

Warlordtrooper: durbnpoisn: Warlordtrooper: t3knomanser: the_sidewinder: Streisand effect

Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.

The video was taken during a live event with the guys own phone. Your logic would mean that any celebrity could stop any pictures of them from being published no matter where or how they were taken. The existence of the paparazzi disproves this

That's not how it works. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place

But this isn't about privacy, as such.  This is about the defendant knowingly marketing and making money off of Technoviking.
If his lawyer is smart, he will be able to at least get a cut of the proceeds.

Based on a video he owns the copyright to


But that's exactly it.  He cannot CLAIM the complete copyright legally without everyone in the thing (certainly the protagonist) signing off on it.
 
2013-10-15 02:55:50 PM
Oh look socialists trying to crush free speech.

How 1940's germany
... or 2000's USA.
 
2013-10-15 02:57:54 PM
i141.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-15 03:06:19 PM
durbnpoisn:
I know something about the legality of all of this stuff.

CSB:  (This is also shameless self promotion, but bare with me.)
About 10 years ago, I made this video:  Episode III Trailer
I did it as a Star Wars fan film, but the actors I used for the characters were all handpuppets inspired by Oobi.  Oobi was a kid's show that was shown on the Noggin Network at the time.  My kids were huge fans, so I was quite familiar with it.

I released it on the interwebs with no intention of making money off it.  2 things happened immediately after.
#1:  I got an email from the creator of Oobi telling me how much he liked it!  He burned it to a CD and showed it to the cast and crew.  I still chuckle about that one.
#2:  I got a call from the Noggin Network.  If it were up to their lawyers, I would have gotten a cease and desist order right away.  But the way the network saw it, it was good publicity, and they didn't want it taken down.  The only restriction was "You cannot make any money off of it, or enter it in any competitions."

To this day, I can't even put ads on the YouTube version I linked there because I cannot prove 100% ownership.  I did the whole thing.  I even built the damn props myself.  But I don't own the intellectual property of any of the characters.  Game over.


Wow, an internet IP dispute where one of the parties didn't instantly go full retard.  But you're lucky the creator saw and liked it before the legal dep't sent out their kill bots.
 
2013-10-15 03:11:54 PM

durbnpoisn: Warlordtrooper: t3knomanser: the_sidewinder: Streisand effect

Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.

The video was taken during a live event with the guys own phone. Your logic would mean that any celebrity could stop any pictures of them from being published no matter where or how they were taken. The existence of the paparazzi disproves this

That's not how it works. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place

But this isn't about privacy, as such.  This is about the defendant knowingly marketing and making money off of Technoviking.
If his lawyer is smart, he will be able to at least get a cut of the proceeds.


The guy said he offered Technoviking just that, but he didn't bite:  Fritsch says that he offered to talk directly to the 'viking to find out how they could collaborate in a mutually beneficial way. "I offered to share any of the money that was produced and to think of ways to market [the meme] if he was interested. But I didn't get any answers."
 
2013-10-15 03:14:06 PM

No Such Agency: durbnpoisn:
I know something about the legality of all of this stuff.

CSB:  (This is also shameless self promotion, but bare with me.)
About 10 years ago, I made this video:  Episode III Trailer
I did it as a Star Wars fan film, but the actors I used for the characters were all handpuppets inspired by Oobi.  Oobi was a kid's show that was shown on the Noggin Network at the time.  My kids were huge fans, so I was quite familiar with it.

I released it on the interwebs with no intention of making money off it.  2 things happened immediately after.
#1:  I got an email from the creator of Oobi telling me how much he liked it!  He burned it to a CD and showed it to the cast and crew.  I still chuckle about that one.
#2:  I got a call from the Noggin Network.  If it were up to their lawyers, I would have gotten a cease and desist order right away.  But the way the network saw it, it was good publicity, and they didn't want it taken down.  The only restriction was "You cannot make any money off of it, or enter it in any competitions."

To this day, I can't even put ads on the YouTube version I linked there because I cannot prove 100% ownership.  I did the whole thing.  I even built the damn props myself.  But I don't own the intellectual property of any of the characters.  Game over.

Wow, an internet IP dispute where one of the parties didn't instantly go full retard.  But you're lucky the creator saw and liked it before the legal dep't sent out their kill bots.


Seriously...  The were all very cool about it.  In fact, the dude who called me said, "hell, if it were up to me, I'd have you do a Lord of the Rings one next!"
The way they saw it was that, since there was nothing offensive (or adult in nature) about it, it was actually good publicity for the show.
 
2013-10-15 03:16:26 PM

Lachwen: durbnpoisn: Warlordtrooper: t3knomanser: the_sidewinder: Streisand effect

Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.

The video was taken during a live event with the guys own phone. Your logic would mean that any celebrity could stop any pictures of them from being published no matter where or how they were taken. The existence of the paparazzi disproves this

That's not how it works. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place

But this isn't about privacy, as such.  This is about the defendant knowingly marketing and making money off of Technoviking.
If his lawyer is smart, he will be able to at least get a cut of the proceeds.

The guy said he offered Technoviking just that, but he didn't bite:  Fritsch says that he offered to talk directly to the 'viking to find out how they could collaborate in a mutually beneficial way. "I offered to share any of the money that was produced and to think of ways to market [the meme] if he was interested. But I didn't get any answers."


I must not have read that far into the article.  I was under the impression that, even though he tried to find Technoviking at one point, he had no interaction until the lawsuit came about.
 
2013-10-15 03:17:28 PM

The_Fuzz: Kahabut: Did someone screw with fark or is every person commenting in this thread illiterate?

Missing words, missing letters, terrible composition... seriously guys, it's like trying to read 4th grade homework.  This is above and beyond the typical "I don't care" typing we get here most often, this is an outright assault on grammar.

You'll over it.


I already accidently, the whole thing.
 
2013-10-15 03:42:35 PM

DoomPaul: I generally agree. If I'm a photographer and take a picture of someone in public, I should be allowed to sell that picture. Like that famous picture of the Afghan girl in National Geographic. But making additional products on someone's likeness beyond the picture is going too far.


I generally try not to offer legal advice over the internet, but this is just plain wrong in some areas of the world. "Right of publicity" is the usual term in parts of the USA where it's put into law; it goes by other names in other countries. Basically, those laws say that "Even if you are in public with no expectation of privacy, your image can not be used commercially without a license." in some variation.

So the film guy claims he might not have even made the video that he posted to his website, doesn't matter. That would be copyright infringement. And if he had even a little bit of that blog or site directing commercial traffic to him, or any ads, it would violate the "right of publicity" laws of most places.

Now, if the film guy was smart, he'd offer to pull the video from everyplace he actually put it up, and then offer to give Mr. Viking the copyright. Let Mr. Viking send out the DMCA notices and see how warped the internet is. But doing so would have gotten him out of most of the trouble he was in. And if he didn't film the original video, then just admit to copyright infringement and offer to pay a reasonable fine to the original videographer if they will step forward. Chances are, they wouldn't.
 
2013-10-15 03:46:10 PM

ykarie: DoomPaul: I generally agree. If I'm a photographer and take a picture of someone in public, I should be allowed to sell that picture. Like that famous picture of the Afghan girl in National Geographic. But making additional products on someone's likeness beyond the picture is going too far.

I generally try not to offer legal advice over the internet, but this is just plain wrong in some areas of the world. "Right of publicity" is the usual term in parts of the USA where it's put into law; it goes by other names in other countries. Basically, those laws say that "Even if you are in public with no expectation of privacy, your image can not be used commercially without a license." in some variation.

So the film guy claims he might not have even made the video that he posted to his website, doesn't matter. That would be copyright infringement. And if he had even a little bit of that blog or site directing commercial traffic to him, or any ads, it would violate the "right of publicity" laws of most places.

Now, if the film guy was smart, he'd offer to pull the video from everyplace he actually put it up, and then offer to give Mr. Viking the copyright. Let Mr. Viking send out the DMCA notices and see how warped the internet is. But doing so would have gotten him out of most of the trouble he was in. And if he didn't film the original video, then just admit to copyright infringement and offer to pay a reasonable fine to the original videographer if they will step forward. Chances are, they wouldn't.


This still does not explain how paparazzi and tabloids exist.  They take pictures of famous people, and sell them to seedy magazines, who pack them into bad articles, dispersed with advertising, and then sell the whole thing for a profit while luring customers in with promises of the pictures taken by the paparazzi...
 
2013-10-15 03:46:56 PM

YoOjo: comhcinc:

You know what other German like bullying people around him?

Hitler was an Australian, not a German.
As for Che Guevara, he posed for the photo that's on all the Che shirts in Target. He had a small t.shirt company in Miami back in the 80s and totally sold himself out for a few bucks. All the modern versions are just 'fair use', same as if I put a Ferrari badge on a Neon so as to sell the Neon for $20 more, it's a free planet, laws are just suggestions.


"Did you mean, Austrian, as Australia is an entirely separate country, not even connected to europe?"
 
2013-10-15 03:48:53 PM

Squigley: YoOjo: Hitler was an Australian, not a German.

Really mate? I thought he was Austrian.


I remember when the Australians bombed Pearl Harbor.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report