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.

(WTSP)   Just when you thought George Zimmerman couldn't get any weirder. Behold, 'Angie'   (wtsp.com) divider line 111
    More: Florida, George Zimmerman, Angela Corey, special prosecutor  
•       •       •

15423 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2014 at 4:58 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-24 08:11:25 AM

omeganuepsilon: jso2897: If there is a copyright, it belongs to the photographer or his agency - not the prosecutor, who is a public figure, and does not own her image.

Yes, but ownership of that image may be worthless, was my point.  A jury/judge may find something like that(news/press conference photo) more in the spirit of public domain.

lawboy87: Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes."

Just taking an existing photograph, copying it and coloring it in almost certainly doesn't meet the criteria to allow for Zimmerman to claim his work is "original" and "different" enough from the photograph that it comes close to meeting the standard.

And that's where you fail, you are making an active judgement of the "work".  What you "feel"(bolded) matters fark all, it's all up to the court itself.

We all got the gist of the law before you vomited on your keyboard.  What people can sue for, and what the court will do are often very different things.

If you want to pretend to be Nostradamus and predict the future, fine.  Be prepared to be laughed at though, that's the cost of voicing such prophecy in our society.


Well, people can guess whatever they want - there's no harm in it. But it's kind of s Schrodinger's Cat - until or unless somebody who has standing decides to sue, and it goes to preliminary, we can't know.
 
2014-01-24 08:31:17 AM

omeganuepsilon: Anyone has the right to sue for anything. Winning however is a different story, and far from a sure thing.

It may be that because she's a public figure and that was taken from a public spectacle that the copyright wouldn't hold much water. May not be any "damages" at all.


Your legal analysis is almost, but not quite, entirely wrong.
 
2014-01-24 08:41:46 AM

Baz744: omeganuepsilon: Anyone has the right to sue for anything. Winning however is a different story, and far from a sure thing.

It may be that because she's a public figure and that was taken from a public spectacle that the copyright wouldn't hold much water. May not be any "damages" at all.

Your legal analysis is almost, but not quite, entirely wrong.


Well, of course it is. this is Fark.com - where EVERYBODY'S legal analysis is almost, but not quite entirely, wrong.

I sure as f**k don't know whether there's a successful lawsuit here - and unless somebody actually sues him, I'll never know.
I can't say I'm not curious, but my curiosity may go unassuaged.
Nobody seems to be suing him so far, and unless they do............
 
2014-01-24 09:23:40 AM
True to life art right there.  The police refused to charge George because they KNEW he did nothing wrong.  Cue the racists to march and cry and scream and yell.  Then more racists decide to bring in some other racists to dump trumped up charges on Zimmerman to satisfy the racists.
 
2014-01-24 11:19:13 AM
"I have this much respect for the American judicial system."

Did she say that? I don't know. But I do know this is from the fellow who tried to hide his assets for the purpose of reducing his bail.  So there's that bit of hypocrisy from him. That much I do know.
 
2014-01-24 11:52:01 AM

omeganuepsilon: jso2897: If there is a copyright, it belongs to the photographer or his agency - not the prosecutor, who is a public figure, and does not own her image.

Yes, but ownership of that image may be worthless, was my point.  A jury/judge may find something like that(news/press conference photo) more in the spirit of public domain.

lawboy87: Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes."

Just taking an existing photograph, copying it and coloring it in almost certainly doesn't meet the criteria to allow for Zimmerman to claim his work is "original" and "different" enough from the photograph that it comes close to meeting the standard.

And that's where you fail, you are making an active judgement of the "work".  What you "feel"(bolded) matters fark all, it's all up to the court itself.

We all got the gist of the law before you vomited on your keyboard.  What people can sue for, and what the court will do are often very different things.

If you want to pretend to be Nostradamus and predict the future, fine.  Be prepared to be laughed at though, that's the cost of voicing such prophecy in our society.


Omeganuepsilon  --   How long have you been practicing law?   How many cases have you ever litigated, or settled based on Copyright Infringement?

I've been doing this for a living for over 25 yrs now (specifically Copyright and Trademark as my sole practice.)  I've actually not only read case law, but I've helped make it.  Believe it or not, there's actually some fairly objective criteria as to what constitutes a derivative work for purposes of infringement established through case law.  Actual guidelines, one skilled in the law can use to make a fairly decent informed decision.  I'm hardly going out on a limb here saying that the work in question is almost certainly a derivative work and in violation of the original author's rights.
 
2014-01-24 04:06:49 PM
http://bit.ly/1jKMF7E

AP says knock it off, zimmo.  That's our pic
 
2014-01-24 04:59:07 PM

jso2897: Baz744: omeganuepsilon: Anyone has the right to sue for anything. Winning however is a different story, and far from a sure thing.

It may be that because she's a public figure and that was taken from a public spectacle that the copyright wouldn't hold much water. May not be any "damages" at all.

Your legal analysis is almost, but not quite, entirely wrong.

Well, of course it is. this is Fark.com - where EVERYBODY'S legal analysis is almost, but not quite entirely, wrong.

I sure as f**k don't know whether there's a successful lawsuit here - and unless somebody actually sues him, I'll never know.
I can't say I'm not curious, but my curiosity may go unassuaged.
Nobody seems to be suing him so far, and unless they do............


i would guess it hasn't come up likely because thanks to the wonderful world of the internet, you can easily find pages of GIS results for people, and if it's something like a press conference or a red carpet event, there are multiple sources for the exact same picture.  and i'm guessing an AP photographer probably isn't going to give a crap about one photo.  it's not exactly something like this (not that it's infringement, just that it's unique source material that's being repurposed):
cdn.crushable.com
 
2014-01-24 05:22:12 PM

lawboy87: Believe it or not, there's actually some fairly objective criteria as to what constitutes a derivative work for purposes of infringement established through case law.


True, but ultimately it is the court that decides, not random jerkwads on the internet.  If you were actually a lawyer you'd know that.

As such, some courts find people "not guilty".

From the criteria you posted, if I were on the jury, I'd say he's not breaking any sort of copyright.  Any given court could likewise find "fair use".  It is fairly different(it is obviously not a copy, but a painted interpretation) and meaning is added, both by what he added and because of his experience at the end of that woman's broomstick.

jso2897: Well, people can guess whatever they want - there's no harm in it. But it's kind of s Schrodinger's Cat - until or unless somebody who has standing decides to sue, and it goes to preliminary, we can't know.


And that was my point.  We can make guesses as to how a court would decide, or list our opinion, but that's what it is, an individual's opinion.  What lawboy is doing is expressing his opinion as if it is objective fact.  You'd think a lawyer wouldn't make that mistake.

Not much different than the lynch mob before he was found "not guilty" last time.  Court decided otherwise, much to many prejudicial people's dismay.
 
2014-01-24 08:49:27 PM
Again,

Are you a lawyer?  What degrees do you hold in the field of law?

How many years have you practiced in the field of Copyright law?

How many cases involving copyright have you ever taken to trial?      How many have you ever negotiated a settlement.

Sorry, with 25 yrs experience in the field doing all of the above and holding both a JD and an LLM in the field, between gauging the veracity of a copyright claim in this situation, - you are the "random jerkwad" on the internet and if you had half a clue, you would know that the creator of the Obama "hope and change" poster was forced into a settlement, where he had to give up most or all of his profits based on his infringement of the photographer who took the original photograph on which it was based.

Lastly, I'm not saying that anything is 100% certainty, but I can assure you that my experience in the trade leads me to a well formed conclusion that this almost certainly would found to be an infringement, because the work itself is not transformative and there is a complete and utter copying of the original work.

Hell, in one of the leading cases in this area;  Mannion v Coors Brewing, Co. A second photographer who copied a previous photograph, but used his own model and altered the setting slightly was found to be infringing on the original work.  This case is far more clear-cut than that, in this case the "art" work has its very foundation, a "verbatim" copy of the photograph.  That in no way is "original" and almost certainly doesn't work to deprive the original author of his/her  EXCLUSIVE right to make derivative works and deprive others of that same right.
 
2014-01-24 09:24:37 PM

lawboy87: because the work itself is not transformative and there is a complete and utter copying of the original work.


Again, your opinion, but stated as an absolute fact.

lawboy87: Are you a lawyer?  What degrees do you hold in the field of law?

How many years have you practiced in the field of Copyright law?

How many cases involving copyright have you ever taken to trial?      How many have you ever negotiated a settlement.


Wow, overcompensate much?  Someone's sensitive about having their career challenged.... on the internet.   Bonjour...

Besides:
Logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority.

Credentials don't matter to a discussion/debate so much as actual facts and information at hand.

What we have is a possible theoretical case, which could go either way.  Nothing you regurgitate on fark will change that(barring weird coincidence of possible judge/jury reading this thread.)

Have a shiatty life!
 
Displayed 11 of 111 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report