Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The Register)   Saving private copyright, featuring Tom Hanks   ( theregister.co.uk) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

5592 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 13 Jun 2014 at 6:21 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-13 03:27:41 PM  
Translation?
 
2014-06-13 05:28:11 PM  
Otm Shank used this guys picture without attribution and applied his own copyright notice to it.

Just remember, it's only piracy when you do it.  When they do it, it's genius.
 
2014-06-13 06:25:21 PM  

haemaker: Otm Shank used this guys picture without attribution and applied his own copyright notice to it.

Just remember, it's only piracy when you do it.  When they do it, it's genius.


Hey hey.  He's giving this nobody from Cornwall worldwide exposure.  In fact, the nobody should be paying for such promotion!
 
2014-06-13 06:34:11 PM  
I missed the part where Tom Hanks was making an illicit profit from or had anything to do with it or why this guy thinks Hanks would have an opinion about it.
 
2014-06-13 06:37:44 PM  
I have not a clue what this is nor what all the kerfuffle is about.
 
2014-06-13 06:38:21 PM  

Badmoodman: I have not a clue what this is nor what all the kerfuffle is about.


Boffins buggering boffins
 
2014-06-13 06:38:35 PM  
Author of the article needs to go back to the grammar books and look again at the difference between "whoever" and "whomever".
 
2014-06-13 06:48:49 PM  

barc0001: haemaker: Otm Shank used this guys picture without attribution and applied his own copyright notice to it.

Just remember, it's only piracy when you do it.  When they do it, it's genius.

Hey hey.  He's giving this nobody from Cornwall worldwide exposure.  In fact, the nobody should be paying for such promotion!


Exactly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6B6OXnyaRk
 
2014-06-13 07:02:10 PM  

Old Man Winter: I missed the part where Tom Hanks was making an illicit profit from or had anything to do with it or why this guy thinks Hanks would have an opinion about it.


Completely irrelevant.  It's not Hanks' picture, and he should get permission from whomever is.   That's the law, and is as it should be.
 
2014-06-13 07:18:39 PM  
I'm pretty sure Hanks (or his people) posted the pic, and the site slapped a copyright on it automatically.
 
2014-06-13 07:22:44 PM  

Nix Nightbird: I'm pretty sure Hanks (or his people) posted the pic, and the site slapped a copyright on it automatically.


That's what the article suggested as well. Does the site actually do that?
 
2014-06-13 08:33:07 PM  
While the photographer has a valid point, is his main beef is about not making money off the photo, he'd do well to donate any proceeds of such photos to veterans organizations, since they did far more than him...
 
2014-06-13 08:45:26 PM  
"published on "Facebook for the famous" celebrity social network WhoSay"

What's all this then?
 
2014-06-13 08:58:23 PM  

ukexpat: Author of the article needs to go back to the grammar books and look again at the difference between "whoever" and "whomever".


Whatever.
 
2014-06-13 09:06:12 PM  

dionysusaur: ukexpat: Author of the article needs to go back to the grammar books and look again at the difference between "whoever" and "whomever".

Whatever.


You mean "whamever".
 
2014-06-13 09:09:38 PM  

Nix Nightbird: I'm pretty sure Hanks (or his people) posted the pic, and the site slapped a copyright on it automatically.


If you look at Hanks other pics they all have the same copyright, including the cover of a book by an author that is not him, which makes me think it is automatic.  This does not absolve the site.
 
2014-06-13 09:53:09 PM  
In response to a complaint, the corporation that likes to be called "Auntie" explained to a photographer three years ago that, "Twitter is a social network platform which is available to most people who have a computer and therefore any content on it is not subject to the same copyright laws as it is already in the public domain."

img.fark.net
 
2014-06-13 10:07:30 PM  

EngineerAU: In response to a complaint, the corporation that likes to be called "Auntie" explained to a photographer three years ago that, "Twitter is a social network platform which is available to most people who have a computer and therefore any content on it is not subject to the same copyright laws as it is already in the public domain."

[img.fark.net image 320x240]


And the person who said that was slapped down by higher ups at the BBC very quickly. Link
They still claim a Fair Use exemption in extreme cases where they can't get hold of the copyright holder.

But they're no where near as bad as the Daily Mail who have a history of either taking stuff and deliberately changing it slightly to hide the theft or asking and ignoring the response if the owner says no.
 
2014-06-13 10:10:11 PM  
WhoSay?

WhoCares?!
 
2014-06-14 12:53:28 AM  
Snapper?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-06-14 12:54:40 AM  
Snapper?

www.floridamarinetimes.com
 
2014-06-14 04:11:59 AM  

mcmnky: Snapper?

[www.floridamarinetimes.com image 289x350]


I'd snap her
 
2014-06-14 10:03:10 AM  

Summoner101: mcmnky: Snapper?

[www.floridamarinetimes.com image 289x350]

I'd snap her


I'd eat her tuna; if you know what I mean, and I think you do...
 
2014-06-14 10:41:50 AM  

mcmnky: Snapper?

[www.floridamarinetimes.com image 289x350]


very tasty!
 
2014-06-14 02:51:56 PM  

Swampmaster: Summoner101: mcmnky: Snapper?

[www.floridamarinetimes.com image 289x350]

I'd snap her

I'd eat her tuna; if you know what I mean, and I think you do...


Um, it's clearly stated that it's a snapper. Pay attention geez.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report