Totally Oz Loves Senate Runoffs

[TotallyOz]

CNN just called the race for one Democratic Senate candidate. The other is not yet called. But, this is a fascinating night to watch and the up and down changes have been excruciating to watch.

[RockHardNYC]

It has been the most fascinating political horse race I have ever followed. With very little sleep, I consider myself lucky I have any fingernails left.

I prepared myself for Democrat failure. It's a wacky world, so poles and predictions be damned. Plus, it's Georgia. I never have any faith in the south, especially with voter response to Black politicians.

This past year of politics has been the most depressing. And now we have the sedition caucus. DISGUSTING! Strip them naked. Tar and feather them all. A black stain forever on American democracy.

I know far too many people who are seriously suffering. Most friends in my circle are self-employed. Almost everyone lost their job overnight, thanks to Trump's mishandling of Covid. Every single person I know with a career on Broadway has been out of work for months.

Today there is light. There is hope.

A big FUCK YOU to Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. Stacey Abrams deserves some serious love from the Biden administration. I'm praying Sally Yates becomes Attorney General.

Edited January 6, 2021 by RockHardNYC

[Pete1111]

Yes, watching the returns was nerve wracking!

But worth it.

This means Little Marco, Ted Cruz, Moscow Mitch, and LindseyBell can all sit down.  

The image, from Britannica, may be copywrite material, is used here under Fair Use legal policy.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Pete1111
sp.

[RockHardNYC]

I see Attorney General will be Merrick Garland. That makes sense, too.

2 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

The image, from Britannica, may be copywrite material

The portrait is beautiful. I had not seen it. Not only is it being used here under FAIR USE, all photographs of porn actors and x-rated social media stars fall under the same law and rights of usage in a forum such as this one. Just because Kamala Harris is clothed does not matter in the law.

The only time an image gets dicey, is when the model looks underage. And that's less a copyright issue than it is a child pornography issue.

One can only hope, with a new administration who won't want to waste money on preventing grown adults from enjoying sex, maybe OZ will feel less heat and reconsider his options.

Edited January 6, 2021 by RockHardNYC

[Pete1111]

6 hours ago, RockHardNYC said:

It has been the most fascinating political horse race I have ever followed. With very little sleep, I consider myself lucky I have any fingernails left.

I prepared myself for Democrat failure. It's a wacky world, so poles and predictions be damned. Plus, it's Georgia. I never have any faith in the south, especially with voter response to Black politicians.

This past year of politics has been the most depressing. And now we have the sedition caucus. DISGUSTING! Strip them naked. Tar and feather them all. A black stain forever on American democracy.

I know far too many people who are seriously suffering. Most friends in my circle are self-employed. Almost everyone lost their job overnight, thanks to Trump's mishandling of Covid. Every single person I know with a career on Broadway has been out of work for months.

Today there is light. There is hope.

A big FUCK YOU to Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. Stacey Abrams deserves some serious love from the Biden administration. I'm praying Sally Yates becomes Attorney General.

The Dems must find a way to keep the Stacey Abrams energy alive and definitely show her some love and give her and GA credit for the big save.

 

[RockHardNYC]

15 minutes ago, Pete1111 said:

The Dems must find a way to keep the Stacey Abrams energy alive

That's exactly what my son said. Someone needs to seriously de-brief her, figure out her methods, and begin the big teach. What this woman has accomplished is nothing short of a miracle.

Jon Ossoff is about to win his senate seat with less votes than he secured in November. And that's only because David Perdue failed to bring out the numbers he had in November also. No one could have planned for this or predicted it.

And now the Trump assholes are storming the Capitol. I say, let them all get what they deserve.

[pazubane]

2021 is already off to a great start with +2 Senate seats. I find myself grinning ear to ear since this morning.

Quote

Jon Ossoff is about to win his senate seat with less votes than he secured in November. And that's only because David Perdue failed to bring out the numbers he had in November also. No one could have planned for this or predicted it.

Trump is not on the ticket so the crazies decided to stay home. 

[caeron]

I didn't give to either candidate, I gave to Stacy. I doubted there were many undecided voters and the race would go to the side that got turnout.

The work they did was simply awe inspiring.

 

 

[RockHardNYC]

The Trump assholes won't give a shit. I say let them bury their cultist selves into TOTAL self-destruct mode. If the Republican Party wants to survive, the non-cult members are going to attempt to take control. And with Trump gone, failed, with LOSER status, I suspect the power shift will be swifter than most people think. Too many people are sick and tired of Trump's antics. I could easily see his brand being flushed down the toilet forever.

Jeff Flake: My Fellow Republicans, Trump Is Destroying Us

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SolaceSoul]

On 1/6/2021 at 1:47 PM, RockHardNYC said:

Not only is it being used here under FAIR USE, all photographs of porn actors and x-rated social media stars fall under the same law and rights of usage in a forum such as this one. Just because Kamala Harris is clothed does not matter in the law.

The only time an image gets dicey, is when the model looks underage. And that's less a copyright issue than it is a child pornography issue.

 

What you’re saying here is factually and legally incorrect. This is NOT “fair use” and it is valid U.S. copyright law..

Please stop speaking on and misleading readers about this issue. If you were advising clients with this advice as a licensed attorney, you would most likely face sanctions from the bar. 

Posting any copyrighted image, even if the image was already readily available on a public website or search engine, is not protected under the “fair use” exception of U.S, copyright law. The infringer could wind up with heavy fines or in some cases, jail time. 

[Melvin0210]

On 1/7/2021 at 5:39 AM, RockHardNYC said:

The Trump assholes won't give a shit. I say let them bury their cultist selves into TOTAL self-destruct mode. If the Republican Party wants to survive, the non-cult members are going to attempt to take control. And with Trump gone, failed, with LOSER status, I suspect the power shift will be swifter than most people think. Too many people are sick and tired of Trump's antics. I could easily see his brand being flushed down the toilet forever.

Jeff Flake: My Fellow Republicans, Trump Is Destroying Us

Crazy how divided the US is from the actions of 1 man. Maybe he misses the memo on President of the USA and not President of Republicans who kisses my ass. Terrible. But few more days to normalcy american friends.

[RockHardNYC]

On 1/8/2021 at 7:29 AM, SolaceSoul said:

What you’re saying here is factually and legally incorrect.

Go ahead and prove me wrong.

On 1/8/2021 at 7:29 AM, SolaceSoul said:

Posting any copyrighted image, even if the image was already readily available on a public website or search engine, is not protected under the “fair use” exception of U.S, copyright law.

You clearly haven't read the law, or do not understand the "fair use" provision.

On 1/8/2021 at 7:29 AM, SolaceSoul said:

The infringer could wind up with heavy fines or in some cases, jail time. 

LOL. Please, by all means, show me one social media influencer, one Instagram star in the U.S., who has incurred "heavy fines" or "jail time" simply because they photo-shared online. What a silly crock of baloney. Watch out for those sanctions, dear.

In any case of actual copyright infringement, when someone is selling someone else's work, a cease-and-desist letter comes first. Just because you receive a cease-and-desist letter does not mean a copyright case will hold up in a court of law. As I said earlier, copyright law as it pertains to photo-sharing on the internet, is changing by the day. All I can say is stay tuned.

 

Edited January 11, 2021 by RockHardNYC

[SolaceSoul]

1 hour ago, RockHardNYC said:

Go ahead and prove me wrong.

You clearly haven't read the law, or do not understand the "fair use" provision.

LOL. Please, by all means, show me one social media influencer, one Instagram star in the U.S., who has incurred "heavy fines" or "jail time" simply because they photo-shared online. What a silly crock of baloney. Watch out for those sanctions, dear.

In any case of actual copyright infringement, when someone is selling someone else's work, a cease-and-desist letter comes first. Just because you receive a cease-and-desist letter does not mean a copyright case will hold up in a court of law. As I said earlier, copyright law as it pertains to photo-sharing on the internet, is changing by the day. All I can say is stay tuned.

 

Copyright is the right to copy — or distribute. It’s not just the right to sell or make money from the work.

I’m not going to hijack this thread, but if you’re cursorily even in this field, you’re aware that the overwhelming majority of these copyright infringement claims and cases are settled before they even make it to court. However, you really might want to brush up on the latest cases involving photographic work on social media, particularly Sinclair v. Ziff Davis McGucken v. Newsweek, from just last year.

[RockHardNYC]

1 hour ago, SolaceSoul said:

I’m not going to hijack this thread

I doubt Oz will mind, especially if you're attempting to prove me wrong.

1 hour ago, SolaceSoul said:

Sinclair v. Ziff Davis McGucken v. Newsweek

Are you kidding me? I really don't have time for this silliness. 

For one, Stephanie Sinclair is a professional photographer.

For two, Ziff Davis is a corporate entity that owns online magazine Mashable Inc.

For three, Newsweek is a for-profit, U.S. weekly magazine. 

The cases involve an artist and two corporate, for-profit U.S. publishers. This is not about social media and photo-sharing among online forum users. Comparing these two cases to BoyToy's photo-sharing dilemma is LAUGHABLE. Apples and cocks.

However, the Sinclair-McGucken-Newsweek cases illustrate how fucked up copyright law is right now.

"In mid-April of 2020, the Southern District of New York dismissed the case filed by professional photojournalist Stephanie Sinclair against online magazine Mashable, Inc. and its parent company Ziff Davis, LLC. Sinclair alleged that Mashable and Ziff Davis infringed her copyright by embedding a photograph, previously posted to her public Instagram account, in an article without her consent. The Southern District held that the conduct did not constitute copyright infringement because Sinclair agreed to Instagram’s Terms of Use, which it interpreted to allow Instagram to sublicense public content to third-parties, such as Mashable, for the purposes of embedding.

A few weeks after Sinclair was decided, the Southern District reached an opposite conclusion in a case with a similar fact pattern, McGucken v. Newsweek, LLC. On June 1, 2020, the court found that, while Instagram’s TOU grant Instagram a sub-licensable license to public content, there was no evidence of a sublicense between Newsweek and Instagram.

The Southern District judges presiding over Sinclair and McGucken were inconsistent in their conclusions as to Instagram’s TOU and Instagram’s licensing of public content to third parties. As a result, the Southern District left the public wondering how Instagram users—artists in particular—should reconcile the need to pivot online with the lack of protection afforded to them when posting public content."

IMO, there is legitimate concern over corporate publishers who think they can steal Instagram photos to support their online magazine subscriptions. IMO, for-profit publishers should not be permitted to use anyone's photographs free of charge, no matter the source. They should all be sued for this behavior.

BoyToy forum is not a corporate, for-profit publisher. We are a small internet forum community who shares news and opinions. A very different animal when it comes to Fair Use and copyright law.

[SolaceSoul]

9 hours ago, RockHardNYC said:

For one, Stephanie Sinclair is a professional photographer.

For two, Ziff Davis is a corporate entity that owns online magazine Mashable Inc.

For three, Newsweek is a for-profit, U.S. weekly magazine. 

The cases involve an artist and two corporate, for-profit U.S. publishers. This is not about social media and photo-sharing among online forum users. Comparing these two cases to BoyToy's photo-sharing dilemma is LAUGHABLE. Apples and cocks.

However, the Sinclair-McGucken-Newsweek cases illustrate how fucked up copyright law is right now.

But this is where you fail, and fail miserably, U.S. copyright law does not distinguish between a “professional” copyright owner and an amateur one. Any owner of an original creative work has the right to control the copying and distribution of the work (hence, the term copyright). You seem to be mixing up your intellectual property. Trademark and service mark are based on “use in commerce”. Copyright is not.

A copyright violation is still a copyright violation. Now, if are you arguing that a professional or a corporate violator would most likely face more fines than an amateur, then of course! That’s deep pockets. But the roads are lined with plenty of small-dollar cases of poor amateurs having to settle copyright infringement cases (in photographic images, sound recordings, visual art, speeches), some even losing their shirts over it. 

If you were an IP attorney and you were advising your blogging / forum clients to accept unauthorized copyrighted images on their blogs and websites, simply because they are “small potatoes”, or “not corporate”, and alleging that they could do this free of exposure, then you’d be at minimum sanctioned, and at worst, disbarred.

Now, is copyright law changing, both in the US and worldwide? Yes, but not rapidly enough to keep up with the digital times. That still does not negate the fact that the existing law is the law. And as the law stands, posting a copyrighted image on a blog or a forum on the internet is NOT considered “fair use” and amounts to unauthorized distribution, which can rise to an infringement claim. 

But go off, and keep telling your fans here what they want to hear.

[RockHardNYC]

3 hours ago, SolaceSoul said:

But this is where you fail, and fail miserably

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. You're failing miserably to understand "Fair Use."

3 hours ago, SolaceSoul said:

keep telling your fans

LOL. I wasn't aware I had any.

3 hours ago, SolaceSoul said:

as the law stands, posting a copyrighted image on a blog or a forum on the internet is NOT considered “fair use” and amounts to unauthorized distribution, which can rise to an infringement claim

Again, PROVE IT. Saying it over and over doesn't make it truth. I suggest you stop using Trump tactics and cough up some proof.

[RockHardNYC]

I do agree there is a ton of confusion out there. And the confusion even lands up in the courts among judges. If all created artwork is copyrighted by default, then how is Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and others allowed to legally function? According to SolaceSoul, when Trump, or anybody else re-tweets an image or maybe even another tweet, he's breaking the law.

In NewTumbl's TOS I found this:

"You will not post illicit or private content of another person without their consent.

You will not post copyrighted content without the copyright owner's consent."

Well, that's kind of laughable, since photos and videos are being endlessly shared in millions of Feeds, and I can assure every one of "my fans" that no one has "owner's consent." And now that NewTumbl is selling ad space on its Feed pages, all those shared photos and videos are making money for NewTumbl.

But is any of this sharing business less true for Facebook, Instagram, Yahoo and Twitter? Aren't these players selling ad space in a share environment, too? Making money off of "embed-code" services?

The only law that seems to be black and white at this point: all created artwork is copyrighted. Beyond that, the law is very much like a sexually transmitted disease with no name: non-specific urethritis.

[SolaceSoul]

48 minutes ago, RockHardNYC said:

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. You're failing miserably to understand "Fair Use."

LOL. I wasn't aware I had any.

Again, PROVE IT. Saying it over and over doesn't make it truth. I suggest you stop using Trump tactics and cough up some proof.

Le Sigh.

Any standard book on copyright law will tell you this, as well as any lawyer worth a shit.

But since this is the interwebz, and you clearly can’t concede that you’re wrong (or more bluntly, just not as informed on this topic as you’d like everyone to believe), here’s a few leads for you culled from Google:

“Online photos and graphics are protected by copyright law, just like any other original work. The photographer owns the copyright in the images from the moment she creates them, unless she is working for hire with an agency or other employer. In that case, the agency or employer owns the copyright.

“It’s online, so it’s free, right?”

In a word – NO. Online images are protected by copyright as much as a picture hanging in an art gallery is. Photographers can now use companies like TinEye® and PicScout™to track use of online photos and determine whether someone is using their works without a license.

If you are found to be using an unlicensed image on your website or in print, copyright law allows the owner to sue for monetary damages, possibly including astronomical statutory damages (if the work was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within the appropriate statutory time frame).

http://dunnerlaw.com/using-online-images-without-violating-copyright/

Fair Use Doctrine in Blogging:

https://alj.artrepreneur.com/fair-blogging-bloggers-copyrighted-images/amp/

 

But I’m done with you here. If you want to continue to professionally ill-advise others, it’s your funeral. 

[RockHardNYC]

1 hour ago, SolaceSoul said:

If you are found to be using an unlicensed image on your website or in print, copyright law allows the owner to sue for monetary damages, possibly including astronomical statutory damages (if the work was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within the appropriate statutory time frame).

You are dead wrong. Courts strongly oppose frivolous lawsuits. Which may explain why you haven't presented one copyright case involving a social media influencer or porn-happy sharer like Dudetube's owner.

I have sued several corporations for copyright infringement (and won all of them). I know from experience, these are not easy cases to win, and they are very expensive to fight.

1 hour ago, SolaceSoul said:

But I’m done with you here. If you want to continue to professionally ill-advise others, it’s your funeral. 

Your cocky arrogance is noted, as well as your ignorance. It's a little too early to be announcing my funeral.

[gaothanear]

On 1/6/2021 at 7:14 AM, Pete1111 said:

Yes, watching the returns was nerve wracking!

But worth it.

This means Little Marco, Ted Cruz, Moscow Mitch, and LindseyBell can all sit down.  

The image, from Britannica, may be copywrite material, is used here under Fair Use legal policy.

is she black???....only in America!!!!

[Pete1111]

25 minutes ago, gaothanear said:

is she black???....only in America!!!!

Inquiring minds.

 

[Axiom2020]

20 hours ago, gaothanear said:

is she black???....only in America!!!!

Where have you been?  She's a woman, black and Asian: three in one.  All three components have been written about as well as broadcast!

[RockHardNYC]

20 hours ago, gaothanear said:

is she black?

LOL. Aren't we all descendants of Africa?

HUMANS EVOLVED FROM AFRICA