Donald Trump
Comments
-
I can't see that on the images on the BBC and I can't open the Independent article.kingstongraham said:
There's one where you can still see part of the shutterstock logo on it.First.Aspect said:Okay so I've got a bit of a clue. Copyright could protect something like the DC Superman artwork, or a still of John Wayne from a movie, in which case splashing the face of a censored onto it could infringe copyright. But those are entirely new artworks, it looks like. Copyright is fairly narrow, and new images created in the same style are unlikely to infringe anything.
Where's the trade mark? T for censored is probably owned by the Trump corporation already.
Pity, the Netflix dramatisation of an IP infringement case would have been a winner.
Looking at the Mail's version, they are clearly new images, possibly strongly inspired by clothing catalogue images.
I can't see anything online about the "Shutterstock" being still visible. If someone gormless has just airbrushed an existing image without paying the nominal copyright fee from such a website, it is easily fixed by paying that fee now, pretty much.
Turning back to the Mail article, the backgrounds are all different. The foreground isn't identical, nor are the poses. So the test (here at least) is whether a "substantial part" has been copied. The other thing to consider is that "copyright" includes a clue in the title, and infringement requires actual copying, not just visual similarity. In principle, one can independently create an identical artwork and not infringe the copyright in the earlier version. Many of the images I can see are very generic and this has the practical effect of making the copyright in some other very generic image narrower.
You see this in various music copyright cases, where the inevitable overlap of a series of notes with some earlier song that Ed Sheeran didn't actually perform forms the basis of a hopeless copyright case that profits only the lawyers.
0 -
^^^^ The golf one is the most obvious one ^^^^
Depends on if the photographer or the agency wish to pursue it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The golf one is more like Vanilla Ice using a sample, rather than taking inspiration.First.Aspect said:
I can't see that on the images on the BBC and I can't open the Independent article.kingstongraham said:
There's one where you can still see part of the shutterstock logo on it.First.Aspect said:Okay so I've got a bit of a clue. Copyright could protect something like the DC Superman artwork, or a still of John Wayne from a movie, in which case splashing the face of a censored onto it could infringe copyright. But those are entirely new artworks, it looks like. Copyright is fairly narrow, and new images created in the same style are unlikely to infringe anything.
Where's the trade mark? T for censored is probably owned by the Trump corporation already.
Pity, the Netflix dramatisation of an IP infringement case would have been a winner.
Looking at the Mail's version, they are clearly new images, possibly strongly inspired by clothing catalogue images.
I can't see anything online about the "Shutterstock" being still visible. If someone gormless has just airbrushed an existing image without paying the nominal copyright fee from such a website, it is easily fixed by paying that fee now, pretty much.
Turning back to the Mail article, the backgrounds are all different. The foreground isn't identical, nor are the poses. So the test (here at least) is whether a "substantial part" has been copied. The other thing to consider is that "copyright" includes a clue in the title, and infringement requires actual copying, not just visual similarity. In principle, one can independently create an identical artwork and not infringe the copyright in the earlier version. Many of the images I can see are very generic and this has the practical effect of making the copyright in some other very generic image narrower.
You see this in various music copyright cases, where the inevitable overlap of a series of notes with some earlier song that Ed Sheeran didn't actually perform forms the basis of a hopeless copyright case that profits only the lawyers.0 -
Not seen the golf one.0
-
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
i'd pay good money to watch Vanilla Ice bitchrap the lizard that is Sheeran into tears.kingstongraham said:
The golf one is more like Vanilla Ice using a sample, rather than taking inspiration.First.Aspect said:
I can't see that on the images on the BBC and I can't open the Independent article.kingstongraham said:
There's one where you can still see part of the shutterstock logo on it.First.Aspect said:Okay so I've got a bit of a clue. Copyright could protect something like the DC Superman artwork, or a still of John Wayne from a movie, in which case splashing the face of a censored onto it could infringe copyright. But those are entirely new artworks, it looks like. Copyright is fairly narrow, and new images created in the same style are unlikely to infringe anything.
Where's the trade mark? T for censored is probably owned by the Trump corporation already.
Pity, the Netflix dramatisation of an IP infringement case would have been a winner.
Looking at the Mail's version, they are clearly new images, possibly strongly inspired by clothing catalogue images.
I can't see anything online about the "Shutterstock" being still visible. If someone gormless has just airbrushed an existing image without paying the nominal copyright fee from such a website, it is easily fixed by paying that fee now, pretty much.
Turning back to the Mail article, the backgrounds are all different. The foreground isn't identical, nor are the poses. So the test (here at least) is whether a "substantial part" has been copied. The other thing to consider is that "copyright" includes a clue in the title, and infringement requires actual copying, not just visual similarity. In principle, one can independently create an identical artwork and not infringe the copyright in the earlier version. Many of the images I can see are very generic and this has the practical effect of making the copyright in some other very generic image narrower.
You see this in various music copyright cases, where the inevitable overlap of a series of notes with some earlier song that Ed Sheeran didn't actually perform forms the basis of a hopeless copyright case that profits only the lawyers..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Shutterstock logo (only a tiny bit of it) is on this oneFirst.Aspect said:
I can't see that on the images on the BBC and I can't open the Independent article.kingstongraham said:
There's one where you can still see part of the shutterstock logo on it.First.Aspect said:Okay so I've got a bit of a clue. Copyright could protect something like the DC Superman artwork, or a still of John Wayne from a movie, in which case splashing the face of a censored onto it could infringe copyright. But those are entirely new artworks, it looks like. Copyright is fairly narrow, and new images created in the same style are unlikely to infringe anything.
Where's the trade mark? T for censored is probably owned by the Trump corporation already.
Pity, the Netflix dramatisation of an IP infringement case would have been a winner.
Looking at the Mail's version, they are clearly new images, possibly strongly inspired by clothing catalogue images.
I can't see anything online about the "Shutterstock" being still visible. If someone gormless has just airbrushed an existing image without paying the nominal copyright fee from such a website, it is easily fixed by paying that fee now, pretty much.
Turning back to the Mail article, the backgrounds are all different. The foreground isn't identical, nor are the poses. So the test (here at least) is whether a "substantial part" has been copied. The other thing to consider is that "copyright" includes a clue in the title, and infringement requires actual copying, not just visual similarity. In principle, one can independently create an identical artwork and not infringe the copyright in the earlier version. Many of the images I can see are very generic and this has the practical effect of making the copyright in some other very generic image narrower.
You see this in various music copyright cases, where the inevitable overlap of a series of notes with some earlier song that Ed Sheeran didn't actually perform forms the basis of a hopeless copyright case that profits only the lawyers.
https://opensea.io/assets/matic/0x24a11e702cd90f034ea44faf1e180c0c654ac5d9/12420- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
And Adobe here:
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
It's not looking good.0
-
Unlike Trump who is looking fantasticFirst.Aspect said:It's not looking good.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
bet you a fiver nothing happens to him..
The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
It'll get sorted out in the background for les than you think but more than it would have cost to do it right in the first place.MattFalle said:bet you a fiver nothing happens to him.
0 -
..
The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
.
The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
I'll see that bet and lower you to the price of a Trump NFT in 12 months time- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I think the point earlier about money laundering is the only explanation for NFTs that has ever made any sense to me.
Not Trumps specifically, just any NFT.0 -
Americans eh? Just stupid or so stupid they’ve been captured by Russians?0 -
Ark at Benny trying to be all Hill.0
-
Is it a common theme of people with the initials BJ that they have to acts like dicks?rick_chasey said:...
Americans eh? Just stupid or so stupid they’ve been captured by Russians?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I assume Benny Johnson is just another grifter.
The Tucker Carlson segment he links to is painful to watch though.0 -
I do not think that many Americans realise they share a maritime border with Russia. They just think Russia is 26000 miles from the US.0
-
Can't be far off being able to dog sled across at this time of year.First.Aspect said:I do not think that many Americans realise they share a maritime border with Russia. They just think Russia is 26000 miles from the US.
It's been done before.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
bet you a fiver nothing will happen to him
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/23/the-17-findings-in-the-january-6-committees-final-report.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
MattFalle said:
bet you a fiver nothing will happen to him
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/23/the-17-findings-in-the-january-6-committees-final-reportMattFalle said:bet you a fiver nothing will happen to him
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/23/the-17-findings-in-the-january-6-committees-final-report
A lot depends on what Jack Smith gets up to as Special Prosecutor. He looks like one mean dude, and the speed with which he's been working gives me a little hope.
0 -
nah, fam, ain't nothing taking down Trump and he knows it, especially when the Reps take over in Jan.briantrumpet said:MattFalle said:bet you a fiver nothing will happen to him
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/23/the-17-findings-in-the-january-6-committees-final-reportMattFalle said:bet you a fiver nothing will happen to him
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/23/the-17-findings-in-the-january-6-committees-final-report
A lot depends on what Jack Smith gets up to as Special Prosecutor. He looks like one mean dude, and the speed with which he's been working gives me a little hope..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
alwayspangolin said:
Rich people win?ddraver said:Concur
To quote the dude in making a murderer - “Poor people lose. Poor people lose all the time”
The opposite is also true
do anyone of you even think that any of us would still be walking around free if we had done a 100th of what Dotard had done?.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
uk is even worse, look at the uk postmasters who were ruined by the post office and fujitsu's deliberate cover up of the issues in the accounting softwareMattFalle said:
even though they've 'won', they are still being ripped off
their (often grossly inadequate) compensation being swallowed up in legal fees (why are the victims paying rather than the guilty?) and the official receiver taking even more to settle bankruptcy debts that were caused by the post office/fujitsu in the first place
no sign of the guilty paying the price for their actions
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny2
