Court Rules Copying Photos Found on Internet is Fair Use

Where is the case where someone was awarded $10,000? I'm curious to see if the offended photographer was just some Joe or if it was an established, well known and high value photog. The case is being used like someone like me made a killing, I rather doubt it.
 
FujiLove thinks Adorama paid Ken Rockwell $10,000 instead of $1,000 for stealing the M3 photo. I don't know how much FujiLove is planning on paying Ken Rockwell for stealing his Leica interchangeable lens chart he posted earlier in the thread.
 
"In fact, someone else said the same thing earlier on this thread. That a photographer they knew made half their income from prosecuting cases of image theft."

In Australia where slander laws are disproportionate and favor silencing of people, a few politicians used to regularly make much more than this prosecuting people for saying arguably truthful but hurtful things about them in any kind of hyperbolic way that would give them something to argue in court. This also had the real benefit (to them) of silencing criticism but healthily lined their pockets too as they were allowed to keep the money even if they were Ministers of the Crown and the criticism were addressed against them in their official capacity (in which event their case was funded by public money). A nice scam if you can stomach it. Of course anything said in Parliament was "privileged" and unable to be actioned.

The trend seems to have died off a little but certain (mainly Labor) members of Parliament were past masters at this game. Which is one more reason why I entertain a certain disdain for politicians.
 
In Australia where slander laws are disproportionate and favor silencing of people, a few politicians used to regularly make much more than this prosecuting people for saying arguably truthful but hurtful things about them in any kind of hyperbolic way that would give them something to argue in court. This also had the real benefit (to them) of silencing criticism but healthily lined their pockets too as they were allowed to keep the money even if they were Ministers of the Crown and the criticism were addressed against them in their official capacity (in which event their case was funded by public money). A nice scam if you can stomach it. Of course anything said in Parliament was "privileged" and unable to be actioned.

The trend seems to have died off a little but certain (mainly Labor) members of Parliament were past masters at this game. Which is one more reason why I entertain a certain disdain for politicians.

In the USA, it is generally legal to say virtually anything, no matter how untrue and vicious, about an elected politician. So, no one makes any money suing journalists or political commentators for such thing here.
 
And in America it's getting harder to say anything insulting or vicious about a politician that isn't known truth. "The world won't be a safe place until the last politician is strung up on the entrails of the last lawyer". Supposed to be from Mark Twain.
 
vandermark-signs-2.jpg

I don't think you would like living in one of those countries where this is still a practice, or even the law. Well, since I don't know you, maybe you would.

I think I would not like to live in a country where people put up signs like that.
 
I don't think you would like living in one of those countries where this is still a practice, or even the law. Well, since I don't know you, maybe you would.

I think I would not like to live in a country where people put up signs like that.

I photographed the sign because I found it ironic. The same place had a GIGANTIC steel cross. Cutting off the hands of thieves is an Islamic punishment, not one ever used in Christian countries, yet the guy who posted the sign is a Christian advocating Sharia punishments, lol.
 
I photographed the sign because I found it ironic. The same place had a GIGANTIC steel cross. Cutting off the hands of thieves is an Islamic punishment, not one ever used in Christian countries, yet the guy who posted the sign is a Christian advocating Sharia punishments, lol.

The author of the sign also cannot spell. "Lose" not "loose' is the correct word for this usage. As in "I let the horse loose from the field and the farmer is angry at me. My God I see him coming at me with a knife, I may lose my hand." ha ha ha
 
The author of the sign also cannot spell. "Lose" not "loose' is the correct word for this usage. As in "I let the horse loose from the field and the farmer is angry at me. My God I see him coming at me with a knife, I may lose my hand." ha ha ha

Yes, hehe. I noticed that, too.
 
FujiLove thinks Adorama paid Ken Rockwell $10,000 instead of $1,000 for stealing the M3 photo. I don't know how much FujiLove is planning on paying Ken Rockwell for stealing his Leica interchangeable lens chart he posted earlier in the thread.

You're right. I misread the thread title as $10K instead of $1K. Would have been nice if someone had simply pointed that out days ago. :bang: That's much more reasonable, but in my opinion still way too much to have to shell out to use an image like that, even if you factor in some sort of fine to deter others.

And you know as well as I do that I didn't steal Ken's image. It's sad you and many others on here can't sensibly debate a topic without mud-slinging.
 
I photographed the sign because I found it ironic. The same place had a GIGANTIC steel cross. Cutting off the hands of thieves is an Islamic punishment, not one ever used in Christian countries, yet the guy who posted the sign is a Christian advocating Sharia punishments, lol.

Christians are also fond of a bit of hand-chopping...just not for thieving!

"When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand."

– Deuteronomy 25:11-12
 
sadly

sadly

It'll likely get overturned on appeal.

the winner of this battle will be the one with the most bucks and shouts "free enterprise" the loudest.
cynical? look around - the law, ethics, and principles have fallen prey to idiocy, greed and selfishness.:bang:
 
In the USA, it is generally legal to say virtually anything, no matter how untrue and vicious, about an elected politician. So, no one makes any money suing journalists or political commentators for such thing here.
Dear Chris,

I always liked, "If our opponents stop telling lies about us, we will stop telling the truth about them."

And I've only recently discovered Randy Rainbow, who is certainly a powerful argument for the First Amendment, e.g. "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-LTRwZb35AA Very Stable Genius". I don't know of any UK comedians who are quite so forceful, though Fascinating Aida comes close with "We're So Sorry, Scotland". Here are the lyrics.

Cheers,

R.
 
Back
Top