|
sixter
Jan 25, 2004, 4:32 AM
Post #76 of 81
(6681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2003
Posts: 262
|
Here is a link to a story on one of my favorite images created from a copyrighted logos. It may help shed some light on the legality of the pic. I still think it could be ruled OK under "fair use". Most likely the worst that would happen is a cease and desist lawsuit barring any further reproduction of the image for public circulation.
http://www.cbldf.org/...1130-starbucks.shtml
http://www.cbldf.org/...gos/dwyerlogo_sm.gif
|
|
|
|
|
offwidthclimber
Jan 25, 2004, 5:18 AM
Post #77 of 81
(6681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2001
Posts: 290
|
In reply to: I can't even look at my own original of Kole, a dear person to me who is the subject of one of my favorite photos, because I look at it and see Gollum. My own creativity and effort have been eclipsed even in my eyes. That kinda hurts.
OMG. get over it. we're talking about a freakin' photo here.
if you feel eclipsed, it's your own fault... your photo was fine. the gollum one was kinda funny. neither were spectacular. end of story.
|
|
|
|
|
rjtrials
Jan 25, 2004, 7:53 AM
Post #78 of 81
(6681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2002
Posts: 342
|
Maybe I missed the post, maybe I didn't.
Would somebody please tell me how Climbing got their paws on the pic? Did Cryder submit it, did someone else pass it on, or did they lift it from the site?
RJ
|
|
|
|
|
akornylak
Jan 26, 2004, 12:06 AM
Post #79 of 81
(6681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 251
|
In reply to: In reply to: I can't even look at my own original of Kole, a dear person to me who is the subject of one of my favorite photos, because I look at it and see Gollum. My own creativity and effort have been eclipsed even in my eyes. That kinda hurts. OMG. get over it. we're talking about a freakin' photo here. if you feel eclipsed, it's your own fault... your photo was fine. the gollum one was kinda funny. neither were spectacular. end of story.
Dramatics aside, it doesnt matter if its the worst photo in the world, its still someone's creative (in this case, substantially so) property, of which the copyright was violated.
Regarding the Starbucks case, I would tend to side with the Schmucks. Sorry, but when you are making $$$ off a parody of someone else's creative work, I have no sympathy. And anyway, who is the "consumer whore" there? A comic book cover as news-level satire worthy of Fair Use? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
goldencrowbar
Jan 26, 2004, 2:01 AM
Post #80 of 81
(6681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2003
Posts: 112
|
I saw Gollum on Yafro.com this morning
http://herculees.yafro.com/photo/19606
|
|
|
|
|
hishopper
Jan 26, 2004, 2:53 AM
Post #81 of 81
(6681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2002
Posts: 387
|
It's a side-note, but this is one thread I wouldn't mind taking flak for de-railing... apparently Andy Serkis (Gollum) trained for his part by.. you guessed it!! Check out this article:
http://www.tolkienonline.com/docs/7885.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
