AP sues Zimmerman over latest artwork

[IlarMeilyr]

This is the epitome of a frivolous lawsuit, and it only exposes the media bias further. There's had to have been countless times that people did derivative artwork from AP images without lawsuits.

But but but

on those other occasions, if the derivative work was left wing politically acceptable, that was somehow "different." Well, in fairness, it was until AFTER the ELECTION of The ONE:

Barack Obama "Hope" poster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That the likes of Zimmerman remains a hero to most on the right is both telling and appropriate.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The picture was taken in a public forum regarding a very public, politically charged issue. Seems to me that free speech trumps the AP's piddly claim.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

That the likes of Zimmerman remains a hero to most on the right is both telling and appropriate.

That you rancid hack liberals would castigate a man for exercising a right to defend himself is both telling and tragic.

Thank GOD lolberal propaganda can be so often and readily refuted.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

That the likes of Zimmerman remains a hero to most on the right is both telling and appropriate.

Actually, very few people on the right look at Zimmerman as a hero. You would love to spin it that way though.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The picture was taken in a public forum regarding a very public, politically charged issue. Seems to me that free speech trumps the AP's piddly claim.

When the "artist" who "created" the Obama HOPE iconic image

did so, it LATER became another AP claim for "compensation."

It got litigated (partly on grounds of fair use) but was settled.

All this as per the wiki article I noted previously.

Later still, it turned out that the artist had destroyed some records relative to the lawsuit and crafted some bogus substitutes. In other words, he lied and cheated. I am not shocked. He was, afterall, a liberal.

The fact that AFTER the election he AP sought compensation for the "use" of its photograph does NOT necessarily mean that they had a valid case. Maybe yes. Maybe no. Or, maybe it just means that Zimmerman will also eventually just "settle" the thing.

Either way, I maintain there is a good, logical and reasonable claim to be made that HIS "use" of the image is NOT a concern of the owner of the photograph.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

This is the epitome of a frivolous lawsuit, and it only exposes the media bias further. There's had to have been countless times that people did derivative artwork from AP images without lawsuits.

But but but

on those other occasions, if the derivative work was left wing politically acceptable, that was somehow "different." Well, in fairness, it was until AFTER the ELECTION of The ONE:

Barack Obama "Hope" poster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you read it? The AP did sue the artist. IMO, that was BS too. The case was settled out of court though.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why are some of you so in favor on ANYONE stealing the work of another and profiting from that theft?

Never mind that its a scum sucking, woman abusing, child killer. For the sake of this issue, it doesn't matter who it is.

Why should he be able to profit from the original work of others?

Add common plagiarizing thief to his other talents.

Horse shit.

Some photographer took a photo. AP paid the guy and owns that image.

THEN much later Zimmerman uses that image as a kind of template from which he creates a bit of "art." I don't care if it qualifies as "good" art or not. That's all subjective anyway.

Did AP own Angie's ugly mug?

Does the use of an image in the public realm AS A MERE TEMPLATE for artistic impression and speech really qualify as "stealing" the "property" of AP, anyway? Of course not. Your "argument" is ridiculous on its face, mudddly. As is always the case.

You laughable lolberals really are laughable.

Make up your mind.

First you say the image is owned by AP and then you say gz owns it because its a "template". Bull shit.

Yours is the laughable position and you'll change your tune the second the image is owned by some rw.

And, this doesn't even address the issue of the ownership of the "mug". I really don't know what rights the woman whose photo is it but it would make any sane person's skin crawl to have their face used by a killer this way.

Bottom line is this thief cannot and should not be able to steal other people's work and profit from that theft. Hopefully, AP can make this stick.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^
Though, I'll say that those cases are nowhere near exact parallels; because the AP had a very strong immediate financial interest in the Obama photo case.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Why are some of you so in favor on ANYONE stealing the work of another and profiting from that theft?

Never mind that its a scum sucking, woman abusing, child killer. For the sake of this issue, it doesn't matter who it is.

Why should he be able to profit from the original work of others?

Add common plagiarizing thief to his other talents.

Horse shit.

Some photographer took a photo. AP paid the guy and owns that image.

THEN much later Zimmerman uses that image as a kind of template from which he creates a bit of "art." I don't care if it qualifies as "good" art or not. That's all subjective anyway.

Did AP own Angie's ugly mug?

Does the use of an image in the public realm AS A MERE TEMPLATE for artistic impression and speech really qualify as "stealing" the "property" of AP, anyway? Of course not. Your "argument" is ridiculous on its face, mudddly. As is always the case.

You laughable lolberals really are laughable.

Make up your mind.

First you say the image is owned by AP and then you say gz owns it because its a "template". Bull shit.

Yours is the laughable position and you'll change your tune the second the image is owned by some rw.

And, this doesn't even address the issue of the ownership of the "mug". I really don't know what rights the woman whose photo is it but it would make any sane person's skin crawl to have their face used by a killer this way.

Bottom line is this thief cannot and should not be able to steal other people's work and profit from that theft. Hopefully, AP can make this stick.

What you are effectively advocating is the AP having a financially monopolistic stake in public news. That's a very shortsighted precedent to establish.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Why are some of you so in favor on ANYONE stealing the work of another and profiting from that theft?

Never mind that its a scum sucking, woman abusing, child killer. For the sake of this issue, it doesn't matter who it is.

Why should he be able to profit from the original work of others?

Add common plagiarizing thief to his other talents.

Horse shit.

Some photographer took a photo. AP paid the guy and owns that image.

THEN much later Zimmerman uses that image as a kind of template from which he creates a bit of "art." I don't care if it qualifies as "good" art or not. That's all subjective anyway.

Did AP own Angie's ugly mug?

Does the use of an image in the public realm AS A MERE TEMPLATE for artistic impression and speech really qualify as "stealing" the "property" of AP, anyway? Of course not. Your "argument" is ridiculous on its face, mudddly. As is always the case.

You laughable lolberals really are laughable.

Make up your mind.

First you say the image is owned by AP and then you say gz owns it because its a "template". Bull shit.

Yours is the laughable position and you'll change your tune the second the image is owned by some rw.

And, this doesn't even address the issue of the ownership of the "mug". I really don't know what rights the woman whose photo is it but it would make any sane person's skin crawl to have their face used by a killer this way.

Bottom line is this thief cannot and should not be able to steal other people's work and profit from that theft. Hopefully, AP can make this stick.

Your confusion is typical of you lolberals. You aren't used to thinking.

AP owns the image because it bought the image.

THEN Zimmerman used it as a template for his ART.

Zimmerman is not using the photograph, you abject imbecile.

He is selling his own ARTWORK.



Damn; you lolberals are pathetic.

I doubt AP has a good case, but they might generate enough poison to yield a settlement. Too bad. I'd prefer to see them left holding a big empty sack of nuthin.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This is the epitome of a frivolous lawsuit, and it only exposes the media bias further. There's had to have been countless times that people did derivative artwork from AP images without lawsuits.

But but but

on those other occasions, if the derivative work was left wing politically acceptable, that was somehow "different." Well, in fairness, it was until AFTER the ELECTION of The ONE:

Barack Obama "Hope" poster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you read it? The AP did sue the artist. IMO, that was BS too. The case was settled out of court though.

Yeah. I read it. I even commented on that fact.

I even commented on the fact of the settlement. BUT what I noted (correctly) was that AP didn't claim any right to compensation until AFTER the Election.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Horse shit.

Some photographer took a photo. AP paid the guy and owns that image.

THEN much later Zimmerman uses that image as a kind of template from which he creates a bit of "art." I don't care if it qualifies as "good" art or not. That's all subjective anyway.

Did AP own Angie's ugly mug?

Does the use of an image in the public realm AS A MERE TEMPLATE for artistic impression and speech really qualify as "stealing" the "property" of AP, anyway? Of course not. Your "argument" is ridiculous on its face, mudddly. As is always the case.

You laughable lolberals really are laughable.

Make up your mind.

First you say the image is owned by AP and then you say gz owns it because its a "template". Bull shit.

Yours is the laughable position and you'll change your tune the second the image is owned by some rw.

And, this doesn't even address the issue of the ownership of the "mug". I really don't know what rights the woman whose photo is it but it would make any sane person's skin crawl to have their face used by a killer this way.

Bottom line is this thief cannot and should not be able to steal other people's work and profit from that theft. Hopefully, AP can make this stick.

What you are effectively advocating is the AP having a financially monopolistic stake in public news. That's a very shortsighted precedent to establish.

Nope.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the image is OWNED by AP because they bought it from the photographer.

There is nothing here about "public news". This is a story about a petty thief trying to make a buck off something that he does not own. The precedent has already been set - that one cannot steal. Come to think of it, so-called christians even have a rule about that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Good news from the article is that gz is more than $2 million in debt. Just like OJ .... they both got away with murder but their lives are/were effectively ruined.

That's their punishment.

 

[BobPlumb]

If I sit in my front yard a paint a picture of my neighbor's house, do I need permission from my neighbor to sell the painting? After all, I don't own his house.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Make up your mind.

First you say the image is owned by AP and then you say gz owns it because its a "template". Bull shit.

Yours is the laughable position and you'll change your tune the second the image is owned by some rw.

And, this doesn't even address the issue of the ownership of the "mug". I really don't know what rights the woman whose photo is it but it would make any sane person's skin crawl to have their face used by a killer this way.

Bottom line is this thief cannot and should not be able to steal other people's work and profit from that theft. Hopefully, AP can make this stick.

What you are effectively advocating is the AP having a financially monopolistic stake in public news. That's a very shortsighted precedent to establish.

Nope.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the image is OWNED by AP because they bought it from the photographer.

There is nothing here about "public news". This is a story about a petty thief trying to make a buck off something that he does not own. The precedent has already been set - that one cannot steal. Come to think of it, so-called christians even have a rule about that.

AP owns the PHOTOGRAPHIC image, you dipshit hack.

AP does not own Angie's ugly mug.

Zimmerman used the photographic image as a template. But he is not peddling AP's photograph, you dishonest hack bitch dork.

Even the sainted Angie cannot sue Zimmerman for using her fucking ugly mug.

So why should AP get to prevail merely because they own the photograph off of which the artwork is based?

Don't bother trying to answer, hack. It would require honesty and thinking from you and that's clearly beyond your skill set.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

-- excerpt of Title 17 of the United States Code Section 107 (found at, U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 1 ).

Out of curiosity, I wonder what the market value of that photograph of Angie might be? Is there some previously unheard of hot market for pictures of that sow?

 

[realinvestment]

Jon, I remember you from the old Yahoo message board.

I haven't found this message board threaded very well. In these long threads, sometimes hundreds of replies, how does any one know who is replying to who? Likewise, if you make a statement, how do you know when you've gotten a response?

Is there some special trick to this?

Real

 

[Katzndogz]

If I sit in my front yard a paint a picture of my neighbor's house, do I need permission from my neighbor to sell the painting? After all, I don't own his house.

If you took a picture of your neighbor's house you took the picture and own that image. You don't own the house, just the image. It't like taking a picture of the Statue of Liberty. You took the picture. You own that image. If you used a picture someone else took of the Statue of Liberty and used it for your own purpose, you don't own that image and stole it.

 

[Katzndogz]

What fouled Zimmerman up is the first picture he painted was from a stock photo in the public domain. That led him to think that all pictures are in the public domain.