- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 36,235
- Reaction score
- 8,380
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Oh? Which fallacy would this be?
Appeal to Ridicule
Oh? Which fallacy would this be?
Appeal to Ridicule
well, you have been arguing that it was a free speech issue. Free speech in this country has always been interpreted as applying to those things with some social or political value.
The freedom of speech isn't limited to politics, and never was. As long as it isn't untrue (libel, slander, and defamation), incites violent or destructive acts, an act of treason, or terroristic in nature, it shouldn't be illegal. By banning things people don't like, just because it's offensive in nature, we put a foot in the door that allows other acts deemed "offensive" to be banned.
It's not just "offensive." There are actual victims here, victims who very specifically did not agree to participate in this.
Can the drama, you make it sound like they got raped or something. A picture that was taken with consent was posted on the internet. If you don't want those kinds of pictures posted on the internet, don't consent to them.
Right. Blame the victim. Out of curiosity is your position an example of libertarianism?
Whatever bro, and no, I'm not a libertarian. I would have stated that on my political lean.
Yes, obviously [babble, babble, babble, babble, babble,babble]
You apparently want to confuse that with other issues which [babble, babble,babble, babble, babble].
:doh
In other words, you can not [babble on as a wind-bag like I can] to support your position. Nor will [babble, babble, babble, babble, babble]have been no such violations at this time.
Good for libertarianism.
The person who received the picture or person who took the picture is the owner unless illegally obtained. I think someone filming you in secret should be treated as a criminal act. However if you let someone take the picture or sent it to someone other than your own media, then you no longer own it.
The freedom of speech isn't limited to politics, and never was. As long as it isn't untrue (libel, slander, and defamation), incites violent or destructive acts, an act of treason, or terroristic in nature, it shouldn't be illegal. By banning things people don't like, just because it's offensive in nature, we put a foot in the door that allows other acts deemed "offensive" to be banned.
No it's not. Don't be ridiculous.
The victims of Moore's website in no way chose to participate in his pointlessly cruel abomination. This is the classic case of blaming the victim, and you should be ashamed of yourself for siding to any extent with a psychopath.
Freedom of speech also doesn't include stealing intellectual property.
The person who took the picture owns it. Period. That's how the law works. Most of the photos are camera phone photos that a woman took of herself in the mirror. She still owns that photo, and her act of sending it electronically to her boyfriend doesn't change that. It was a foolish choice for her to make, but it doesn't change her copyright ownership of the photo. In a few cases, the boyfriend may have taken the photo himself. In those cases, he actually does own it. There are other laws such as the "right to control your likeness." If a photographer took an ordinary person's photo who was walking down the street, he cannot turn around and sell it to Coors Beer company for use in their advertising campaign without a model release from that person. This is true, even though the photographer owns the copyright. For a celebrity, it's different. If you happen to catch Lindsay Lohan topless sunbathing on a beach in Maui, you can photograph her and sell your photos to a tabloid without being legally in trouble.
I'm honestly not sure if the "right to control your likeness" laws apply here to the photos where the woman allowed herself to be photographed. I'd have to ask my attorney. They might not because the boyfriend wasn't making any money -- or they might because the site owner was. However, in the cases where they took their own photos, copyright laws definitely apply. At the very least, the site owner should be compelled to take any of those photos down per request of the copyright owner.
Freedom of speech also doesn't include stealing intellectual property.
As long as it isn't untrue (libel, slander, and defamation), incites violent or destructive acts
This isn't an issue of intellectual property, either, since a photograph is a tangible asset.
If the person uploading the photo was given the picture or legally took the picture and is making no money on uploading it, they are not doing anything illegal, period.
Freedom of speech does have limitations, but trying to pass laws based on an over emotional subject is always a disaster.
uh, the entire basis of those exceptions is the fact that random, damaging lies about individuals don't hold political or social value, and is why public figures have a more difficult time pursuing such cases.
nothing I am writing here is controversial in the least. It's very well established precedence
A photograph is indeed intellectual property. I have a large portfolio of them that belong to me. I have the legal right to determine how they're used. No one has the right to upload them to web sites or to make billboards out of them or whatever without my consent.
The website shouldn't be sued but the actual person who put up the photos. In your logic Facebook could be sued because of some random person putting up a photo someone else didn't consent to.
Those are tangible assets as they are your physical property. As the holder of that property, you have full say over what can and cannot be done with them. Intellectual property laws protect intangible assets, such as copyrights, patents, trade secrets, and trademarks.
My photos that I take with my Canon EOS 1D Mark IV and L lenses are of much higher quality than what someone takes with a camera phone. However, under the law they're seen as the same. Whether it's a good quality photo or a terrible one doesn't matter. It's owned by whoever took the photo. It doesn't have to be a professional photographer. It can be a college girl with a camera phone and she still owns it.
If he took the picture, you're probably right. If he was given the picture, you're not. If his girlfriend took her own picture, then she owns the copyright, end of story. Her giving him the photo doesn't invalidate her copyright any more than my showing proofs to my clients invalidates mine. She has the legal right to have it removed.
Can the drama, you make it sound like they got raped or something. A picture that was taken with consent was posted on the internet. If you don't want those kinds of pictures posted on the internet, don't consent to them.
This isn't an issue of intellectual property, either, since a photograph is a tangible asset.
And if you send someone else one of those photographs, they too own that picture, and can do with it as they please.