Actually, it's worth noticing that my new avatar constitutes an original artistic work, for which I hold the IP. Ergo, if you wish to do anything with it you need my permission. And Disney's
Nope. In point of fact, you needed my permission (and Disney's) to create that derivative work to begin with. http://iplaw.hllaw.com/2009/11/articles/copyright/product-photography-and-derivative-works/
Fuck the 7th Circuit, he'd have to successfully sue me, get a quantified damages judgment, and then apply to have it enforced against me in the High Court in England, the legal fees for which wouldn't be covered by his American lawyer's continguency agreement and would cost him thousands of pounds that he cannot afford (hell, he can't even afford a new sofa). I would resist the aplication to enforce on the basis of English law, which is that implied consent was given when he signed up to WF. That would cost him even more in legal fees. He's fucked.
You'd have to prove that there is any condition establishing implied consent in signing up to WF. Good luck with that. And you might be out of my reach; what do you care to bet you're out of Disney's reach?
See, that's what I'm talking about. If there's no damage done, does someone have a legitimate right to complain about it?
Yes. http://pdnpulse.com/2012/09/anti-gay-group-sued-for-unauthorized-use-of-photo-in-attack-ads.html http://www.pacaoffice.org/commandments-2.shtml http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=2001 Non-renumerative misuse of copyrighted material is still misuse of copyrighted material.
I believe that under US Copyright law there need not be profiteering. Don't quote me on that though. Only really know the law here....although, he would, of course, have to comply with the laws of two jurisdictions to enforce a judgment here.
You're probably right; I probably couldn't successfully pursue you for the removal of the unauthorized material. I certainly could go after Lanzman for it, though. He's the board's owner, after all, so what happens here, he's ultimately responsible for.
Here you go..... http://i49.tinypic.com/1zt4ed.jpg See the little tick box? That's the very first page for new member registrations - a page you have been through more times than the rest of us. Implied consent. You're fucked.
Still implied consent bub, you've agreed to the rules. You couldn't touch Lanz anymore than you could touch me.
Nothing in the rules states explicitly or implicitly that intellectual property posted here becomes the property of Wordforge or any of its agents. And no one from Disney ever agreed to the rules, so if you really do want to play Lawyerball, you'd best at minimum remove Disney's characters from your av. EDIT: To add: Even if that was somewhere in the rules, you are not Wordforge, nor any of its agents. Even if it does become the property of Wordforge, it still remains unavailable for use by you.
Huh. Well personally, I don't care as long as nobody's making money off that pic. I wouldn't have posted it otherwise. Duh.
I think she crashed the Enterprise-E into the Romulan ship in Nemesis, but I can't be sure because I spent years in therapy blocking out my memories of that movie.
Whether I'm the subject of the photograph or not is ultimately irrelevant. I am the photographer, which makes copyright over the photographs mine.
Here's the rub. You posted a photo on WF. The photo is still on WF. It hasn't been distributed. It is exactly where you put it.
And now it's being distributed by you. You don't have permission to distribute it. You need permission to distribute it, and you don't have that permission.
It is physically hosted by the server that hosts WF, ergo it becomes WF's property once you upload it. YOu are, buy the very act of uploading it, giving WF consent to use it. If I took, say, one of your scripts and uploaded it as my own, then you might have an argument. But this content has been made avialable to WF by you. You have agreed to the rules and consented to the content being used by the WF server. Disney isn't complaining, you are. I think Disney have a lot of better things to do than trawling the internet for every message board avatar that features a Star Wars character. Once it becomes the property of WF, through your consent, it's use is governed by the rules of WF. The rules are that it's use is permitted outside of the Green Room. Like I say, implied consent. You're fucked.
You aren't. He uploaded his picture here and it remains where he uploaded it. Same servers, with the same board members having the same access to it. I'd love him to be able to convince any court that the Red Room is a different internet location entirely from the Green Room. They'd fall on the floor laughing at the sadess of it all.
You fellas really are amusing. You seem to think you're deciding whether you'll stop using IP the use of which you have no permission for. You're not. You're only deciding how and why it'll stop.
Which makes it a derivative work, a work which you need, but failed to secure, consent to create. No difference.
