Official Mr. Brainwash Conspiracy Thread

[mistersmith]

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the first thing about copyright law, but I don't agree with the judge's decision.

Jesus drymounting Christ. Seriously, re-read that yourself.

"I'm not a doctor, and I know nothing of internal medicine, but I think swallowing bleach is probably OK."

With the internet and images all over the web with no indication/disclaimer of copyright, it's such a cluster f##k nowadays. How could mbw have known that the image was copyrighted if there was no indication or disclaimer of it being so online?

Did MBW take the picture? No? Then he can assume someone else did. That means two things: either someone somewhere has the legal rights, or the photo is in the public domain, which means nobody owns rights. Since Run DMC are too modern to have made their way into public domain, it's a reasonable assertion that the picture belongs to someone.

He should know it's not his because he knows it's not his.

So would the owners of the website also be liable and subject to suit because they're using the photo to promote whatever site it is?

What site, a news outlet reporting on the facts? No, because showing the work in question is germane to its reporting. Now, if you start a Run DMC fan site and put Friedman's picture up, he's within his rights to ask you to take it down.

[SteveKai]

^
I really don't know where to begin with your ranting, and your bleach comparison is beyond idiotic. How can you compare an obvious, such as consuming bleach, to an arguable opinion of copyright?

You're saying that because i'm not a copyright lawyer, I can't express an opinion? You need to calm down a bit.

As far as the site goes, any site that has the pic on their homepage or search results, which would in turn arguably fall under the guise of site promotion, you genius you.

[Tadrules]

no, he's saying you're stupid.

[Tadrules]

"The judge is wrong because i have an opinion." -

[SteveKai]

no, he's saying you're stupid.

Totally, my post definitely reflects my stupidity. Who said the judge is wrong? I stated my opinion that I disagree. You're totally right, anything a judge says or rules on is correct and shouldn't be questioned. Thanks for the personal attack, you're a class act.

[mistersmith]

You're saying that because i'm not a copyright lawyer, I can't express an opinion? You need to calm down a bit.

I'm plenty calm. But what you wrote was one of the dumbest things I have ever seen written. You said, "I have no knowledge of what I speak, but here comes my opinion." Seriously. Like I said, step back and read that back to yourself. You spent the first half of your post expressing your ignorance, then spent the rest expecting us to listen to you. That's why you don't get an opinion.

This is a recurring theme with you, man. Your "economic death spiral" thread shows that you clearly don't understand all the stuff you're talking about, yet you keep talking. That's a problem.

As far as the site goes, any site that has the pic on their homepage or search results, which would in turn arguably fall under the guise of site promotion, you genius you.

Whatever that sentence fragment means, the rules are the rules: if someone is using a picture that belongs to someone else, whoever owns the picture is allowed to tell them to stop using it. It happens all the time. Just because it's the internet and Google Images works well doesn't mean the rules are any different.

Case in point: Prince tried to have a bunch of his fan sites shut down because they used pictures of him, his name, and that symbol, because he's trademarked that stuff. Dick move? Yeah. Were the fan sites operating under fair use guidelines? Probably. But he was willing to go to court over it. Intellectual property is an important thing, and getting back on topic, Brainwash stepped all over Friedman's with a bigass pair of half-tied Adidas.

[SteveKai]

You're saying that because i'm not a copyright lawyer, I can't express an opinion? You need to calm down a bit.

I'm plenty calm. But what you wrote was one of the dumbest things I have ever seen written. You said, "I have no knowledge of what I speak, but here comes my opinion." Seriously. Like I said, step back and read that back to yourself. You spent the first half of your post expressing your ignorance, then spent the rest expecting us to listen to you. That's why you don't get an opinion.

This is a recurring theme with you, man. Your "economic death spiral" thread shows that you clearly don't understand all the stuff you're talking about, yet you keep talking. That's a problem.

As far as the site goes, any site that has the pic on their homepage or search results, which would in turn arguably fall under the guise of site promotion, you genius you.

Whatever that sentence fragment means, the rules are the rules: if someone is using a picture that belongs to someone else, whoever owns the picture is allowed to tell them to stop using it. It happens all the time. Just because it's the internet and Google Images works well doesn't mean the rules are any different.

Case in point: Prince tried to have a bunch of his fan sites shut down because they used pictures of him, his name, and that symbol, because he's trademarked that stuff. Dick move? Yeah. Were the fan sites operating under fair use guidelines? Probably. But he was willing to go to court over it. Intellectual property is an important thing, and getting back on topic, Brainwash stepped all over Friedman's with a bigass pair of half-tied Adidas.

Simple way to fix that, ignore my posts. I'll do the same with yours.

[dangerboy]

no, he's saying you're stupid.

Totally, my post definitely reflects my stupidity. Who said the judge is wrong? I stated my opinion that I disagree. You're totally right, anything a judge says or rules on is correct and shouldn't be questioned. Thanks for the personal attack, you're a class act.

these aren't the droids you're looking for. he can go about his business...

[Tadrules]

no, he's saying you're stupid.

Totally, my post definitely reflects my stupidity. Who said the judge is wrong? I stated my opinion that I disagree. You're totally right, anything a judge says or rules on is correct and shouldn't be questioned. Thanks for the personal attack, you're a class act.

personal attack? you sir have a sensitive clam.

seriously, for one second, your statement has to be one of the dumbest/funniest things i've ever read on here.

when you admit to not knowing fudge, who want's to read your opinion?

[PapaVo]

Admitted 'fail' for finding clarity in a Wiki link. However, this may help ...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_(art)

Andy Warhol faced a series of law-suits from photographers whose work he appropriated and silk-screened. Patricia Caulfield, one such photographer, had taken a picture of flowers for a photography demonstration for a photography magazine. Warhol had covered the walls of Leo Castelli's New York gallery in 1964 with the silk-screened reproductions of Caulfield's photograph. After seeing a poster of their work in a bookstore, Caulfield claimed ownership of the image and while Warhol was the author of the successful silk screens, he settled out of court, giving Caulfield a royalty for future use of the image as well as two of the paintings.

On the other hand, Warhol's famous Campbell's Soup Cans are generally held to be non-infringing, despite being clearly appropriated, because "the public was unlikely to see the painting as sponsored by the soup company or representing a competing product. Paintings and soup cans are not in themselves competing products", according to expert trademark lawyer Jerome Gilson[6].

[SteveKai]

no, he's saying you're stupid.

Totally, my post definitely reflects my stupidity. Who said the judge is wrong? I stated my opinion that I disagree. You're totally right, anything a judge says or rules on is correct and shouldn't be questioned. Thanks for the personal attack, you're a class act.

personal attack? you sir have a sensitive clam.

seriously, for one second, your statement has to be one of the dumbest/funniest things i've ever read on here.

when you admit to not knowing fudge, who want's to read your opinion?

Dumbest/funniest? Elaborate, please.You need to dig a bit deeper into the threads on this site if you think my statement is the dumbest/funniest thing you've ever read here. I didn't know that prefacing a sentence with the fact that i'm not a lawyer doesn't allow me to have an opinion on a judge's ruling. And you're calling me stupid? I'll keep posting my opinion, if you don't like it, hit ignore, otherwise go drymount yourself.

[GR8Dane]

I like sensitive clam. Where can I find one?

[PapaVo]

I like sensitive clam. Where can I find one?

http://youtu.be/_YGwzNj88cw

[Tadrules]

fuking newbie cocksmockers........

...also currently drymounting. cuz i'm classy.

[PapaVo]

fuking newbie cocksmockers........

...also currently drymounting. cuz i'm classy.

Step away from the keyboard and put down the narcotics, Tadpole.