Want to know what you get when you’re prominent in the Atheist community and Thunderf00t uses a picture of you in a manner you’d rather he didn’t (or that you’d prefer he credit you rather than use without attribution)? For background, read here.
Here is Tf00t’s blogpost. Now someone else made a riff on the image that’s available all over the Internet, but apparently Thunderf00t doesn’t get the difference between pure parody (covered under fair use) and using their image to make the exact opposite point they intended to make, while refusing to give them credit for the original image (arguably covered under fair use, but only just).
What I do know is that making an image macro off of an image that’s been present on Encyclopedia Dramatica for some time is different than using someone’s image taken at a protest against sexual harassment to minimize a protest against sexual harassment.
Again, stay classy.
FYI, the “For background, read here” link is horribly, horribly broken.
Fixed, and thank you!
For fair use, he’d have to be commenting on the image itself, not its message. The parody of the image is OK.
The second would fall under news/commentary, not parody, since Amy is arguably a public figure. It’s sketchy, though.
This is laughable. Spin yourself into a righteous rage more please –everyone is impressed by how much of a crusader for the womyn you are.
The most important, if slightly tangential, point is that anyone who has time to blather about attribution of a common slogan turned into an image via MS PAINT probably does not have much else to say.
The second point is that works with no original content are not eligible for copyright, this includes simple geometric shapes and text in common fonts (although the text itself may be copyrightable).
The third point is that mockery is indeed a valid fair use claim, under the umbrella of parody.
Wow, did you make it to your fainting couch before you fell over?