Copy Rights ® vs Homeland Security

[verytwistedmind]

If you ever want to make the “®” it’s alt + 174.  Now don’t say I never taught you anything.

There have been two interesting articles regarding copy right I want to discuss.

Article 1:

The investigative arm of the Homeland Security Department appears to be shutting down websites that facilitate copyright infringement.

Immigration and Customs

Comments

Basic comprehension fail.

[squidb0i]

As a musician I have a vested interest in sane copyright, so have bothered to look into the topic.

So.

This is obviously a PHOTO of the seal used in an article, just as is done with nearly every article ever, anywhere.
It does not purport to be official in any way, and does not infringe copyright.

By the same faux logic, you should be sued and shut down for using the screen capture you just used, and every article that uses a photo of someone or a corporate logo should suffer the same fate.

Re: Basic comprehension fail.

[verytwistedmind]

I assume you looked at the article because you said "obviously". I don't think you looked at the screen capture I posted closely though. By the same faux logic, you should be sued and shut down for using the screen capture you just used,.I posted the picture of the ICE denied when you tried to access sites that have been shut down by ICE, not the Presidential Seal nor, could it be assumed that I was using it to show sponsorshuip or approval by the governement

As I said, the CfAP article is just like any other article using a photo of the subject.

[squidb0i]

You did something similar when you used a screencap - ie, another photo - of no less than three official government seals for your post.

So either you are right and it's all illegal or you're wrong.

Which is it?

Re: As I said, the CfAP article is just like any other article using a photo of the subject.

[merig00]

Though it is obvious CfAP uses a picture of the seal it does makes the article and the way it is presented more authoritative look. Is it legal or not - idk.

Had they used the direct art of the seal or made any effort to make it look official I'd be inclined

[squidb0i]

But it's clearly just a header photo, and not a very good one at that.

One would have to be pretty stupid to actually believe this were official.

Re: As I said, the CfAP article is just like any other article using a photo of the subject.

[verytwistedmind]

Well, do you see my posting the picture/screen capture of the ICE denial page as "in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department"

Because that's what we are discussing here. I see Center For American Progress use of the Presidential Seal as violating that law.

No, I don't. Much in the same way CfAP isn't either.

[squidb0i]

But your fallacious claim that they are holds as much weight and for the same reasons, so the comparison is both direct and valid.

" I see Center For American Progress use of" a low resolution photograph of "the Presidential Seal as violating that law."

Fixed it for you.

So again, either both are illegal or neither is.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

Re: No, I don't. Much in the same way CfAP isn't either.

[verytwistedmind]

I don't think the resolution of the picture (it's not poor enough to make it look non-offical) has any bearing on how it was used.

The fact that they used a PDF file (Portable Document Format) which could easily fall under the "other publication" since that is the purpose of PDF files, has more weight than my posting of the ICE webite denied pic. Mine is clearly a post of what the ICE link looks like. What they did is an attempt to look more offical. Why else would they use it like that?

Nice cherrypick.

[squidb0i]

The issue is not the resolution but the fact that this photo is not the presidential seal, it is a photo of the presidential seal.
Much in the same way that your screencap of several official government seals above is not those seals, but a screencap of the takedown notice.

It is not used in such a way that it can credibly be considered an attempt at appearing official, much in the same way that your screencap is not intended to appear official.

Both are fair use.

Therefore the whole thing is clearly a pathetic and transparent partisan attempt to harm CfAP.

I'd wager that if I cared enough to look into the matter I'd find Beck, Breitbart, or some other punditard behind the attempt.

Re: Nice cherrypick.

[verytwistedmind]

It is not used in such a way that it can credibly be considered an attempt at appearing official, much in the same way that your screencap is not intended to appear official.

How is putting the Seal (or the picture of it) on top of your reoport not an attempt to appear offical?

In fact, there is precedent for making the CfAp for removing the Seal from their PDF. in 2005 the Onion had to remove the Seal from their Parody's of the Presidential address.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion#U.S._Presidential_Seal_dispute

Re: Nice cherrypick.

[silver_chipmunk]

The photo even clearly bears the notice of copyright to AP. It's really pretty obvious it's not official.

Re: Nice cherrypick.

[gunslnger]

That's a CYA notice. I didn't see it when I looked at the document.

Re: Nice cherrypick.

[silver_chipmunk]

Oh please. It's a perfectly normal copyright notice, as prominent or not as any of them are. Your lack of observational skills is not their problem.

Re: Nice cherrypick.

[gunslnger]

Sure, but their attempting to make it look like an official document is their problem. As far as I can tell, they violate the cited law.

Re: Nice cherrypick.

[silver_chipmunk]

I don't see any attempt to make it look like an official document. There is no way that an official document would be topped with a closeup photo of a podium showing the presidential seal. if they had try sizing the photo to make it look like it was actually printed on the document, you might have something. But they didn't.

You keep saying it looks official, however the repetition does not make it so.

Re: Nice cherrypick.

[squidb0i]

DOES SO
DOES SO
DOES SO
DOES SO
DOES SO