5 ms·

I realize that HN leans far to the edge on this issue, but this really is over-the-top copyright infringement. The whole thing, in its entirety, with not even a

by tacos 11y ago

I realize that HN leans far to the edge on this issue, but this really is over-the-top copyright infringement. The whole thing, in its entirety, with not even an attempt at commentary? I'm reminded of the time a Spike Lee documentary was on HBO. The Boing Boing lunatics were outraged that it wasn't available online, so they published 18 links to YouTube (videos were then limited to ten minutes in length). I doubt anyone even made it to part #6 of 18 before the whole thing got taken down. Likewise I'm sure they think they invited HBO GO and Hulu as a result of their radical, innovative behavior. It was not. And they did not. The post is cool, the art is super cool... and Facebook couldn't be a dumber place to put it.

kbenson 11y ago
I understand you have a point you want to make but... do you actually know anything one way or the other whether it's actually copyright infringement? It's posted in a José Luis García-López fan club, and he's an artist that has had a long running relationship with DC Comics. It's entirely plausible that it was posted with permission. Why are you jumping to the assumption that it's copyright infringement?
- sp332 11y ago
  He also has the #3 comment on the page and doesn't seem to see anything wrong with it.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
    Morally, what is wrong with this? It's not costing anyone any money, not even in the theoretical sense. It's not exposing any trade secrets.
- tacos 11y ago
  If you think the artist has rights to a book with a Warner Bros logo on the side -- well, as an artist myself I sure wish I lived in your reality. OF COURSE he doesn't have a problem with it. It benefits him. That's not the issue here at all. Once this hits Reddit I'm pretty sure it won't be on Facebook for much longer.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    I'm not sure what you're responding to, because your comment is a non-sequitur. I didn't say it was posted because José Luis García-López gave permission, I noted that he had a relationship with DC, and it was possible it was posted with permission, and by that I meant permission from the rights holder. Additionally, if he drew much or all of the book, which I have no information on, who is to say he did not retain some rights to use those images? There are scenarios where this is not an illegal act, just as there are scenarios where it is. Again, do you have any actual info on this situation, or are you just making assumptions and getting worked up without any?
    - tacos 11y ago
      Do you have any reason to believe it was posted with permission? I worked in Hollywood and cashed checks from Warner Bros. If you think an illustrator retained rights to anything done for them in the 80s -- again, I'd love to live in your world. My points are simple: 1) him posting it wholesale in its entirety isn't brilliant 2) posting it on Facebook as part of a business page is even less brilliant and 3) somebody else linking to it prominently from HN isn't brilliant either. These are all "shades of grey" arguments/observations around how copyright plays out in the current culture. It's always demoralizing being the grownup in the room around IP issues but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop gently ringing the bell.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        > Do you have any reason to believe it was posted with permission? I'm not making public assertions it was posted with permission, unlike you, who publicly asserted it "this really is over-the-top copyright infringement". If you are going to make factual statements about the legality of an action without supplying evidence, nor even making the unsupported claim that you know more about what's going on that what's available publicly, expect to be called out. > My points are simple: It was simple, but you've conveniently left out that you stated simply and clearly that this is copyright infringement. If you had simply said "this looks like copyright infringement, and if so it's fairly stupid to do it like this because..." then there wouldn't be a problem. I would agree with you, for that matter. As much as you might want to cast this as some anti-copyright vs copyright debate, it's not. It's purely about your unsupported statements and tone. I doubt anyone would have cared to downvote you had you actually backed up your statements (and to be clear, I haven't downvoted a single comment of yours, I prefer to engage).
NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
> but this really is over-the-top copyright infringement Oh no! They're losing money now that people don't have to buy it! Won't someone think of the poor, starving Time Warner?
mixmastamyk 11y ago
Snooze, this attitude is such poor business sense, and sadly uncommon. The post, which I would have never seen otherwise got me excited about DC comics, including the new movie coming out, at a cost of 0.0 dollars. Threats of legal action against fans, produce the exact opposite effect. Companies that understand the realities of the current century will survive.

by tacos 11y ago

kbenson 11y ago

I understand you have a point you want to make but... do you actually know anything one way or the other whether it's actually copyright infringement? It's posted in a José Luis García-López fan club, and he's an artist that has had a long running relationship with DC Comics. It's entirely plausible that it was posted with permission. Why are you jumping to the assumption that it's copyright infringement?

sp332 11y ago
He also has the #3 comment on the page and doesn't seem to see anything wrong with it.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
  Morally, what is wrong with this? It's not costing anyone any money, not even in the theoretical sense. It's not exposing any trade secrets.
tacos 11y ago
If you think the artist has rights to a book with a Warner Bros logo on the side -- well, as an artist myself I sure wish I lived in your reality. OF COURSE he doesn't have a problem with it. It benefits him. That's not the issue here at all. Once this hits Reddit I'm pretty sure it won't be on Facebook for much longer.
- kbenson 11y ago
  I'm not sure what you're responding to, because your comment is a non-sequitur. I didn't say it was posted because José Luis García-López gave permission, I noted that he had a relationship with DC, and it was possible it was posted with permission, and by that I meant permission from the rights holder. Additionally, if he drew much or all of the book, which I have no information on, who is to say he did not retain some rights to use those images? There are scenarios where this is not an illegal act, just as there are scenarios where it is. Again, do you have any actual info on this situation, or are you just making assumptions and getting worked up without any?
  - tacos 11y ago
    Do you have any reason to believe it was posted with permission? I worked in Hollywood and cashed checks from Warner Bros. If you think an illustrator retained rights to anything done for them in the 80s -- again, I'd love to live in your world. My points are simple: 1) him posting it wholesale in its entirety isn't brilliant 2) posting it on Facebook as part of a business page is even less brilliant and 3) somebody else linking to it prominently from HN isn't brilliant either. These are all "shades of grey" arguments/observations around how copyright plays out in the current culture. It's always demoralizing being the grownup in the room around IP issues but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop gently ringing the bell.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      > Do you have any reason to believe it was posted with permission? I'm not making public assertions it was posted with permission, unlike you, who publicly asserted it "this really is over-the-top copyright infringement". If you are going to make factual statements about the legality of an action without supplying evidence, nor even making the unsupported claim that you know more about what's going on that what's available publicly, expect to be called out. > My points are simple: It was simple, but you've conveniently left out that you stated simply and clearly that this is copyright infringement. If you had simply said "this looks like copyright infringement, and if so it's fairly stupid to do it like this because..." then there wouldn't be a problem. I would agree with you, for that matter. As much as you might want to cast this as some anti-copyright vs copyright debate, it's not. It's purely about your unsupported statements and tone. I doubt anyone would have cared to downvote you had you actually backed up your statements (and to be clear, I haven't downvoted a single comment of yours, I prefer to engage).

NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago

> but this really is over-the-top copyright infringement Oh no! They're losing money now that people don't have to buy it! Won't someone think of the poor, starving Time Warner?

mixmastamyk 11y ago

Snooze, this attitude is such poor business sense, and sadly uncommon. The post, which I would have never seen otherwise got me excited about DC comics, including the new movie coming out, at a cost of 0.0 dollars. Threats of legal action against fans, produce the exact opposite effect. Companies that understand the realities of the current century will survive.