4 ms·

I find it hilarious that they just committed copyright infringement. By default in the US this photograph should be the property of the photographer/photographe

I find it hilarious that they just committed copyright infringement. By default in the US this photograph should be the property of the photographer/photographed, in no way should the FBI have been using a photograph taken from the internet, they're the ones threatening the entire world with 1/2 million dollar fines for copyright infringement on every dvd released out of the US.

pmorici 17y ago
I don't understand all the commotion surrounding this story. I think this falls under fair use for one and secondly I don't see why everyone is making such a big deal about this. the only part of the picture that is the same is the guys hair other than that the two look completely different.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  Fair use? I didn't know the FBI was a news agency/student to which fair-use under the law is aimed. This was someones political photograph, that was used in a man's campaign to get into government, and now a very poorly modified photograph of him is on America's Most Wanted list. The issue here is that they used an upstanding citizen under the law to base this photograph off. They didn't bother to put in the effort, or even use another terrorist where a mistake would still have a somewhat positive effect. However, now this man's going to be tackled going through airport security because customs officials look at facial features all of which they stole from this poor fucking guy.
  - nollidge 17y ago
    all of which they stole from this poor fucking guy It's the same hair, and sort of the forehead, and that's about it. Complexion, nose, mouth, eyes, ears, and facial hair color are all different.
    - euccastro 17y ago
      It still looks more like Llamazares than like Bin Laden.
    - thiele 17y ago
      Agreed. I honestly see very little resemblance of the 'shop to Llamazares. I can't believe anybody even recognized his as one of the sourced pictures.
  - pmorici 17y ago
    sorry, your right, fair use is the wrong word for it, it's a derivative work, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work and since it is substantially different then the original also not copy right infringement.
mkyc 17y ago
The US government is allowed to exempt itself from intellectual property restrictions, especially in the interests of "national security".
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  I'm well aware of that, but I believe "national security" still doesn't cover sheer unadulterated laziness and incompetence . . . yet.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- ars 17y ago
  They are not allowed to exempt themself. What they are allowed to do is force a license. Meaning they will pay for the usage, at "reasonable and customary" rates, and you can't say no. I believe this applies mainly to patents. I have not heard of it being applied to copyright, but it's certainly possible.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

pmorici 17y ago

I don't understand all the commotion surrounding this story. I think this falls under fair use for one and secondly I don't see why everyone is making such a big deal about this. the only part of the picture that is the same is the guys hair other than that the two look completely different.

electromagnetic 17y ago
Fair use? I didn't know the FBI was a news agency/student to which fair-use under the law is aimed. This was someones political photograph, that was used in a man's campaign to get into government, and now a very poorly modified photograph of him is on America's Most Wanted list. The issue here is that they used an upstanding citizen under the law to base this photograph off. They didn't bother to put in the effort, or even use another terrorist where a mistake would still have a somewhat positive effect. However, now this man's going to be tackled going through airport security because customs officials look at facial features all of which they stole from this poor fucking guy.
- nollidge 17y ago
  all of which they stole from this poor fucking guy It's the same hair, and sort of the forehead, and that's about it. Complexion, nose, mouth, eyes, ears, and facial hair color are all different.
  - euccastro 17y ago
    It still looks more like Llamazares than like Bin Laden.
  - thiele 17y ago
    Agreed. I honestly see very little resemblance of the 'shop to Llamazares. I can't believe anybody even recognized his as one of the sourced pictures.
- pmorici 17y ago
  sorry, your right, fair use is the wrong word for it, it's a derivative work, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work and since it is substantially different then the original also not copy right infringement.

mkyc 17y ago

The US government is allowed to exempt itself from intellectual property restrictions, especially in the interests of "national security".

electromagnetic 17y ago
I'm well aware of that, but I believe "national security" still doesn't cover sheer unadulterated laziness and incompetence . . . yet.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
ars 17y ago
They are not allowed to exempt themself. What they are allowed to do is force a license. Meaning they will pay for the usage, at "reasonable and customary" rates, and you can't say no. I believe this applies mainly to patents. I have not heard of it being applied to copyright, but it's certainly possible.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]