4 ms·

I don't know how many times I've come across articles like this where the subject is an image or a video or some other media and yet the article doesn't actuall

by jmuguy 5y ago

I don't know how many times I've come across articles like this where the subject is an image or a video or some other media and yet the article doesn't actually contain it. This one is like an extreme version of that where they have quite a few nice illustrations... but not the actual poster.

rsynnott 5y ago
It's mentioned in the article that the artist has sued people over unauthorized use in the past, so maybe that worried their lawyers. Though you'd think they'd have a reasonable fair use case here.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Fair use is a defense. But if someone sues you, you still have the expense associated with going to court. Even if you win, you'll probably still be out thousands of dollars.
  - simias 5y ago
    In theory, would such such an article even qualify as "fair use" if it reproduced the original work in its entirety in a decent resolution?
    - ghaff 5y ago
      That would be for a judge to decide. Certainly one of the things that makes reproducing photos/artwork tricky is that you're reproducing the complete work. Fair use is rarely completely straightforward.
- hedora 5y ago
  I assumed they were subtly making fun of the editor and/or sponsors. Article summary: > Those other publications were unbelievably prudish for historically sexist reasons, and also due to hangups revolving around typical male insecurity. Fortunately, we’ve progressed beyond such things. Here it is in its full glory: [CENSORED] (Nice try. I don’t care how much you’ve bet in the office pool. No dick picks! — ed.)
macksd 5y ago
To be fair, I do find it infuriating when the news is basically outraged that someone did something offensive in the media, and then keep displaying shots and samples of it so you know what they're talking about. I remember a talk show host on Fox News going on and on about Janet Jackson's alleged wardrobe malfunction at the superbowl this way. I actually missed the incident during the superbowl, but boy did the people who were most outraged about it make sure it was shoved in my face.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by jmuguy 5y ago

rsynnott 5y ago

It's mentioned in the article that the artist has sued people over unauthorized use in the past, so maybe that worried their lawyers. Though you'd think they'd have a reasonable fair use case here.

ghaff 5y ago
Fair use is a defense. But if someone sues you, you still have the expense associated with going to court. Even if you win, you'll probably still be out thousands of dollars.
- simias 5y ago
  In theory, would such such an article even qualify as "fair use" if it reproduced the original work in its entirety in a decent resolution?
  - ghaff 5y ago
    That would be for a judge to decide. Certainly one of the things that makes reproducing photos/artwork tricky is that you're reproducing the complete work. Fair use is rarely completely straightforward.
hedora 5y ago
I assumed they were subtly making fun of the editor and/or sponsors. Article summary: > Those other publications were unbelievably prudish for historically sexist reasons, and also due to hangups revolving around typical male insecurity. Fortunately, we’ve progressed beyond such things. Here it is in its full glory: [CENSORED] (Nice try. I don’t care how much you’ve bet in the office pool. No dick picks! — ed.)

macksd 5y ago

To be fair, I do find it infuriating when the news is basically outraged that someone did something offensive in the media, and then keep displaying shots and samples of it so you know what they're talking about. I remember a talk show host on Fox News going on and on about Janet Jackson's alleged wardrobe malfunction at the superbowl this way. I actually missed the incident during the superbowl, but boy did the people who were most outraged about it make sure it was shoved in my face.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]