Bustin' on the Jesus Freaks...

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by JohnT
Fair use does not allow you to take a drawn image and scan it, then post it on a web site. That is a violation of the creator's right to reproduce. Nor does it allow you to create an image of another's copyrighted character for "public use." That is a violation of their right of derivative work.

Neither can you make a scan of an image (or large excerpt from a literary work) for use as advertising - this violates at least 3 of the creator's rights. Unless you are using it in an educational or journalistic manner...

Does this mean I can report anyone here on Apolyton who has a copywrited image for their avatar to the respective companies, seeing as how it can be argued that their posting could not be considered 'educational or journalistic'. (not that I am singling anyone out)

Just curious...

[chequita guevara]

Yes.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Theben
Attacking religionistas is a leftist action.

I suppose it depends on the brand of religionist being attacked. F'rinstance, despite having attacked the Jews, I wouldn't consider Hitler to be much of a leftist.

OMGWTF I've just Godwinized this thread!1!!!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Asher
If you're going to rat someone/something out, it needs to be part of a larger scheme of things.

For example, if there's a guy at school who is competition for some girl/guy you like...you give him a bottle of vodka, put it in his backpack, then rat him out. He was trying to sell that Vodka to other kids.

Eh, I agree - given time & desire I'm sure I could've come up with a more... subtle... solution.

But sometimes the bludgeon works just as well.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Spiffor
JohnT

That's pathetic. You're throwing these people in a judiciary hell, simply because that's how you get your kicks. You suck

No, Spiff, they're the ones who have done it to themselves. It's not as if they don't have some creative talent on staff - this page shows that they are capable of creating their own original logos and designs w/o having to resort to stealing or breaking the law. The copyright notice at the bottom shows that they are aware of the benefits and legalities of copyright protection: again, they've might have received permission. Who knows other than the church and Disney/Pixar?

[JohnT]

Loin: Thanks for bringing Hitler into the discussion.

Next thing you know, people will start claiming it's Bush's fault.

[aneeshm]

Disney will never openly go against a Church/religious organisation . It would hurt their image far more than the good it does . America is a Christain nation , after all .

Of course , nothing stops their legal team from harassing the Church .

[Wiglaf]

This is really boring.

1st, not a cult. 2nd, the brand name hasn't been altered in any way. Chances are it was sold that way with permission from the copyright owners of Spbob.

My point is that John is only upset because Christians (who he calls cultists) tried to influence his daughter with a familiar brand. He makes the point that they are infringing on copyright so that he can go after them for that influence. But there's nothing to stop those same Christians from wearing legit kids shirts and pants and everything while also holding a life-size cross on their backs. Wouldn't that have the same horrible ramifications for his daughter?

Yes, but he'd have no recourse, because property rights are designed to protect the company, which is in no significant way harmed by any of the behavior in this thread. If people are too stupid to see the difference on a large scale, then there might be a problem.

And it's that people are stupid.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Disney will never openly go against a Church/religious organisation . It would hurt their image far more than the good it does . America is a Christain nation , after all .

Of course , nothing stops their legal team from harassing the Church .

Not to be rude or anything, but you're wrong. Remember this is the company that had Pat Robertson frothing at the mouth, literally stating that natural disasters will hit Orlando because Disney wouldn't forbid Gay Day at Disneyworld. You can see his actual pronouncement here.

Also, as mentioned above, Disney provides health, etc. benefits to same-sex partners.

[lord of the mark]

Someone keep John T away from my shul - he might report that we once did a Star Wars themed Purim, or that the rabbi sometimes quotes rock lyrics out of context to give them a spiritual twist. Maybe he'll call Major League Baseball about the time the rabbi compared Sammy Sosa to Rabbi Akiva (this was before the scandals, of course - "put not thy trust in princes...")

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by JohnT


Not to be rude or anything, but you're wrong. Remember this is the company that had Pat Robertson frothing at the mouth, literally stating that natural disasters will hit Orlando because Disney wouldn't forbid Gay Day at Disneyworld. You can see his actual pronouncement here.

Also, as mentioned above, Disney provides health, etc. benefits to same-sex partners.

Pardon, but do you really think providing health benefits to same sex partners is the same as suing some church group over (trivial) IP violations? Has it occured to you that Disney just might be providing the health benefits to show compassion to gay people, or even, G-d save the mark, to attract employees in a competitive marketplace, rather than as some kind of deliberate assault on the sensibilities of some christian churches?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
JohnT is a ****ing narc...

[lord of the mark]

oh, and john, PUHLEEZE dont report the Chabad song "popeye the kosher menstsh"

"i like to say kiddush - because i am yiddish"

and dont tell disney in particular about

"It’s a camp of laughter, a camp of fun.
For me, Gan Yisroel is the only one.
It’s a camp for me,
It’s a camp for you!
It’s a camp for every Jew.
It’s a great camp after all,
We will miss you in the fall.
It’s a great camp after all,
Our camp is Gan Yisroel!"

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Someone keep John T away from my shul - he might report that we once did a Star Wars themed Purim, or that the rabbi sometimes quotes rock lyrics out of context to give them a spiritual twist. Maybe he'll call Major League Baseball about the time the rabbi compared Sammy Sosa to Rabbi Akiva (this was before the scandals, of course - "put not thy trust in princes...")

You evil theiving bastard! I can't wait to see Lucus come and sue your shul you evil bastard. How dare you promote something as filthy as religion - any religion. You and your kind should be stamped out.

I hope benevolent multi-national corporations can save us from the horror that is spiritual faith.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
This is really boring.

My point is that John is only upset because Christians (who he calls cultists) tried to influence his daughter with a familiar brand. He makes the point that they are infringing on copyright so that he can go after them for that influence. But there's nothing to stop those same Christians from wearing legit kids shirts and pants and everything while also holding a life-size cross on their backs. Wouldn't that have the same horrible ramifications for his daughter?

1. You are not me. My motivations are my own, regardless of what you might interpret from the OP. I didn't mention my daughter in the OP because of the particular audience I'm speaking to - if I were at the SDMB, for example, the OP would likely be different as the audience composition is different. (More adults with children at the SDMB is one obvious example.)

2. To answer your question, no, it would not. Sophie recognizes and is attracted to "The Incredibles." People using that specific imagery to attract children to their pet causes know exactly what they're doing - else why not come up with their own cartoons?

3. That should read "a familiar, stolen, brand."

Please note that we named the child "Sophia", which means "wisdom" in the original Greek. This wasn't done by mistake - we wanted a common first name, not Christian, that meant something that was important to us. If we wanted to help her be susceptable to supernatural bull****, we would've called her "Mysticia" or something.

We didn't fully escape the Christian heritage in her middle name, "Caroline", which to many people refers to carols. However, we found references to old-English definitions of "Caroline" as "joyful song", which to us was perfect: Wisdom, joy, and music is the foundation of our childs name, not gullibility, backwardness, and mysticism.