General Discussion

Hissyspit

(45,790 posts)

52. I shouldn't have used a legalistic term. I just meant they were out in the public.

Thu Sep 4, 2014, 07:48 PM

Sep 2014

As I pointed out in another post, the point is that their demand that the artist release personal financial information is not an effective accusation of hypocrisy, because those things are not in the public.

Whatever legal recourse the celebrities have against the use of the images in art or satire or news, it is not equivalent to the point that poster was making.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton Nude Photos To Be Shown In Florida Art Exhibit (lifesized--on canvas) [View all] big_dog Sep 2014 OP

As part of the "Fear Google" lapfog_1 Sep 2014 #1

That stuff is not in the public domain. Hissyspit Sep 2014 #4

not if J-Law's ex boyfriend claims owernship of the pictures big_dog Sep 2014 #6

You don't understand IP law, do you? The photos were stolen. MohRokTah Sep 2014 #8

Yes, I understand that. Hissyspit Sep 2014 #11

Yes, it was equivalent. MohRokTah Sep 2014 #17

no, they aren't. lapfog_1 Sep 2014 #12

This message was self-deleted by its author big_dog Sep 2014 #20

TMI lapfog_1 Sep 2014 #23

the problem is that the context of the photos are totally missing in this story big_dog Sep 2014 #26

What the fuck? NuclearDem Sep 2014 #48

Pretty sure the "facial" pics Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2014 #54

The stars still own the copyright to their own pictures -- so no, it is not public domain pnwmom Sep 2014 #42

No. They're not. That's not how public domain works. NuclearDem Sep 2014 #51

I shouldn't have used a legalistic term. I just meant they were out in the public. Hissyspit Sep 2014 #52

I think public pressure might get that exhibit shut down Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #2

one phone call from Detroit Tiger hurler Justin Verlander would shut down 1/2 the exhibit big_dog Sep 2014 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author Laelth Sep 2014 #27

No, it's not. Hissyspit Sep 2014 #5

Yeah, it is. eom MohRokTah Sep 2014 #7

Yes, it is. NuclearDem Sep 2014 #49

We'll see Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #55

check your raincoat at the door policy big_dog Sep 2014 #61

Oh so WE weren't supposed to see them underpants Sep 2014 #9

their Facebook page if you care to comment Beaverhausen Sep 2014 #10

this will be global world wide news by the weekend big_dog Sep 2014 #14

Just to let everyone know, I don't care a flying fig Quantess Sep 2014 #13

i think J-Law wishes it was just about the boobies big_dog Sep 2014 #21

Sigh... My fault for posting at all. Quantess Sep 2014 #32

I know, right? cwydro Sep 2014 #47

ZOMG BOOBIES! nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #56

indeed. Marlene Dietrich once said hifiguy Sep 2014 #58

That is excellent. nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #60

Unless permission is granted from the victims. They are committing a crime still_one Sep 2014 #15

Surely they can get a court order to stop this? BainsBane Sep 2014 #16

This message was self-deleted by its author Laelth Sep 2014 #29

It is shameful that these photos are in the public AngryAmish Sep 2014 #35

there are films too apparently from what TMZ said big_dog Sep 2014 #57

I sincerely wish some artist would secretly follow "XVALA" and get the most revealing, unflattering KittyWampus Sep 2014 #18

Someone is angling for 15 minutes of fame. Or infamy. Whatever. -eom- HuckleB Sep 2014 #19

the problem is that this is bordering on infamy for J-Law too big_dog Sep 2014 #22

Ethics matter. So, exactly. HuckleB Sep 2014 #25

Infamy? AngryAmish Sep 2014 #37

New Laws Needed sub.theory Sep 2014 #24

CA's new "revenge porn" law is a start anyway. n/t nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #59

There are loopholes for artistic expression flamingdem Sep 2014 #34

Indeed there are. hifiguy Sep 2014 #36

Those loopholes don't allow a whole image to be appropriated. pnwmom Sep 2014 #43

Crazy thing is that if there's a lawsuit the artist flamingdem Sep 2014 #45

Yeah, I know what you mean. Artists suck. Hissyspit Sep 2014 #50

Artists don't suck flamingdem Sep 2014 #53

Googleheim is the new Guggenheim Blue Owl Sep 2014 #30

If there is a legal remedy hifiguy Sep 2014 #38

That's a few blocks from where I work...I wonder if people will see it? Sancho Sep 2014 #39

Will the exhibit be considered a "sex crime" phil89 Sep 2014 #40

While the law may be an ass hifiguy Sep 2014 #44

will not. they know it. C&D order = no prints. elehhhhna Sep 2014 #41

This is so much more than about Google or the failures of the cloud. alarimer Sep 2014 #46