New topic
Printablepplrain said: ufoclub said: Have you not noticed that there are already a tons of orger photoshopped/animated parodies posted on this website throughout the years of existence and some are quite obscene, and they are hilarious, and no one is taking legal action? Just because they do it and don't get caught in a lawsuit does not make it legal. It is still copyrighted material..  Maybe you need to understand the definition of Parody... Photo-shopped copyrighted images are NOT considered "artwork" and so cannot be considered "parody".
Do you think someone can take one of Prince's songs and add something to it and remove other thing and call it their own "Parody"?  Please don't make me laugh!  Awkward sidestep there from the fact that orgers have made photo-shopped fun of each other. Don't be scared to admit you are naive.
there's parody and satire: PARODY: In contemporary usage, a Parody (or Lampoon) is a work that imitates another work in order to ridicule, ironically comment on, or poke some affectionate fun at the work itself, the subject of the work, the author or fictional voice of the parody, or another subject. As literary theorist Linda Hutcheon (2000: 7) puts it, "parody...is imitation with a critical difference, not always at the expense of the parodied text." Another critic, Simon Dentith (2000: 9), defines parody as "any cultural practice which provides a relatively polemical allusive imitation of another cultural production or practice." Parody exists in all art media, including literature, music, and cinema. Cultural movements can also be parodied. Light, playful parodies are sometimes colloquially referred to as spoofs. The act of such a parody is often called lampooning. Parody can occur when whole elements of one work are lifted out of their context and reused, not necessarily to be ridiculed. SATIRE is found in the graphic and performing arts as well as the printed word. In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour in itself so much as an often quite angry attack on something the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit. A very common, almost defining feature of satire is a strong vein of irony or sarcasm, but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. The essential point, however, is that "in satire, irony is militant"[2]. This "militant irony" (or sarcasm) often professes to approve the very things the satirist actually wishes to attack. Because satire often combines anger and humour it can be profoundly disturbing - because it is essentially ironic or sarcastic, it is often misunderstood. Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of poor taste, or that it's "just not funny" for instance), to the idea that the satirist actually does support the ideas, policies, or people he is attacking. For instance, at the time of its publication, many people misunderstood Swift’s purpose in "A Modest Proposal" – assuming it to be a serious recommendation of economically-motivated cannibalism. Again, some critics of Mark Twain see Huckleberry Finn as racist and offensive, missing the point that its author clearly intended it to be satire (racism being in fact only one of a number of Mark Twain's known pet bugbears attacked in Huckleberry Finn). _____ You seem very sheltered and unaware of what defines art, especially modern and post-modern. Also, art exists above the law and always will. Just look at illegal graffiti art. People made up laws and people can throw out the law. It happens throughout history and in the news daily. In the end, a growing majority force will always revolutionize and overthrow the old outdated ethics. Have you gone into a museum of art lately? there are tons of registered copyrighted material used in modern art. I just saw an exhibit from Japan at the museum of fine art here, and there were bits of sampled video from the movie "Caveman" in one of the pieces. This same movie is showing on American cable tv last week. I think you are very naive in thinking that "the law" is a reality that cannot be disregarded or completely thrown out the door by will, force, and unfortunately, violence. Have you noticed that Prince has used copyrighted materials in his own albums, concerts, and broadcasts? Everything from sampled beats, to the image of that actress from Sanford and Son, to the the famous 5 note tones from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
SexyBeautifulOne said: pplrain said: Sorry I don't have time to teach you English  I'd rather you keep trying to teach me about the Law!  Can't do that either now  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
pplrain said: roodboi said: @ some of the folks on this thread....
I bet if Britney Spears started suing over all the photoshopping thats happened to her ass lately, all these folks wouldn't support her cause... 
cream72 said: most orgers who have been here for any length of time have fallen victim to photoshop...and I've never seen anyone complain, much like ufo club said... ofcourse, most orgers aren't financially secure, world renowned superstars with careers that would hardly be affected by a run of the mill photoshop job...  If they track you down to the photoshopped images (which is not difficult) and the courts find that you caused damage to their image....they have the money to pursue a legal case against you, you will be putting up all your finances to fight them. You will go to court and will have to be paying lawsuit bills for the rest of your life. So why even risk it?? you assume alot in that statement and obviously didn't understand the sarcasm in the statement you highlighted... 
since all this assumption is going on, why not produce some info on courts finding that anyones image was damaged by a photoshoped photograph and thus awarding them damages... it's laughable at best... by the way, the nimrod attorney that would decide to pursue this kind of frivolous charge should be sure to tell his client that he's the one thats gonna be paying legal bills for awhile...courts dont take kindly to their time being wasted on shady lawsuits and are quick to make the ones responsible for bringing such lawsuits repsonsible for paying ALL legal fees and court costs.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ufoclub said: pplrain said: Just because they do it and don't get caught in a lawsuit does not make it legal. It is still copyrighted material.. Maybe you need to understand the definition of Parody... Photo-shopped copyrighted images are NOT considered "artwork" and so cannot be considered "parody".
Do you think someone can take one of Prince's songs and add something to it and remove other thing and call it their own "Parody"? Please don't make me laugh! Awkward sidestep there from the fact that orgers have made photo-shopped fun of each other. Don't be scared to admit you are naive.
there's parody and satire: PARODY: In contemporary usage, a Parody (or Lampoon) is a work that imitates another work in order to ridicule, ironically comment on, or poke some affectionate fun at the work itself, the subject of the work, the author or fictional voice of the parody, or another subject. As literary theorist Linda Hutcheon (2000: 7) puts it, "parody...is imitation with a critical difference, not always at the expense of the parodied text." Another critic, Simon Dentith (2000: 9), defines parody as "any cultural practice which provides a relatively polemical allusive imitation of another cultural production or practice." Parody exists in all art media, including literature, music, and cinema. Cultural movements can also be parodied. Light, playful parodies are sometimes colloquially referred to as spoofs. The act of such a parody is often called lampooning. Parody can occur when whole elements of one work are lifted out of their context and reused, not necessarily to be ridiculed. SATIRE is found in the graphic and performing arts as well as the printed word. In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour in itself so much as an often quite angry attack on something the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit. A very common, almost defining feature of satire is a strong vein of irony or sarcasm, but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. The essential point, however, is that "in satire, irony is militant"[2]. This "militant irony" (or sarcasm) often professes to approve the very things the satirist actually wishes to attack. Because satire often combines anger and humour it can be profoundly disturbing - because it is essentially ironic or sarcastic, it is often misunderstood. Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of poor taste, or that it's "just not funny" for instance), to the idea that the satirist actually does support the ideas, policies, or people he is attacking. For instance, at the time of its publication, many people misunderstood Swift’s purpose in "A Modest Proposal" – assuming it to be a serious recommendation of economically-motivated cannibalism. Again, some critics of Mark Twain see Huckleberry Finn as racist and offensive, missing the point that its author clearly intended it to be satire (racism being in fact only one of a number of Mark Twain's known pet bugbears attacked in Huckleberry Finn). _____ You seem very sheltered and unaware of what defines art, especially modern and post-modern. Also, art exists above the law and always will. Just look at illegal graffiti art. People made up laws and people can throw out the law. It happens throughout history and in the news daily. In the end, a growing majority force will always revolutionize and overthrow the old outdated ethics. Have you gone into a museum of art lately? there are tons of registered copyrighted material used in modern art. I just saw an exhibit from Japan at the museum of fine art here, and there were bits of sampled video from the movie "Caveman" in one of the pieces. This same movie is showing on American cable tv last week. I think you are very naive in thinking that "the law" is a reality that cannot be disregarded or completely thrown out the door by will, force, and unfortunately, violence. Have you noticed that Prince has used copyrighted materials in his own albums, concerts, and broadcasts? Everything from sampled beats, to the image of that actress from Sanford and Son, to the the famous 5 note tones from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. seriously | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
pplrain said: seriously 
 My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
pplrain said: already read that! "Many people think that should change" is the only part of that article that is progressive. My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
pplrain said: Uhh Pplrain... The article you posted said: Although the notifications do not fall under UK legal jurisdiction, Web Sheriff, which issued the DMCAs on behalf of Prince's lawyers, claimed that the individuals could be sued in a US court if they failed to respond to the take-down request.
Since they're trying to claim they can sue them in US court...the US Laws would most certainly apply...PARODIES (yes those were parodies) of copywritten work are protected by the right of Fair Use as defined by 9 Justices on the US Supreme Court in 1994 thanks to Luther Campbell of the 2 Live Crew!!! I think I'll play "Pop That Coochie" and "Me So Horny" in his honor!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SexyBeautifulOne said: cream72 said: I seen some of the images on their where some could be seen as funny their was one in particular of a Lazy Town Character (which is a childrens program) called Stephanie now this girl actor is only about 13, anyway they added prince's image and made it animated as so prince was performing a sex act on her.
To me this was vulgar and the poster who posted it must of been Perverted in the first place to even do it, Im glad Princes team has done something right in this instance. I thought the one of him in the hospital witnessing the birth of his son was WRONG as hell BUT the rest weren't! They were funny as hell. They made me laugh harder than I've laughed in years! Why penalize everything because of one or two things? That is censorship!!! Totally unacceptable and inexcusable!! If the laws of the land penalized everyone based on the actions of one or two...none of us would be free! If the entertainment industry had adopted this stance, there'd have been no other musical artists after Prince did "Dirty Mind"! He's a hypercritical disappointment, plain and simple!! I'm sure if we took a poll of the people that listened to music back then, there were many who were offended by "Head" and "Sister"!!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Just putting up the article for your consideration, so we have it on file here
B3ta served DMCA notice for Photoshop Prince challenge Satire to you, multiple copyright infringements to us By Kelly Fiveash → More by this authorPublished Wednesday 14th November 2007 22:51 GMTDownload free whitepaper - Building a Virtual Infrastructure from Servers to Storage Lawyers acting on behalf of Prince have sent out a flurry of US copyright infringement notifications to individual members of a popular UK website which encourages its community to create satirical images of well-known stars. A number of users of b3ta.com have been slapped with DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) notifications after posting images that poke fun at the pint-sized popstar's ongoing crusade to rid the internet of unauthorised Prince material. B3ta co-founder Rob Manuel told The Register that he was "surprised Prince's lawyers had bitten". But the legal cudgels worked. In a posting on the site today, Manuel wrote. Under threat of legal action from Princes legal team of "potential closure of your web site" - We have removed the Prince image challenge and B3ta apologises unreservedly to AEG / NPG and Prince for any offence caused. We also ask our members to avoid photoshoping Prince and posting them on our boards. Users of the website had overwhelmingly voted for Prince as their "image challenge of the week" in response to his legal attempts to take down unauthorised fan sites. The DMCA notifications claim that B3ta had infringed multiple copyright (pirate, unauthorised and libellous) owned by Prince, his record label NPG and entertainment group AEG. But Manuel argued that the legal noise being made by Prince against his fans was counterproductive. He said: "It's what often happens online - web censorship blows up in the censor's face." Although the notifications do not fall under UK legal jurisdiction, Web Sheriff, which issued the DMCAs on behalf of Prince's lawyers, claimed that the individuals could be sued in a US court if they failed to respond to the take-down request. Indeed, Kim Walker, intellectual property head at law firm Pinsent Masons pointed out that while the DMCA itself could not be enforced in a British court, the claim itself still carried water. He said: "The copyright laws in the UK are pretty strict. Many people assume that images can be used for parody or satire, but that's not the case. "While the UK has a concept of 'fair dealing', it stops short of authorising parody and satire. Many people think that should change - but that's the way it is for now." Web Sheriff's John Gaicobbi told El Reg that B3ta and its users had overstepped the mark. He said: "I don't think the people who posted them would like to be on receiving end of that kind of treatment. "There's poking fun and there's poking fun and people are clearly taking it too far and crossing over the boundaries of what is acceptable." In recent months Prince has stomped on Pirate Bay, an 18-month-old baby having a boogie to one of his songs on YouTube and three of his most popular unauthorised fan websites. ® | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ufoclub said: pplrain said: already read that! "Many people think that should change" is the only part of that article that is progressive. The internet laws will definitely change... it is a free for all bashing right now. Believe me they will become more defined and more restrictive. [Edited 11/16/07 12:32pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SexyBeautifulOne said: pplrain said: Uhh Pplrain... The article you posted said: Although the notifications do not fall under UK legal jurisdiction, Web Sheriff, which issued the DMCAs on behalf of Prince's lawyers, claimed that the individuals could be sued in a US court if they failed to respond to the take-down request.
Since they're trying to claim they can sue them in US court...the US Laws would most certainly apply...PARODIES (yes those were parodies) of copywritten work are protected by the right of Fair Use as defined by 9 Justices on the US Supreme Court in 1994 thanks to Luther Campbell of the 2 Live Crew!!! I think I'll play "Pop That Coochie" and "Me So Horny" in his honor!! Parody and Satire when in relation to copyrighted images are examined by the courts on an individual basis to see if they QUALIFY as Parody / Satire. I think you need to also read Adobe Photoshop's agreement with its users. The pictures in question on B3TA Image Challenge would definitely not fall under Parody or Satire. Even an idiot will tell you that. I am not saying you cannot criticize someone's work... but this was not a criticism of Prince's work. Check out how SNL or Wierd Al does Parody / Satire and compare them. Very different. [Edited 11/16/07 12:42pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
pplrain said: SexyBeautifulOne said: Since they're trying to claim they can sue them in US court...the US Laws would most certainly apply...PARODIES (yes those were parodies) of copywritten work are protected by the right of Fair Use as defined by 9 Justices on the US Supreme Court in 1994 thanks to Luther Campbell of the 2 Live Crew!!! I think I'll play "Pop That Coochie" and "Me So Horny" in his honor!! Parody and Satire when in relation to copyrighted images are examined by the courts on an individual basis to see if they QUALIFY as Parody / Satire. I think you need to also read Adobe Photoshop's agreement with its users. The pictures in question on B3TA Image Challenge would definitely not fall under Parody or Satire. Even an idiot will tell you that. I am not saying you cannot criticize someone's work... but this was not a criticism of Prince's work. Check out how SNL or Wierd Al does Parody / Satire and compare them. Very different. [Edited 11/16/07 12:42pm] Umm...you've been the ONLY one telling me that...so that says what? We'll see when the EFF get involved, who was right!  [Edited 11/16/07 13:20pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
pplrain said: .
I think you need to also read Adobe Photoshop's agreement with its users.
you know aint nobody got a legal/paid for version of Photoshop, let alone a copy of the terms for use agreement... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
roodboi said: pplrain said: .
I think you need to also read Adobe Photoshop's agreement with its users.
you know aint nobody got a legal/paid for version of Photoshop, let alone a copy of the terms for use agreement... 
LOL!! AAAARRRRHHHHH!!!!!HUHUHUHHUHUHUHHUHUHUHHUHUHUH!! OK that was supposed to be my best Prince impression - of his laugh!! Yeah even if you get an "illegal" Photoshop download or a "legal" Photoshop Program you CANNOT bypass the agreement... (that is the page on which the option "I AGREE" OR "FCUK U" is) If you choose FCUK U, you don't get the program. That's what the agreement is there for [Edited 11/16/07 14:40pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
this thread is like watching a madman swim upstream. Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
pplrain said: roodboi said:
you know aint nobody got a legal/paid for version of Photoshop, let alone a copy of the terms for use agreement...
LOL!! AAAARRRRHHHHH!!!!!HUHUHUHHUHUHUHHUHUHUHHUHUHUH!! OK that was supposed to be my best Prince impression - of his laugh!! Yeah even if you get an "illegal" Photoshop download or a "legal" Photoshop Program you CANNOT bypass the agreement... (that is the page on which the option "I AGREE" OR "FCUK U" is) If you choose FCUK U, you don't get the program. That's what the agreement is there for
[Edited 11/16/07 14:40pm]
What does Adobe's License of the software have to do with any of what we're talking about? That license and copyright info pertains to the copying and distribution of the software itself. It has nothing whatsoever to do with images you create with it! You are seriously grasping at straws!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SexyBeautifulOne said: pplrain said:
LOL!! AAAARRRRHHHHH!!!!!HUHUHUHHUHUHUHHUHUHUHHUHUHUH!! OK that was supposed to be my best Prince impression - of his laugh!! Yeah even if you get an "illegal" Photoshop download or a "legal" Photoshop Program you CANNOT bypass the agreement... (that is the page on which the option "I AGREE" OR "FCUK U" is) If you choose FCUK U, you don't get the program. That's what the agreement is there for
[Edited 11/16/07 14:40pm]
What does Adobe's License of the software have to do with any of what we're talking about? That license and copyright info pertains to the copying and distribution of the software itself. It has nothing whatsoever to do with images you create with it! You are seriously grasping at straws! Perhaps you do need to read their agreement... LOL! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
pplrain said: SexyBeautifulOne said:
What does Adobe's License of the software have to do with any of what we're talking about? That license and copyright info pertains to the copying and distribution of the software itself. It has nothing whatsoever to do with images you create with it! You are seriously grasping at straws! Perhaps you do need to read their agreement... LOL!I just did, cause you had me thinking I missed something! It's available at adobe.com. You read it! [Edited 11/16/07 14:52pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I read the photoshop agreement... and it is clearly there that they DO NOT want you using their software on Copyrighted photographs/artwork.
Since I am a designer and work with Photoshop daily and I am quite aware of copyright...I just wanted to answer your ques... if you still don't get it. I am sorry. Just trying to help... This is a great analogy: In NY state it is against the law to talk on the phone and drive. Can people do it, sure they can, they do it and sometimes get away with it. But, if the cop sees you doing it and pulls you over for it... you better cough up the $150 or try to defend yourself in court.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
highlights from pplrain's discussion with the emoticons spelled out:
about B3TA: "He should have rammed them for that stunt... Princey is too nice.. sigh" "There is a difference between parody and downright humiliation. mad" "The internet to me is akin to lawless Afghanistan or Iraq. It is out of control. sad" "Prince’s image is copyrighted." "The photographs used were photo-shopped (illegal), not promoting science or arts and so NOT “fair use”. "They were disparaging, humiliating, damaging to Prince’s public profile (of which he derives income, boy can I go on and on here) etc." "next time Prince should sue the shit out of them, I would be all for it... lol" "Just because they do it and don't get caught in a lawsuit does not make it legal. It is still copyrighted material.. lol Maybe you need to understand the definition of Parody... Photo-shopped copyrighted images are NOT considered "artwork" and so cannot be considered "parody". Do you think someone can take one of Prince's songs and add something to it and remove other thing and call it their own "Parody"? err Please don't make me laugh! confused" and on the facts that Prince himself cannibalizes regardless of copyright and gains profit from it without paying a cent: "timeout seriously lol" My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ufoclub said: highlights from pplrain's discussion with the emoticons spelled out:
about B3TA: "He should have rammed them for that stunt... Princey is too nice.. sigh" "There is a difference between parody and downright humiliation. mad" "The internet to me is akin to lawless Afghanistan or Iraq. It is out of control. sad" "Prince’s image is copyrighted." "The photographs used were photo-shopped (illegal), not promoting science or arts and so NOT “fair use”. "They were disparaging, humiliating, damaging to Prince’s public profile (of which he derives income, boy can I go on and on here) etc." "next time Prince should sue the shit out of them, I would be all for it... lol" "Just because they do it and don't get caught in a lawsuit does not make it legal. It is still copyrighted material.. lol Maybe you need to understand the definition of Parody... Photo-shopped copyrighted images are NOT considered "artwork" and so cannot be considered "parody". Do you think someone can take one of Prince's songs and add something to it and remove other thing and call it their own "Parody"? err Please don't make me laugh! confused" and on the facts that Prince himself cannibalizes regardless of copyright and gains profit from it without paying a cent: "timeout seriously lol" I have NOT said the bold... So, what is your point???? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
pplrain said: I read the photoshop agreement... and it is clearly there that they DO NOT want you using their software on Copyrighted photographs/artwork.
Since I am a designer and work with Photoshop daily and I am quite aware of copyright...I just wanted to answer your ques... if you still don't get it. I am sorry. Just trying to help... This is a great analogy: In NY state it is against the law to talk on the phone and drive. Can people do it, sure they can, they do it and sometimes get away with it. But, if the cop sees you doing it and pulls you over for it... you better cough up the $150 or try to defend yourself in court. I use Photoshop daily also and I am quite aware that the license doesn't come up every time you use it so what does that have to do with this conversation? Their license does not state that you can't use the software on copyrighted images! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sure you did:
pplrain said: ufoclub said: Have you noticed that Prince has used copyrighted materials in his own albums, concerts, and broadcasts? Everything from sampled beats, to the image of that actress from Sanford and Son, to the the famous 5 note tones from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. seriously Of course you won't be able to see the point, but hopefully other people might! My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ufoclub said: sure you did:
pplrain said: seriously Of course you won't be able to see the point, but hopefully other people might! LOL! I did not read your post... OK, so just because Prince jumps in the well.. must you follow?? My posts have nothing to do with Prince's defence I am just stating laws on copyright as the go with copyright images... in layman's terms as I am not a lawyer.. [Edited 11/16/07 15:54pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ufoclub said: sure you did:
pplrain said: seriously Of course you won't be able to see the point, but hopefully other people might! Yeah, we do! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
oh wait, I meant... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SexyBeautifulOne said: pplrain said: I read the photoshop agreement... and it is clearly there that they DO NOT want you using their software on Copyrighted photographs/artwork.
Since I am a designer and work with Photoshop daily and I am quite aware of copyright...I just wanted to answer your ques... if you still don't get it. I am sorry. Just trying to help... This is a great analogy: In NY state it is against the law to talk on the phone and drive. Can people do it, sure they can, they do it and sometimes get away with it. But, if the cop sees you doing it and pulls you over for it... you better cough up the $150 or try to defend yourself in court. I use Photoshop daily also and I am quite aware that the license doesn't come up every time you use it so what does that have to do with this conversation? Their license does not state that you can't use the software on copyrighted images! NO Shit! it does not have to.
Your second point... you need to re-read the agreement. Another thing... there are several programs to change pictures not just Photoshop, but we will just use Photoshop since it is the most used. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
pplrain said: SexyBeautifulOne said: I use Photoshop daily also and I am quite aware that the license doesn't come up every time you use it so what does that have to do with this conversation? Their license does not state that you can't use the software on copyrighted images! NO Shit! it does not have to.
Your second point... you need to re-read the agreement. Another thing... there are several programs to change pictures not just Photoshop, but we will just use Photoshop since it is the most used. I've read it and re-read it and the copyright notice in the license agreement applies to the software itself NOT what you use the software on. When you agree to it, you are agreeing that you and you alone are assuming all responsibilities for what you do with it. So if you use it on copyrighted images, that's the chance you take, Adobe will not be held responsible for your actions. It does not state that you can not use it on copyrighted images, period! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SquirrelMeat said: pplrain said: The internet to me is akin to lawless Afghanistan or Iraq. 
Because the US have lost control of both? Top reply Squirrel  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |