Return to Main Discussion Page

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions

 
 

Robert Kernodle

1 Year Ago

Part Iii - Copyright - Still Looking For Jesus

DISCLAIMER: Still NOT a religious discussion, ... NOT a religious debate, ... NOT a religious flame-war thread. This is a copyright discussion. Enter at your own risk.

The accompanying image is a derivative work, produced under the following licenses:

(1) Flourish Digital Art by Dan Turner [primary background]
The Turner, Non-Attribution, Creative Common Thievery, Do-What-You-Will-With-It License (^_^), as stated in:

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=847550

09-06-2012
"John, if you or anyone else wants to do some transformative, derivative thing, be my guest! Be inspired and do your best work. I can't wait to see it."

(2) Saltwater Crocodile by Vassil [eye]

Creative Commons License
[Translated from the French]
"I, the copyright holder of this work, place it in the public domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be possible. In this case, I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, except as required by law.

(3) Lion by Julianne Riedl [mouth crop]
Image License Agreement
7. Manipulation, Deviation and Modification Redistribution Restrictions
7.1 Manipulations, deviations and modifications of images are allowed as well as including the images in composites to achieve a desired effect.
7.3 Images used in manipulated, modified or deviated form in a composition that are so thoroughly incorporated that they are not reasonably identifiable are not subject to restrictions on commercial sales.

(4) Fire by Virginie Moerenhout [flame texture]
Creative Commons License

(5) Jesus Walking On Water by unknown artist [a presumed vintage painting and in the public domain]

The Jesus portion of this derivative image is still the biggest unknown. Who is the original artist? Is the image, in fact, "vintage"? Is it in the public domain?

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Vivian ANDERSON

1 Year Ago

Robert, I just don't understand why you need to find this image and whether it is in public domain, but you certainly have done a lot of research so far. Wish you luck. What is your purpose?

 

Rich Franco

1 Year Ago

Bobbie,

And I second this:What is your purpose in continually posting art that has a religious bent? I find it difficult to think that all your effort is focused on finding stuff and not showcasing stuff. don't care how or where you got the tidbits to put this together.

Like what the hell? Pun intended

Rich

 

Gregory Scott

1 Year Ago

Religious art is not prohibited, It may be an exercise to see if WE can discuss religious art without getting into religious debates. Why should we delve into his intent? Can't we observe the stated rules and the compliant stated intention of the Original Poster (OP) in this thread?

I'll buy the cited usage rights. However, I'm quite negative about the last one, which is merely presumption. I take it that it's YOUR presumption. "Through presumption comes nothing but strife. But with those who receive counsel is wisdom" On what basis do you assume that this is a historical work that has entered the public domain? Where did you obtain the image? Since it was made, it seems, for the purpose of a copyright discussion, it's a particularly fair question, and one which you should not be reluctant to offer. We could examine some possiblities:

The use of the "Jesus" image is probably OK in terms of copyright law IF it is in the public domain. However, attribution is a moral and ethical requirement, if possible, even if it is the public domain. You should make an effort to determine the artist, and cite him. If this is not possible, or if you are not absolutely certain about the validity of the info on public domain, you should cite where you got the image.

If it is NOT in the public domain, attribution of your source, the place you obtained the image, is a good thing for several reasons: You may have been deceived about the true copyright and condition of the image. MANY people will claim that an image is public domain when, in fact, it absolutely is not. This happens all the time. By giving the source, you provide the owner of the image an "audit trail" to follow back, for the purpose of issuing take down notices to those people using the images illegally. And if you know the name of the original artist (perhaps it's in a signature on the work, or you found it on the internet page which listed it as being in the public domain) that can definitely help the artist to find the image and issue a takedown notice. So it's just polite to give the source, as you obtained it, and the original artist, but it's also a moral obligation to help mitigate the problem if you are, in fact, wrong, mistaken, or mislead. Likewise, it is the ethically correct thing to do to provide attribution for every source used in your derivative works. But you already knew this instinctively, because that's what every pop musician does when sampling music for his creative work, right? Seriously, it is the law, and just because other people don't follow it doesn't excuse you. The "everybody else was doing it" defense is not a favorite one in a court of law. People who use that defense are in fact begging for the heaviest possible consequences, so that they can be made an example of to all those other offenders. Note the kids who placed themselves, and perhaps their parents in huge economic risk by file sharing their tunes. Sure, "everybody" was doing it, but specific individual people were the test cases, and forced to bear the expense of a defense. In pragmatic terms, the benefits of casual or negligent theft may outweigh the risk of getting caught and actually being forced to suffer a damaged reputation (no loss to some) and being forced to bear the expense of defending yourself and being forced to pay court costs and damages. But as unlikely as any of these might be, they're still serious consequences. The first one (loss of reputation) may not seem important to young people, before they realize that they're going to lose that dream commercial art job or seek tenure at a university during the online portion of the background investigation, or when they run for city council or state legislator.

I did this without crossing in "dead line" etched in the forum sand. See if you can do it too!

I would like to discuss the juxtaposition of the images of "Jesus" and "hell", as that's the most interesting part of this image conceptually, but you have stated that it is a copyright discussion. It is my understanding that for the purposes of discussing the specific art, that would also be within forum rules. Just as a tease, I'll say that such religious imagery IS legitimate from a theological perspective. I'm guessing that both the fire and Jesus came from the same source image, for example, and that the intent of the artist and the historical/scriptural nature of the image was clearly understood.

Another point: I'm curious about the "Saltwater Crocodile" image. What does that element look like, and where is it in the image. I Googled the artist, and found his creative commons works, and didn't see anything that I could see in your attached image. It would be better if we could see the image at higher resolution, so uploading it to FAA and putting it in a "Junk" gallery, with a "junk" password would keep it out of your sales portfolio yet allow people to see the image better, for the purposes of your discussion. Or publishing it on flickr or some other site where you can view a high resolution image.

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

i think he's using this as bate to get bill back.

i don't see the point really in making this. in the time it took to find the sources, creative commons (there is a creative commons on flickr by the way) and make this - you could have promoted yourself or made new images, fed the poor, ran a marathon, painted a house, milked a cow, danced an irish jig and looked for truffles. that's my normal day btw. not to nit pick though - where did the fire come from?


---Mike Savad

 

Gregory Scott

1 Year Ago

That's bait, not bate. These young whippersnappers are helpless with homonyms, don't you agree? Bait is used to bate your prey.

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

yeah that's it. i had too much sugar tonight and i'm half asleep. so the spell check thought it was fine. but it could be more like the bates motel, and maybe that's what this thread is about. didn't know jesus walked on fire, was he a part of a club?


---Mike Savad

 

Gregory Scott

1 Year Ago

}:-D

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

well i got to go milk the cow. if you don't do it on a regular basis they explode and it's really messy.


---Mike Savad

 

Christine Till

1 Year Ago

Isn't the Saltwater Crocodile in the top right?

Taking copyright seriously I wouldn't use this specific J-figure if I wouldn't be sure that it is public domain.

 

Nikki Marie Smith

1 Year Ago

LOL, Mike! Be sure to shake the cow first so you can have milk shakes...

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

in the winter they make ice cream, but it's really hard to get out.

but just vanilla, if you want chocolate you have to go to the extremes. it's an acquired taste not mind though i prefer vanilla.


---Mike Savad

 

Viet Tran

1 Year Ago

Ah Nikki. Instead of shaking the cow, one could shake his mind to have milk shakes!

 

Christine Till

1 Year Ago


The minds of some (not yours, of course) are nothing but a milk shake to begin with, Viet.

 

Viet Tran

1 Year Ago

Haa..Christine. Instead of shaking someone's mind and get shot, I'd rather shake my mind (even I know for sure that I would get no milk shakes from it).

 

Christine Till

1 Year Ago


:-)
We're in the same boat, Viet.

 

Jason Christopher

1 Year Ago

I thought (tho I could be wrong here) that this series of 3 threads by Robert was to do with a discussion between Robert and Dan on a prior thread a week aago in which Dan stated that copyright infringment was the correct term to use when people "borrowed" images and Robert was adamanatly against this notion.. and was firm in his belief that it was stealing.... and these 3 thereads have used other related themes in other threads (ie a ban on religion and politics) and combined these themese with the borrowing of images that Dan didnt oppose... but thats as far as I can fathom this thus far.... somehow the discussion seems to have flipped over where now Robert is/was defending "borrowing" the images... lol ... get the ship back on course somehow and we might understand.... i think the point is that the complexity of the piece in terns of origins of each bit is now so overwhelming.. we cant see the wood for the trees sort of thing.... and copyright issues are easily submerged... lol :-) or maybe not.... milk some more cows for now....

 

Vivian ANDERSON

1 Year Ago

Now Jason.....don't try buttering him up !! ........................lol

 

Jason Christopher

1 Year Ago

Milk shakes all round is what i say!! I'll have rolo chocalto... any particular flavour for you Viv? Have one on the house.. every body please.... have a milk shake :-)

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

i heard jesus really liked milk shakes. you know i think it's time we posted our cow pictures.

Photography Prints Sell Art Online Sell Art Online

i don't see the harm since this thread really has no point or topic. he closed the last one just so he can get the last word in.


---Mike Savad

 

Robert Kernodle

1 Year Ago

Fellow artists,

This all is simply a thorough follow through on an exercise that I started:

(1) To test Dan's philosophy on copyrights,

and

(2) To test the editorial policy here in these discussions.

So far, both have passed.

As I have pointed out in the past, my observation is that topic discussions (at any website) with references to religious figures, as a rule, get the most participation. I figure that if such a strong range of passions accompany such religious references, then why not use this tendency? I truly have no personal interest in the mythical figures and topics upon which the image is based. I simply have chosen controversial material as a sort of intellectual "bait".

I wanted to prove that a screen shot of an artist's image here at FAA can (technically) be manipulated into a real-world product. The image you see here is, in fact, a webpage version of the print-ready version that I have created as a culmination of this little exercise. I have produced an image of suitable quality to make a 7" x 5" greeting card, again, based on a screen capture and other elements that are freely available on the internet. I did it at virtually NO cost. I used free photo editing software, and I could have used a public-access computer with a free, browser-based photo editor. In other words, I could have done the whole thing, without paying for a computer, an internet service provider, photo editing software, electricity, or any expense whatsoever.

My personal religious tendencies are quite different than Christianity, in case you are wondering. I do not label myself, ... but other people might easily label me as "atheist", "Buddhist", "Taoist" [not really a religion], or some other new-age version of their misunderstandings of my beliefs. I do not talk about such things in terms of labels. Rather, in discussion forums where such topics are permitted, I would talk about such things in terms of the paraticular details of my perspective.

I can sense that the very mention of Christian symbols and topics has aroused distaste. What if I had chosen, say, Buddhism? Would the same reactions occur?

We are not allowed to discuss these things outright, yet we are allowed to discuss the discussion or non-discussion of them. Seems sort of laughable. Here I have attempted to discuss such things in a purely artistic context, again, to test the waters, all the while knowing that I was playing with fire.

My sense is that we cannot do even this to any degree, without arousing distaste.

I do not have to believe in the symbols of a religion, in order to work with them creatively, ... even mechanically, with zero emotional attachment to them, as I have done here. But now that I have completed the exercise, I cannot help asking the following questions:

(1) Is the image sufficiently changed to call it a transformative work?

(2) How would I sign the work? To whom would I attribute its creation?

(3) Should I treat the image as a parody or as a serious message to the appropriate audience?

So far, Jason has the most accurate perceptions about this. We are indeed in a tangled web (spider? or cyber?). Ambivalence is a side-effect of this brew. What is right? What is wrong? I think that I have, at least, hinted that the answer is not so simple as our first impressions might lead us to believe. The rule book is not so clear. The playing field is not so level. The mind is not so open as we might, at first, proclaim.

-- Robert Kernodle

P. S., "i don't see the point really in making this. in the time it took to find the sources, creative commons (there is a creative commons on flickr by the way) and make this - you could have promoted yourself or made new images, fed the poor, ran a marathon, painted a house, milked a cow, danced an irish jig and looked for truffles. that's my normal day btw. not to nit pick though - where did the fire come from?

In taking the time to make this, I LEARNED to find the sources [even the Flickr creative commons], promoted myself in the discussion forums, added a link to Jesus in the search engines that might get back to my artist galleries here, DID, in fact make new images [a series of TRIALS that eventually led to the image posted in this thread], fed my sister's dog, ran a few errands, painted a picture of the reality of copyright, milked a subject for all it was worth, danced a mind dance, and looked for buckles in cherished principles. That's my "normal" day. ... And, I appreciate your "nit picking", ... I forgot to add the fire credit when I first posted, but now the credit is there in the original post. Happy?

And allow me now to nit pick. I closed the last topic, because the moderator stepped in with a few words for you, which I felt was a sure sign that her finger was poised over the "delete" button in her moderator panel. You might be pleased to know that she emailed me, implying that I was a bad boy for "calling you names", which I really did NOT. What I did was to call your persistence names (^_^), and not explative names, either. But, hey, I respect persistence, and I would have kept going, but I developed a case of moderator anxiety in that one. It just seemed best to close it down.







 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

of course anything can be downloaded and used. the problem is many people actually think that the only use a photo has is to make a giant poster. when most people license the work. like that small image made a fine menu cover.

you also don't need a screen capture, you can download any image here in the first 5 seconds, or if you click on buy this, you can get it there in seconds.

religion isn't brought up because it creates too many arguments. everyone has their view which offends other views. it's been allowed them removed again because of flame wars.

as far as questions:

1. you can still see the bulk of the work is still dans.

2. you can't sign it because none of it is yours. even the arrangement makes little sense.

3. there is no message. and what is it a parody of?

am i happy? not really, i still don't really see the whole point of this discussion that hasn't already been covered in the first 2.


---Mike Savad

 

Robert Kernodle

1 Year Ago

1. Dan gave a free license.

2. The new ARRANGEMENT and new PURPOSE is of my making. Who says art arrangements have to make sense? A context could be created in which the arrangement DOES make sense.

3. There is no message for YOU. Can you be so sure that OTHERS (particulary of Christian faiths) would fail to see any message? Similar argument for parody -- strengthen the meaning of the image by adding some text to GUARANTEE that it is a parody [work in progress?]

Don't worry; be happy. I explained the point(s). Read again, with less dismissive posture. Make mine a chocolate shake, please.

-- RGK

 

Robert Kernodle

1 Year Ago

Gregory,

Thanks for your level-headed perspective on this.

As I think you will find by trying to do a google image search of that Jesus image, the image is all over the place. There is NOT one source that seems like the legitimate, first source. Instead, there are dozens and dozens of different sources, where the image is used or exists to be snatched. Why give preference to any one of those sources, when NONE of those sources attributes the image to its original creator? One source, for example, claims that it is a vintage religious painting and offers it on a variety of print-on-demand products. Another (Russian) source marks the image with its own website mark, and its copyright policy [which I translated using Google translator (thanks to Mike)] implies that images are part of the website's copyrightable content. A source of information about copyrights says that public domain images CAN be marked by people other than the creator, but this does NOT remove it from the public domain, which leads me to suspect that the image might be in public domain. Also, the image appears on numerous Christian resource websites for ministers. All this converges on the liklihood that the image, most likely, is in the public domain. Any assistance from anyone in locating the original creator would be appreciated as a confirmation of copyright status in this exercise.

The croc eye is diminished somewhat and re-coloured from the original source image. I used the result in three places in my derivative abomination [the eye looking towards Jesus, and the eyes (one of which is a horizontal flip) of the odd creature-like-flying-thing near top right].

The lion source image that I used [for the mouth] is so small a portion of the original and so incorporated into the new image that even the commercial restrictions of the particular creative commons license covering it do NOT apply, as those policies clearly state [which I have indicated].

-- RGK

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

you don't want chocolate straight from cow.

the thing is about the jesus is that just because its online and you can't find the person doesn't mean it's right to take and use it. you can't assume anything is public domain unless you can really track down that it is. don't assume that if a church uses it, it's totally ok. the main falsehood thing about the net is - just because the image is online doesn't mean it can be used in something. just because it's here doesn't mean the artist intended it to be here. just because someone posted it on zazzle and stated what it was, doesn't mean it was something that could be used in that manner - it might be stock clip art that he bought, but you took. and it doesn't mean he was allowed to post it there, if he puts anything there it's just to clear his name should someone accuse.

if taken the court your defense is set. but, in the long run it was still taken. and it was used in a certain manner. it's one thing to use it like the zazzle person did. it's another to put jesus in a lake of fire. now i know it was hot in the desert, and i'm an jewish atheist and could care less on that implication of it. but often putting a work in a derogatory way in itself is bad. just like i can photograph you on the street and post it for sale. because you were in the public i had the right to do so and you wouldn't win in court. on the other hand if i placed you in a bad light, then you could have a case on me.

the eye is still the eye. if you took a picture of a crocodile, and removed just the eye- then you can call it your work. but the eye is still the eye. without it you wouldn't have the eye.

---Mike Savad

 

Cows are a common diety in some cultures. A cow that eats hambugers is just plain bad, literally AND philosophically. -W

Sell Art Online

Big Skip

This is a very popular discussion with 124 responses.   In order to help the page load faster and allow you to quickly read the most recent posts, we're only showing you the oldest 25 posts and the newest 25 posts.   Everything in the middle has been skipped.   Want to read the entire discussion?   No problem: click here.

 

John Crothers

1 Year Ago

Oh man, I don't think anyone wants to mess with Getty!

 

John Crothers

1 Year Ago

http://www.petesouza.com/


This is the site of the photographer that took the above picture

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

it's interesting that it's there.

http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/new_official_portrait_released/

this is where i got it from its the official release, why they are pushing it - i don't know. but then again don't they push flicker stuff? cross posting maybe.

this is the wiki page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg

i don't know how to follow that.

and i don't care if you think i have no credibilty i would think it would take more than one image to do that, it's actually sad on your part.

@sharon, i did edit this, it did take time. yes you should increase your prices, i work very hard on the rest of my images. and just because you spend etc on your travel things - doesn't have any reflection on me or anyone else. you can shoot local and get good shots also.

---Mike Savad

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

correct, he's the official photographer of the white house.


---Mike Savad

 

John Crothers

1 Year Ago

But who owns the rights would be the question Mike.

A wedding photographer owns the rights of the pictures of the bride and groom. Pete may own the rights to this picture. May, who knows if he assigned them to the white house or not.

I know you can use an image for editoral purposes, but yours would not qualify for that. Perhaps they are pushing the image for news outlets to use?

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

this is getting too complicated i decided it would be safest to just destroy the image. the problem with the permission is they allow modification but they didn't say anything about selling it or really changing it. i can see how it can haunt me in the future. of course now i have an uneven number in my pictures and need a filler. :(

---Mike Savad

 

Christine Till

1 Year Ago


LOL, I would say that too if I'd have to use images from another artist to sell my wares. You're right: It's actually sad ... and very cheap.
Go on "creating your one of a kind creations". It will be interesting to watch.
Just don't call anyone a thief again.

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

i used 1 image from another person. something impossible for me to get. i can call anyone a thief i want to. because the image i used was not stolen it was given. it's just like using an old time photo you bought or inherited. it's no different then your avatar. you can watch whatever you want, i don't need your approval.

Sell Art Online

isn't this technically someone else art? those snowmen didn't make themselves.

Photography Prints

i'm sure you didn't carve him. it might be a stretch but it really isn't. the statue is public domain just like obama was. the copyright was given away, which is probably the reason why getty took it. because they could. which makes it far more confusing whether they own the copyrights to any of the images they sell. i've seen textures that i know were creative commons also appear in their collection. they'll take anything.

but me taking 1 - just 1 image shouldn't break anyone's reputation. and if it does - that's sad, very sad.


---Mike Savad

 

Kim Bird

1 Year Ago

A real artist doesn't need to copy other people's work but relies on their own imagination, talent and skills.

What can happen if you are tempted to copy someone else's work:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/obama-artist-spared-prison/

 

Donna Proctor

1 Year Ago

And, I'm guessing that Christine took those images with her own camera and didn't take them off the internet - so, I think the 2 images you are trying to use against her within the context of the real discussion are poor examples.

I agree Mike, you like everyone else, are entitled to your own definition of "thief" and if it makes you feel better about yourself within your own definition... then perhaps you need to consider the fact that everyone else is entitled to the same...

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

the difference is - who shot that image of obama and was it public domain? not to mention he made a mint selling the image which is why he was attacked in the first place. the image i used - both of them - were both public domain. there is a big difference between taking someone else's picture that has a copyright on it, and one that they gave you the copyright. there are just some images you can't get on your own. if the image is freely given away then anyone can do what they want with it. just like getty took that image above and claimed it as their own. i don't think they were allowed to claim the copyright though.

but to cover myself i did erase it, because you never know what might creep up. it all depends on who gave the permission to use the image. and in this world it's hard to tell who is who any more.

---Mike Savad

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

they aren't poor examples - they were made by other artists. it's pretty much the same thing. the point is - the obama shot - i own the copyright because they gave it away in such a manner. to resell those snow people - you would have to ask the company and the artist permission to sell it as it is. just like you can't photograph a statue because it's someone else's art work. unless the company said, it's ok you can resell the image, then there is no problems. there is no way you can call me a thief when the permission was given. in the same way that if you gave me your tv - i didn't steal it, but i didn't buy it either - but it's my tv now and i can claim it as such.


---Mike Savad

 

Robert Kernodle

1 Year Ago

(-_-) ... zzz

 

Mark James Perry

1 Year Ago

unreal................. Why are some people so short of ideas? Why would someone with no idea of originality want to be an artist in the first place?

 

Robert Kernodle

1 Year Ago

The art of rearranging.

The art of building, ... using buildings themselves as the elements.

Collage.

Found-art compilations.

Junkyard art.

real............. Why are some people so short sighted? Why would someone with no experience in trying any of this want to be a critic of it in the first place?

 

Mark James Perry

1 Year Ago

"Clever people can copy the handwriting of an artist it's like forging a person's signature." Henry Moore

 

Christine Till

1 Year Ago


Thanks for visiting my portfolio, Mike.
Other than that I have nothing to say to you, Donna already said it all. It's you who is guilty of thievery, not me. What ever you say doesn't take that away.

 

Ed Meredith

1 Year Ago

really unreal..................

 

Jim Poulos

1 Year Ago

So what gives Getty the right to slap its notice on that image?

The Presidential portrait can be found here without any copyright notice

http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/new_official_portrait_released/

Their copyright policy is here

http://change.gov/about/copyright_policy

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Content includes all materials posted by the Obama-Biden Transition project. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Change.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Creative commons 3.0 reads as follows
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

You are free:

to Share to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix to adapt the work
to make commercial use of the work


This article may also serve to clarify some of the issues raised here

http://www.wired.com/business/2009/05/flickr-creates-new-license-for-white-house-photos/

 

Daniel Rauch

1 Year Ago

since we are all getting hung up on words and there definitions, lets call it what it really is, plagiarism.

 

I seem to remember asking people not to Name and Shame on the forum.

I realise Mike put his own foot in it but let's move on now and not name and shame others please.

General chat about Robert's use of the above image and general copyright issues. Not literal examples apart from the top one.....

 

Paul Cowan

1 Year Ago

If nobody has said it yet, shouldn't the questionmark hanging over the Jesus image be enough to get the image pulled from the site for possible copyright infringement.

Is it OK to put something up here and say "I copied it, I don't really know but I think it's probably not covered by copyright"? Surely, not knowing whether or not you are allowed to use something means that you shouldn't use it, and the "one bad apple" turns the whole barrel bad.

PS: Just noticed it doesn't actually appear to be on the site as a sellable image, in which case it will be covered by the "critical review" usage right.

 

Mark James Perry

1 Year Ago

What if we don't want to be quite so PC? You can learn from specific examples.-
-+














 

Paul Cowan

1 Year Ago

I'm not clear what you mean, Mark, I trust you are not saying it is "PC" to respect copyright?

 

it matters not whether you WANT to be PC, Mark.

Use another forum to call people out on, not this one.

....

Yes that is fair use as far as I am aware

 

Robert Kernodle

1 Year Ago

Jim P.,
Great detective work. Mike will appreciate this, I am sure.

Paul C.,
Thanks for your astute observation that my controversial image is NOT being used or seriously (yet) being implied for use in commercial projects. I have tried, at least three times, to make this clear. Again, for the umpteenth time, viewers need to look at the whole CONTEXT in which the image is actually presented.

Otherwise, back to sleep now ...

(-_-) ... zzz

 

Robert Kernodle

1 Year Ago

This ends PART III.

Thanks for playing,

-- Robert

 

This discussion is closed.