Fitty............

He who laughs last ................

:firehair:firehair:firehair

oh noooooooo

That was a fun thread. After last night it was like reading the end of a comedy.

http://ilsgcash.com/shoplifter.jpg

Aren't you essentially doing the exact same thing that J.F.K. was opposed to? You're hosting his image with watermarks and urls removed. Shouldn't he be DMCA'ing your host now?

I'll pull it, np. J.F.K?

well, in order for the thread to make sense, leave it up for now. Thanks for asking :thumbsup

That's what I figured. Right on.

You can't be fucking serious. He blurred out the watermarks and thought people wouldn't think anything of it? OMG this dude is insane!

AFIK, it's fine to parody photos unless it is expressly written that the image may not be altered in any form.

However, removing watermarks is not smart - they are there to show ownership.

Yet, I find it strange that the owner of the photo hasn't asked for it to be removed from public view and deleted. JFK - even though your thread has made it clear you are not happy with the image being stolen and used, you have not asked for it to be removed. In fact, you have just done the opposite. So in fact, you condone it?

You can take it down later, when the thread fell off the main page. Appreciate it thanks !

what would you call this ?
I have posted it in other threads as well. I dont mind people using the shots for "parody" as you say, BUT leave the watermark and copyright alone, unless it was previously arranged otherwise.

sure np JFK

Apologies for not reading the entire thread :Oh crap

I just read your post above saying to leave it cos the thread wouldn't make sense.

I'm outta here as quickly as I popped in :winkwink:

Without reference the backstepping of the target [since hotlinked] of the original post makes this thread confusing.

threads like this remind me why i always go outta way to put watermarks back in if i gotta cropem out ;)

so... whats the point in removing the watermark for a forum post?

just asking

Its all good, thanks for popping in :thumbsup

i've contemplated leaving the watermark out of a few because if they were offended i didn't want them thinking they were endorsed by fubar and gettting pissy with jfk...

BB email me pls jkedvessy at hotmail.com :thumbsup

done....

I always use Julius' pics on boards and my blog, but I always give him a hardlink on top of leaving the watermark.........JFK is one of the most respected dude and greatest guy in this business and doing something like that was fucking lame........ :(

Greedy motherfucka!

Weird that JFK keeps bumping this thread, so I don't mind helping. Bump for JFK. ;)

They stolenerr my jobbs!

That's not true. Parody is protected under Fair Use precisely because copyright owners would not allow their works to be changed.

Still it's a low class move in this case, legal or not.

Yup, photoshopping a copyrighted image does not fall under fair use / parody. It's copyright infringement. :2 cents:

If he had created his own image, as a parody, using his own content. It would be a parody and covered under fair use.

That's not the way I understand it. Image manipulation for satire or parody is allowed under current copyright laws. Not that it matters because in this example who is going to put it to the test anyway? No one.

lawyers my ass.... :2 cents:

Well I'm not a lawyer. :2 cents:

You have lawyers growing in your ass?

3 of them. Working on #4 right now (stopped at Taco Bell for lunch)

holy drama!

I agree marketsmart! For retoxjosh to do this to JFK who has worked hard for years providing us with pics, and is one of the most liked and respected people in this biz just fucked up, and a reason never to do business with retox josh if anyone would have in the first place anyway! :2 cents:

Same here. All our members love JFK and his pics! :thumbsup:

Bump !!!!!!

this fuckstick needs a ban

wow.. What a dickhead thing to do..

Looks like fair use to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_us...use_and_parody

Although the drama is very tired already, I really don't think Josh's intent was to steal from JFK.

Personally, I think he just did not want to tie JFK or his sponsors to his bullshit. A crop would have looked a lot less fucked than a blur in my opinion, but whatever-

HOWEVER-

The right thing to do would have been to ask JFK's permission beforehand, or to comply immediately with the request to put them back.

Instead you get a priceless Josh response like-

If it is green,
And it's shady...
















http://www.nicksunshine.com/images/stuff/blockhead.jpg

It must be a tree. :thumbsup

:2 cents::2 cents:

This is Water(mark)Gate 2009

Alias, take it down pls..........

This coming from a guy with 580 posts and from Scotland no less that has never met Roc. Jerkoff

Deleted :)

Nice promotion for FUBAR ...

Bump for stolen pic ownage thread.

Bump for lame drama :2 cents:

bump for excitement..

wtf guys, unless I'm missing something it sounds like a perfect example of fair use... it's clearly a parody, the intent is clearly not commercial, etc...

the truth is that baddog probably bitched to JFK about the pic, that's the only reason there is drama about it... if it was anyone else we would had a few laughs and the pic would have been forgotten 2 days later...

pretty sure it has been :2 cents: