So Reddit sells these uh... "things" for a lot of money so users can add it to some sort of wallet, from that wallet they can click on it so it will bring them to 'their URL' (not) from where the Reddit avatar builders opens and they can add this as their avatar. :ameowsipzoom:
I took the effort to make screenshots so everyone can use them for FREE everywhere :goose_shades:
@stux Wait what, you realize that is illegal to share copyrighted art right? I mean if your aware I dont care go for it, as long as you know this is illegal though (and my put your instance at risk as the mod too)
@stux As long as you know the risks I wont be saying anything. It seems blatent and intentional though so if anyone does report you you will have a hard time on this one I think.
@freemo@stux well, what's the worst that can happen, they send a dmca and stux has to delete it? but it's extremely unlikely anyone's going to persecute for stuff like this, it's just screenshots of their public website
Since stux owns the server if a DMCA is filed it will likely be much more serious. If one of his users posted it then yea, but when the owner posts it the rules are very different.
@freemo@stux I guess it's a good thing that the art is irrelevant to the value of an NFT. The only thing that matters is the token that you own. Sharing screenshots of the art has no bearing on the tokens, which are safely "owned" by the people who were convinced they should buy them.
Has absolutely no relevance here. The fact that it is an NFT doesnt change the nature of the copyright over the image (which is not even transfered as part of the NFT).
You seem to be grossly misinformed about what copyright is.. you dont "copyright the image"... images are automatically copyrighted by the owner the moment they are created. An owner can give a use license to others if they wish (which is how we handle open source).. but short of that it is copyrighted by default.
Well depends what you want to know, first you have to understand when you have a right to share an image that you didnt create, thats what the fair use link is about.
WRT NFT the only question then is who owns the copyright, because otherwise its no different than any other copyrighted thing.. for that there are some good articles I can recommend too but since we both agree it isnt Stux I suspect that thats just noise cause whoever it is, its not stux and thats all that matters here.
@freemo@stux The whole point of NFT is that copyright doesnt apply, ownership is handled purely by the blockchain, so copyright is probably the thing that has no bearing...
No, you'd think thats how it works, but no. In most NFT copyright applies and is retained by the original artist, not the NFT holder. The NFT holder simply has some rights of use.
Now you do have some NFTs (a small minority) where the copyright ownership is transferred with the NFT.
However regardless of which type of copyright agreement we have here it wouldnt really make stux free and clear either way because whoever has the copyright, its not him.
@freemo@stux Right, but reddit is not selling the right to display the images., They're selling a token that is meant to be the image without being the image. No ones rights are being hurt by sharing a photo of a thing that isn't even really "representative" of what's being sold.
The image has a copyright owner (as all images do). That owner has not given others the permission to reproduce... ergo it is illegal to reproduce it. Any other points you make is entirely irrelevant to the legality.
@freemo@nyquildotorg@stux Not all images have a copyright owner upon creation. If the creator is not human, such as an animal or force of nature or an AI, it cannot legally own a copyright and no one can legally own one on its behalf. Do we know that Reddit's NFTs are of human origin?
Fair use allows people to reproduce copyrighted material for purposes of criticism. Stux was okay until the last sentence, which is questionable. He was critiquing the material. If that last sentence was meant satirically, then he's okay with that, too. But if he was seriously asking people to reproduce the material for use other than for non-fair use reasons, then that's problematic.
As long as he says something about it, or even implies something about it, that's fair use.
Google reproduces copyrighted images all the time in their search results at a fairly high resolution and SCOTUS has ruled that that is fine.
Fair use allows people to reproduce copyrighted material for purposes of criticism. Stux was okay until the last sentence, which is questionable. He was critiquing the material. If that last sentence was meant satirically, then he's okay with that, too. But if he was seriously asking people to reproduce the material for use other than for fair use purposes, then that's problematic.
As long as he says something about it, or even implies something about it, that's fair use.
Google reproduces copyrighted images all the time in their search results at a fairly high resolution and SCOTUS has ruled that that is fine.
No not how it works, youcant reproduce something simply if you intend to criticise it... there are 4 criteria all of which much be met to qualify as fair use (outside of de minima clause)... none of those conditions are met here.
The 4 criteria are hard in the sense that, while there are some exceptions, it is well established by the supreme court, and the exceptions are well noted...
There is no court case which suggests if you criticise a thing then you are allowed to reproduce it in full detail. In fact fair use always requires a low-quality reproduction as a universal criteria among others.
In that case you have two options... show a small portion of the whole, or link to the original.. but no you cant show the entire thing in full quality, critiquing it doesnt get you off.
If the purpose of the reproduction is to harm the marketability of the work against the copyright holder, then yeah, that is not allowed.
But if they show a high-quality reproduction and say, "look at how high-quality this is, people should go buy one", the reproduction doesn't harm the market for the thing, then it's fine.
Google's reproductions actually harm the copyright holders, because people often get to see those images and sometimes that's it, they don't visit the site itself and then the copyright holder loses becasue of that. But SCOTUS has said that that is just fine. So it should be fine for someone to reproduce a work as I've indicated above.
harm against the copyright holder is one measure, but no, you can not reproduce something in full simply because you want to critique it.. show a court case that says that, none exists!
As for google, google images doesnt "reproduce" the work... for starters the images you see if cached are lower resolution, if not cached they link and reproduce the original work AND respect metatags that tell it when this is allowed or not... so you are really grasping at straws on this one.
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. - In this case you are not reproducing , you are time shifting (you are allowed to watch once, not reproduce,a nd cant share it).
Blanch v. Koons - Also not an unaltered reproduction, this falls under transformatic fair use and by definition only applies when your version changes substantially the original.
But those were two cases in which the entire work was reproduced in full quality under fair use. (The Sony case was not just time-shifting, it was copying for personal use. People are allowed to make backup copies to play over and over again as long as it's for their own personal use.)
Stux's toot incorporated those images, but his criticism, the way he grouped them together; that was transformative as well as a critique.
No they werent.. neither were reproductions.. one was time shifted (one copy viewed only so not a reproduction by definition), the other was modified (transformative) so also not reproduced in full, a modified version of it was produced.
>"And no, saying that "I put all the stuff i stole in a 3x2 grid" would not be considered transformative."
Yeah, I don't know what the courts would say and that's the problem. It's really vague.
I know a lot of it has to do with who the parties of the case are. If they are black, they are more likely to lose the case. If they are part of the Washington elite, the courts are more likely rule in their favor.
This vagueness is why I always try to stay well within the limits when I post stuff. When I do movie reviews, the clips I show are well under 10% of the original work and I usually do a custom arrangement of them and mark my trailers as "unauthorized" (when I remember) so people will know that it is something new and not just a trailer put out by the film distributor.
If was one of the privileged Washington elites, I wouldn't have to do that because I'd know that courts would be on my side.
In any case, like others have said here, nobody cares because it's like maybe dozen people who actually see stuff on most Mastodon instances - it's not worth the effort to even bother with a DMCA.
>"And no, saying that "I put all the stuff i stole in a 3x2 grid" would not be considered transformative."
Yeah, I don't know what the courts would say and that's the problem. It's really vague.
I know a lot of it has to do with who the parties of the case are. If they are black, they are more likely to lose the case. If they are part of the Washington elite, the courts are more likely rule in their favor.
This vagueness is why I always try to stay well within the limits when I post stuff. When I do movie reviews, the clips I show are well under 10% of the original work and I usually do a custom arrangement of them and mark my trailers as "unauthorized" (when I remember) so people will know that it is something new and not just a trailer put out by the film distributor.
If I was one of the privileged Washington elites, I wouldn't have to do that because I'd know that courts would be on my side.
In any case, like others have said here, nobody cares because it's like maybe dozen people who actually see stuff on most Mastodon instances - it's not worth the effort to even bother with a DMCA.
Add comment