I think Saturday Night Live Season 11 (1985-1986) exists nowadays

only as a lasting reminder of how the years have been so magnificently wonderful to Robert Downey Jr.’s looks.

I mean, he was cute with the pouty lips, big eyes, and thick lashes.

But I don’t think anyone who was watching that show back in 1985-86 would’ve imagined that this really dorky-ass kid

would someday look like this, at age 48—

Good god.

❂

I couldn’t sleep last night (or early this morning)

so I was perusing the bohemea and dmca tags.  And these are the impressions that I got—

  • If you post any pic that you did not take yourself — whether it’s from a photoshoot, Wire Images or Getty Images pictures (without the watermarks using the website trick), someone’s landscape picture of the English countryside — that’s technically illegal.
  • Editing/altering pics the you didn’t take yourself — ex. converting those pics of RDJ from the GQ photoshoot into B&W images, unless you’re Peggy Sirota (that photoshoot’s photographer) — is technically illegal.
  • If you scan magazines and post them, that’s technically illegal.
  • If you quote the entire article and post it, that’s technically illegal.
  • If you upload music from your hard drive when it’s not your music (i.e., you didn’t write it, didn’t perform it) and you post it to share, that’s technically illegal.
  • Ditto for videos.
  • If you post someone else’s Instagram/Twitter/Flickr/etc. pics on your blog, that’s technically illegal.  It seems small fry, yes, especially reposting Instagram and Twitter pics. But if they really want to, the person who took the pic can file a complaint against you.
  • If you post someone else’s art/fiction, or fanfiction/fanart, that’s technically illegal.  That’s obvious.
  • If you post your own fanart or fanfiction, it’s technically illegal in the strictest interpretation (i.e., they’re not your characters and all that stuff) but is generally allowed.
  • Same with gifs/screencaps. Like, if you make gifs and/or take screencaps of a film, show, etc., it seems technically illegal, BUT …I really doubt the likes of Warner Bros., Marvel Studios, and other big studios would individually target you to stop talking about their films.  It’s essentially free press.   So technically illegal in the strictest sense, but likely allowed.

The operative word here is post, not reblog.

You pretty much escape blame and detection if you’re merely reblogging others.  The heat falls on the person who posts the thing — the original poster — and everybody reblogs from him/her.

This is regardless whether you provide sources or not.  It’s all about permission; crediting/sourcing is secondary.

Places like Instagram, WeHeartIt, and Pinterest are notorious for this, too.  Hell, Pinterest’s founder actually deleted his blog (!) because of copyright infringement.  EDIT: It’s actually not deleted.  Buzzfeed lied to me.

So there ya go.  Everything’s illegal, I guess.

Wait, the true operative word here is technically.  Everything is technically illegal.

❂
davidkendall: In light of the deletion of bohemea’s tumblr, thought it might be interesting to note a couple of things about the “fair use doctrine” that is an exception to the copyright laws, which the new bosses (and the old powers that be) may start trying to pummel us with. An excerpt from here: One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law. Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. An interesting article here, and here’s a legal guide for bloggers dealing with some copyright questions. I’m not speaking for anyone else, or advising anyone else, but I think that, at the very least, I’m going to post a comment or criticism on any thing I post or reblog from now on; after all, fair commentary or criticism appears to be an exception to any claim of copyright infringement. By the way, this is an educational, non-profit post, made purely to inform and enlighten, containing excerpts from other sources solely to illustrate the points made. (image source; it’s an awesome image)

davidkendall:

In light of the deletion of bohemea’s tumblr, thought it might be interesting to note a couple of things about the “fair use doctrine” that is an exception to the copyright laws, which the new bosses (and the old powers that be) may start trying to pummel us with.

An excerpt from here:

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

  1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

An interesting article here, and here’s a legal guide for bloggers dealing with some copyright questions.

I’m not speaking for anyone else, or advising anyone else, but I think that, at the very least, I’m going to post a comment or criticism on any thing I post or reblog from now on; after all, fair commentary or criticism appears to be an exception to any claim of copyright infringement.

By the way, this is an educational, non-profit post, made purely to inform and enlighten, containing excerpts from other sources solely to illustrate the points made.

(image source; it’s an awesome image)

❂
handpickedhappiness: Can we please talk about the fact that this is a site where people are literally bullied into deleting their blogs?  This person deleted their blog because of this post They got so much hate that they deleted their entire blog…just because they didn’t notice the joke. And this happens ALL the time. People are bullied from this website. I’m not exaggerating, this is complete bullying, there’s no other word for it.  And this is the Avengers fandom? Really? One of my fandoms did this? That’s disgraceful. You know, for a website that claims to be tolerant and open to everything, be it gender, race, orientation, preferences, or whatever, for people who claim to always be there if people are depressed or suicidal or just having a bad day.You’re pretty good abusing people.

handpickedhappiness:

Can we please talk about the fact that this is a site where people are literally bullied into deleting their blogs? 

This person deleted their blog because of this post
image

They got so much hate that they deleted their entire blog…just because they didn’t notice the joke. 
And this happens ALL the time. People are bullied from this website. I’m not exaggerating, this is complete bullying, there’s no other word for it. 

And this is the Avengers fandom? Really? One of my fandoms did this? That’s disgraceful.

You know, for a website that claims to be tolerant and open to everything, be it gender, race, orientation, preferences, or whatever, for people who claim to always be there if people are depressed or suicidal or just having a bad day.
You’re pretty good abusing people.

(via robertdowneyjrsbitch)

❂

No one paid me lol. I just really love you. :P And the gif you used of Robert laughing and then covering his eyes omfg I'm crying because it's so perfect and cute. You're just perfect. — lingsy

Thank you, you’re really too sweet.

If you don’t stop, my head’s gonna get so big that I won’t be able to to wear T-shirts anymore!

❂

I did not know Heart and Souls was streaming on Netflix now! I have been looking for this move everywhere. Thank you!!! — poopypony

❂

Tumblr, DMCA and copyright law

aaronbong:

If you search the ‘bohemea’ tag you’ll see many people upset  that a fashion blog was completely deleted due to a DMCA request. bohemea.tumblr.com was known for scanning pages of fashion magazines and posting them on Tumblr. Bohemea was also a curator/editor for Tumblr. According to fans writing messages of grief and anger, she/he always cited sources and was even friends with some of the photographers whose images she scanned from magazines and posted onto Tumblr. How could it be that if she/he was friends with the photographers AND cited sources that the blog was in violation of copyright law and could be deleted with a DMCA request? Easy, the entire blog like many on Tumblr was infringing on copyright from beginning to end.

Read More

❂