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 
๐ณ๐ฑ
@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)
Certainly true but has little bearing on why this post would be illegal.
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.
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.
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.
That's my opinion. ๐
@Pat @coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux
@Pat @coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux
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.
Google satisfies the criteria, stux did not.
There are no "4 criteria" hard and fast rules. There have been dozens of court opinions on this.
The whole purpose of fair use is to allow criticism of works, and to let people reproduce works for educational purposes.
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 fact fair use **always** requires a low-quality reproduction as a universal criteria among others."
No that's not true. What if you are critiquing how good the quality is? Then you need to show that.
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.
>" ...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!"
Here are two:
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
- Blanch v. Koons
Nope.
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.
>"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.
@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?