- This topic has 52 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Friends and neighbors, check out "Wagner 9". They're really not trying to hide it anymore, Hiddleston should go after them. Unless they have a deal...
They have started to play fast and loose with lots of copyrighted franchises.
Quick buck over long term security, seems to be the attitude now.
:0/
Got sucker punched in a bar years ago because the brother of a girl thought I was her husband!
I was approached at a Sci-Fi convention and asked for an autograph. They thought I was Jeff Goldblum.
We were at Disney a looong time ago. My uncle was asked why he wasn't working today. An employee though he was one of the staff.
Pretty good chance they could get away with it unless there was a very defining characteristic like a tattoo or birthmark.
Didn't Mike Tyson's tattoo artist sue for his tattoo being used in a movie?
google celebrity doppelgangers
https://www.boredpanda.com/celebrity-look-alike-doppelganger/They definitely playing both angles, with Loki on one side and Nightcrawler on the other side. I think they added Nightcrawler after putting blue skin on Loki as to simulate his Jötunn incarnation in the Thor movie. Then theyr ealized that with curly hair and a brighter shade of blue, he could also do as a Nightcrawler. Hell, with a silver pearly skin and slicked back hair, you get a decent Data from StarTrek too. How to rip three licenses with one stone 😀
I think theyd just sue for stopping the offending character and all or part of the profits off that item.
A clever lawyer may sue for emotional damages linked to misuse of the product such as pron.
With deep fake and AI art being a thing now Im not sure why the courts arent flooded yet. maybe they are and I just am unaware.
how much change is required to an item before its considered altered enough to not be a copy of an idea? Could Spiderman be named Manspider and have a blue and orange costume.
"With deep fake and AI art being a thing now Im not sure why the courts arent flooded yet."
Copyright belongs to the person that took the picture, not the person whom is the subject of the picture. So with images produced with AI, the issue isn't with the person/s who is represented but rather with the photographer's copyright to the training images.
Sites like Civitai have rules regarding use of images of "real people"... "Out of respect for this individual and in accordance with our Content Rules, only work-safe images and non-commercial use is permitted." Whether or not that will stand up in court is another matter as I'm pretty sure a QC or well-paid lawyer could successfully argue otherwise.If you buy a hammer the storeowner can't be accused for the crimes you have committed with it. He just sold a tool, it is in your responsibility what you will do with it.
And yet ISPs and software makers are being sued all over the world for copyright infringement committed with the software, and via the ISP's connection, by the people using both.
https://torrentfreak.com/ There's stories here almost every day about how rich media companies force governments to do their bidding.
If you think of it, they should be encouraged in this.
Some, if not most of you, do not like 3duk (I like/and have several of his items).
Render Hub has now put constraints on their items, especially 3duk.
The items listed here from there(?) have gone up in price.
We are thieves, if we close these places down, who do we steal from,,,,,each other?
Think about it.......WE....are taking a moral stance against Daz.....WE
My mother use to say " It's like the pot calling the kettle black"
Of all the people taking the high ground about this.......we go last.
By the way look at the present total for the Wagner item
It ain't unpopular
Go DAZ!!!!!More than anything, it's a stance against hypocrisy. *We* are pirates, we know it, we admit to it and yes, on some level we probably relish in it. Companies like Daz though, whine a lot about piracy and are constantly pilfering intellectual properties to coax people into buying the sixth thousandth variation they made of their one figure. They should just come clean about that, sign some agreements with the involved franchises/individuals and make it known. *Then* and *only then* can they go about being high-and-mighty about piracy. But oh wait... a pirate is someone who uses something without paying for it. Doesn't using the image of this or that person without a clear endorsement... not only using something without paying but also *making money* from it? And they clearly don't want to pay...
So yeah. That's what made me go "come on" with the whole Wagner thing.If you knowingly aid in a crime you can probably be charged. If a guy says I'm going to hit people in the subway with this hammer and you sell it to him and dont report it to the police you are an accessory or at least negligent. All they need is a surveillance video proving you knew.
If they know a product is questionable and choose to profit from it, I don't see how they couldn't be sued. Proving they knew who Batman is may be difficult though.
I make 0 profit off anything I get here.
They could get me for disturbing what I post but might need to prove they lost profit and those people that got it free would have paid to download it. I would more than likely have to pay an imposed fine but "may" work out some plea since I couldn't afford that. Probably community service.If they say they don't know who Batman is, we'll know they're replicants and we can legally have them sent away for dismantlement :p
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
