Righthaven strikes again...Please go to the website and read the article. The first comment is from his grandparents and tells even more of the story.
To: republicangel
Must - not - comment ....
2 posted on
02/23/2011 11:39:43 AM PST by
humblegunner
(Blogger Overlord)
To: republicangel
These folks, Righthaven have no clue the bad will and hate they are creating. I’d be mindful of just suing anyone and everyone, lest they end up suing someone like Jared Loughner et al... and well you get the picture.
To: republicangel
I should think there would be a number of ways this individual could find protective shelter under the language of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
4 posted on
02/23/2011 11:45:03 AM PST by
Steely Tom
(Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
To: republicangel
Perhaps some capable lawyer will see this story and offer his services pro bono to the blogger.
Thanks for posting this.
5 posted on
02/23/2011 11:47:20 AM PST by
proud American in Canada
(To paraphrase Sarah Palin: I love when the liberals get all wee-wee'd up.)
To: republicangel
If you don't want anything from your website copied and used elsewhere, there are ways of posting that will not allow that to happen. If Righthaven didn't take any of these steps to prevent this from happening, they are fishing for lawsuits.
7 posted on
02/23/2011 11:52:57 AM PST by
Dixie Yooper
(Ephesians 6:11)
To: republicangel
I think that fair use exceptions should be made in most cases when people operate a blog that is mainly a hobby and not for profit, especially if you are linking back to the original article.
9 posted on
02/23/2011 11:56:27 AM PST by
smokingfrog
( BORN free - taxed to DEATH (and beyond) ...)
To: republicangel
My take on Righthaven is that the buy the copywrite after some one has posted it and then sue, but this should be illegal because the infringement happened before Righthaven had the copywrite.
14 posted on
02/23/2011 12:59:14 PM PST by
Ratman83
To: republicangel
as far as i am aware, it is the responsibility of the copyright holder to insure copyrighted material clearly states such in or around the digital work.
any images i post, which i do a lot, are found using google images. there are no copyright notices on any of them
if a copyright holder does not want their images in the google cache, then they should state it as such in their robots.txt file and google would not grab them. if they did not, how is it the fault of google's users?
16 posted on
02/23/2011 1:31:14 PM PST by
sten
(fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
To: republicangel
Wow! That’s why I only host porn on my website.
17 posted on
02/23/2011 1:35:40 PM PST by
Cyber Liberty
(You CAN get blood from a stone, if you throw it hard enough.)
To: republicangel
The Righthaven people probably thought:
“So he copied the picture from a newspaper instead of drawing it himself? Doesn’t sound very “artistic” to me; sue him.
21 posted on
02/23/2011 3:50:49 PM PST by
AuH2ORepublican
(If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson