Posted on 11/23/2019 10:16:30 AM PST by ransomnote
Ransom, have question.
If twitter links are allowed, is there anything that should be added or should they just be linked plainly?
Confused now?
If twitter links are allowed, is there anything that should be added or should they just be linked plainly?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m sorry I don’t understand the question. I haven’t seen any objections to Twitter links on FR. I invite FReepers and FReeqs to help make us aware of any issues re Twitter.
I post a lot of Twitter links, so far have not gotten in any trouble.
Don’t see Pelosi’s or Romney’s kids on the inquiry list. Sending a message...”Want us to stop here or do you want to push it and we can accommodate you?”
The good guys gave the creeps the rope and they ran with it.
Q is right, these people are stupid.
Go Trump - MAGA
Go Melania aka Lady MAGA
Q is proven
Habbening!
Good read - the Templeton fund isn’t on there either
Maybe I didn’t ask question the right way. If material is circulated on twitter, possibly cropped, how would one know they are posting copyright material?
I guess my question is are you safe just posting the twitter link and not the actual material on the twitter link, which may or may not be cropped?
Early on (a few months ago) I heard some informed commentary that if the I.G. Report was delayed (as it has been) it would mean they were working with a grand jury to obtain more-or-less simultaneous indictments.
I do not think we’re going to be left hanging this time.
I think the reason Barr passed on indicting Comey over leaking his own self-serving notes about his hurt feelings, was that there are MUCH MORE serious charges awaiting him and they didn’t want to muddy the water and possibly inoculate him in the public’s perception by going after him for pissant moves.
Mark
Check this out. Legit documents?
I’ve seen that Justice Thomas has mentioned this recently as something that needs to be looked at by SCOTUS. Nunes’ lawsuit may do it.
I guess my question is are you safe just posting the twitter link and not the actual material on the twitter link, which may or may not be cropped?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah, good question. I'm still learning myself so here's my best attempt. I saw an image that looked "too good" to be a cell phone snap (your POTUS and FLOTUS) and wondered if Twitter was passing around a professional image from a copyrighted website/publication. I right clicked and copied the address for the image.
I went to the website https://images.google.com
I clicked on the little icon of the camera to "search by image" and pasted in the URL from your posted image, and clicked the blue box (see below) to "Search By Image".
I received a web page of search results. I scanned downt the page and did a little clicking around and found the image was on Breitbart.
Here's where it gets (kinda) interesting - today it's not there? Not on Breitbart? In fact, that image is no longer in the many locations from which it was listed before. What you do see is a long shot of that image and so peeps have been cropping it. I really do get the feeling that people are scrubbing websites and twitter accounts; it's as if the Great Copyright Blight of '19 (or '20) is COMING.
I do recall that we were told the UK was cracking down on memes using professional photos and that would affect the US too - so maybe why there's suddenly no images on Twitter accounts I used to visit strictly for images.
Back to your photo - is it still off limits? Probably, but I have no way to be sure. The photo was taken by a professional photographer as those are the ones permitted in that location and allowed to take photos of the POTUS boarding the helo, and the quality and long lens suggest professional as well. That professional probably sells photos to news agencies (we conservatives think he/she is allowed to profit from their work). A dark interpretation I'll add is if there is a great Copyright Blight coming, per the UK decision meant to crush memes, then conservative sites are in the cross hairs, and Q sites are already up on the scaffold. :/
As I said, I have much to learn and appreciate anyone who can assist. I use to work with artists who used photos for their work and one became so infuriated with our casual use of photos that she sat us down and provided a PowerPoint lecture on rights re photos. One example was a painting done from a nice photograph that was copyrighted. It was of a veranda with colonial railing and a white rocking chair on it - taken from an angle somewhere against the wall of the home looking out into the yard, partly through the railing
She then walked us through all the ways the image was modified to avoid a copyright claim from the photographer. The railing contours were changed so it was no longer colonial style. The rocking chair was changed. The photo was cropped, greenery added, a sepia tone applied. To us it looked different, but it was still illegal appropriation of the image for which the artist was sued. Elements like the composition of the photo were still in place (the angle of the photo and postioning of elements in it etc.).
Note we've never had to deal with this before. I believe that, while photographers are entitled to copyright their work, they never had the giants in Tech and MSM "helping" them assert their rights before - that's why this struggle to understand. The Tech and MSM never cared about such rights of photographers right down to the letter of the law on websites/Twitter until they wanted to halt the GREAT AWAKENING.
Before - it was photographers and specific publications suing and asserting their rights when and if it was financially beneficial for them to do so. Now they have massive giants who won't profit/loss from such copyright leniency performing rights protection for free on behalf of photographers/publications because the tech giants and MSM are altruistic, purehearted organizations who want to overthrow our government and help to impeach/kill our POTUS and keep the sheep in the dark.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 86, is released from hospital and ‘is doing well’ - a day after being admitted for chills and fever
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
They know about Burisma, right?
They understand the Hunter Briben scandal is more serious than "Billy Beer", right?
Do they know about the State Department clowns?
Do they know that Ukrainian individuals donated over $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, not to mention Schitt, Romney and so many other RATS, or that much of this probably originated as U.S. taxpayer money?
Do they realize "Victor Pinchuk, a steel magnate whose father-in-law, Leonid Kuchma, was president of Ukraine from 1994 to 2005, has directed between $10 million and $25 million to the foundation. He has lent his private plane to the Clintons and traveled to Los Angeles in 2011 to attend Mr. Clinton’s star-studded 65th birthday celebration." (posted by an anon highlighted by Q)
Do they realize the RAT anathema to Putin and Russia is, in significant part, due to the globalist effort to absorb the Ukraine into the EU, and Russia pushing back?
Sorry to digress, but Obama/HRC/Soros/Briben/NoName were pursuing the globalist E.U. agenda, both for $$CASH$$ and for the destruction of American sovereignty.
Ukraine is one of the major international focal points of the struggle, led by President Trump, to roll back the globalist-socialist forces which threaten America's existence as the independent leader of Western, Christian, capitalist Civilization.
Did she receive a visit from Ferris Bueller’s Singing Nurse?
(”I heard that you were feeling ill — headaches, fever, even a chill...”)
And, as we all know, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Excellent analysis. Thanks.
We can send all manner of things through PM. Content not permitted from sites not permitted, images and text, links etc. :)
************************************
Thank You Mother of Dragons... ;0)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.