Weird News Headlines: Twerk will set you free

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > Weird News Headlines: Twerk will set you free

«‹›848 »

Say Nothing: Mar 5, 2013; by FactsAreUseless

# ? Jan 2, 2016 23:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 00:30

Say Nothing: Mar 5, 2013; by FactsAreUseless

# ? Jan 7, 2016 04:53

Fathis Munk: Feb 23, 2013; ??? ?

Idgi

# ? Jan 7, 2016 09:10

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Fathis Munk posted:

Idgi

Look below those papers.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 09:18

Fathis Munk: Feb 23, 2013; ??? ?

Ok I get it now :downs:

# ? Jan 7, 2016 09:26

Gloryhold It!: Sep 22, 2008; Fucking
Adorable

I doubt you do

# ? Jan 7, 2016 14:52

Big Grunty Secret: Aug 28, 2007; Just one question, though. Is there a way to take off my pants?

I still don't. What is it?

# ? Jan 7, 2016 15:32

Super Waffle: Sep 25, 2007; I'm a hermaphrodite and my parents (40K nerds) named me Slaanesh, THANKS MOM

The glare from the glass desk makes it seem as though she is wearing no pants.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 15:36

Wanamingo: Feb 22, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

From news coverage of the ""militia"" over in Oregon

# ? Jan 7, 2016 15:43

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Wanamingo posted:

From news coverage of the ""militia"" over in Oregon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iae8iXKJ4w

# ? Jan 7, 2016 15:58

Collateral Damage: Jun 13, 2009

Calling them the Y'all-Queda is one of the better things to come out of Twitter in a while. :v:

# ? Jan 7, 2016 16:02

Wanamingo: Feb 22, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Collateral Damage posted:

Calling them the Y'all-Queda is one of the better things to come out of Twitter in a while.

Vanilla ISIS and Yokel Haram are good, too

# ? Jan 7, 2016 16:03

Fathis Munk: Feb 23, 2013; ??? ?

Y'all quaeda is pretty great because you can then call the yeehaa'dists waging holy yeehaa'd. Tbh I love everything about that whole story so far.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 17:03

ncumbered_by_idgits: Sep 20, 2008

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/judge-rules-monkey-cannot-own-selfie-photos-copyright/ar-AAgrVaF?li=BBnbcA1

# ? Jan 7, 2016 19:00

smilingfish: Sep 18, 2012; fuck you i am smart

AlphaKretin posted:

Belgian soldiers and police 'held orgy' during Brussels lockdown

Thanks to Krispy Kareem in the obsolete technology thread of all places.

In the right thread this time.

gently caress the police.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 19:06

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

quote:

Judge rules monkey cannot own selfie photos copyright

Yeah, but neither can anyone else.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 19:07

Collateral Damage: Jun 13, 2009

ncumbered_by_idgits posted:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/judge-rules-monkey-cannot-own-selfie-photos-copyright/ar-AAgrVaF?li=BBnbcA1

quote:

The lawsuit filed last year by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sought a court order allowing PETA to represent the monkey and let it to administer all proceeds from the photo

Of course you would, you moneygrubbing shitheads.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 19:10

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

Platystemon posted:

Yeah, but neither can anyone else.

I'm pretty sure photographers normally do have the copyright on pictures they take, which includes selfies. It's referring to that, not the idea of selfies themselves.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 20:22

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

foobardog posted:

I'm pretty sure photographers normally do have the copyright on pictures they take, which includes selfies. It's referring to that, not the idea of selfies themselves.

When I saw the headline, my first thought was that that a court had reversed the ruling that the photo was in the public domain and given the guy who owned the camera the copyright. That is not what happened.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 20:27

CJacobs: Apr 17, 2011; Reach for the moon!

While the copyright almost certainly should belong to the guy, the copyright not being in the hands of PETA is a very acceptable alternative.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 20:33

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

Platystemon posted:

When I saw the headline, my first thought was that that a court had reversed the ruling that the photo was in the public domain and given the guy who owned the camera the copyright. That is not what happened.

Ah, I misunderstood your comment, sorry. But yeah, either it's the monkey's photograph or in the public domain. gently caress PETA.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 20:49

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

CJacobs posted:

While the copyright almost certainly should belong to the guy, the copyright not being in the hands of PETA is a very acceptable alternative.

It's actually a pretty interesting question. If it had been a rock that fell on the button, or tied to a pressure plate pushed by a human, how would it end up? I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I'm unsure.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 20:53

BgRdMchne: Oct 31, 2011

If I use an ox to plow my fields, does the crop I harvest belong to the public or the ox?

# ? Jan 7, 2016 21:18

CJacobs: Apr 17, 2011; Reach for the moon!

It really boils down to how much value you place on the various 'if' statements involved. If the guy hadn't brought the camera, the monkey wouldn't have been able to gank it and take the picture. If the monkey hadn't grabbed the camera, the picture wouldn't exist. And so on and so on forever. It's one of those things where there really is no answer and the only thing that can be done about it is for it to be argued about in circles until it's forcibly resolved by the person who throws the most money at it.

Imo though the guy should hold the copyright because putting the picture in the public domain would be acknowledging that the guy had no part in its creation and does not deserve credit, which is untrue. He didn't take the picture, but he is as equally responsible for its existence as the monkey that did.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 21:19

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

BgRdMchne posted:

If I use an ox to plow my fields, does the crop I harvest belong to the public or the ox?

speciesists admitting to profiting from slave labor itt

CJacobs posted:

Imo though the guy should hold the copyright because putting the picture in the public domain would be acknowledging that the guy had no part in its creation and does not deserve credit, which is untrue. He didn't take the picture, but he is as equally responsible for its existence as the monkey that did.

Yeah, as I thought about it more, you're probably right.

# ? Jan 7, 2016 21:28

Fathis Munk: Feb 23, 2013; ??? ?

IS A MAN NOT ENTITLED TO THE ~~SWEAT OF HIS BROW~~ PICTURES OF HIS CAMERA ?

I didn't know that PETA actually tried to get that copyright :laffo:

# ? Jan 7, 2016 21:34

Prenton: Feb 17, 2011; Ner nerr-nerrr ner

Reported stabbed while demonstrating stab-proof vest

Due to stabbing "�wrong� part of vest"

# ? Jan 8, 2016 00:01

Say Nothing: Mar 5, 2013; by FactsAreUseless

# ? Jan 8, 2016 00:07

SneezeOfTheDecade: Feb 6, 2011; gettin' covid all
over your posts

Collateral Damage posted:

Of course you would, you moneygrubbing shitheads.

The PETA lawyer posted:

"This case is also exposing the hypocrisy of those who exploit animals for their own gain."

# ? Jan 8, 2016 00:38

Gynocentric Regime: Jun 9, 2010; by Cyrano4747

CJacobs posted:

It really boils down to how much value you place on the various 'if' statements involved. If the guy hadn't brought the camera, the monkey wouldn't have been able to gank it and take the picture. If the monkey hadn't grabbed the camera, the picture wouldn't exist. And so on and so on forever. It's one of those things where there really is no answer and the only thing that can be done about it is for it to be argued about in circles until it's forcibly resolved by the person who throws the most money at it.

Imo though the guy should hold the copyright because putting the picture in the public domain would be acknowledging that the guy had no part in its creation and does not deserve credit, which is untrue. He didn't take the picture, but he is as equally responsible for its existence as the monkey that did.

Yeah but allowing for split "interest" in photos would open up a whole can of worms. If someone takes a funny picture or video of me in a public place and it goes viral do I get a shares of the copyright? After all I am the performer in this case and the work wouldn't exist without me. What about Apple? After all if not for them making the iPhone I could not have bought it and taken the picture? If the case was decided the way you want it to be, every photographic or video work done without a release or contract would be like a song with 1000 writers.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 01:08

Nckdictator: Sep 8, 2006; Just..someone

The last one certainly has a story to go with it.

http://strangeco.blogspot.com/2015/12/newspaper-clipping-of-day-new-years-eve.html

quote:

The New Year's festivities at the usually quiet and unexcitable colliery village of Croxdale have been greatly enlivened by the discovery and public exposure of a well-contrived, and cleverly carried out matrimonial hoax.

It appears that for some time a certain very grave individual has been lodging at Croxdale-terrace, and working as a hewer at Croxdale colliery. He is a man past the prime of life--in fact, a grey-haired old chap--but his stylish mode of dressing, jaunty air, and open admiration of the fair sex, have made him quite conspicuous in the neighourhood. Being a regular attender at chapel and class, a constant reader of religious literature, and a very quiet, steady, and inoffensive person, it is not surprising that many of the lonesome widows and ancient spinsters of the locality cast wistful glances at him as they passed him on the road, or sat with him in the chapel. But none of these were to his liking. He wanted a young wife, and a pretty one, but having passed the Rubicon, the girls were shy of his grey head, beard, and whiskers.

Some five weeks ago, however, fortune seemed to favour him, for a pretty young woman looked at him so earnestly one night that he was sure she had been smitten by his appearance. She was in company with a young man who worked next board to him in the pit, but that circumstance only seemed to smooth the way for an introduction to the charmer. The next morning, therefore, "Gentle Johnny," as he is designated, inquired of the young man who the fine-looking girl was that he saw in his company the preceding night. Now, it so happened that the "fine-looking girl" was the wife of the young man, but for a lark he, like Abraham, said she is my sister.

Johnny, therefore, began to praise her good looks and nice manners, and asked his friend if he would mind introducing him to his charming sister. With an eye to further fun the young man promised to help him in the matter, but said he must first see if she was willing to accept him as a suitor, and then he would tell him when it would be most convenient to come to the house.

That night the young man, his wife, and a few friends concocted a plot to hoax poor Johnny, and let the public know that he was already a married man living apart from his wife. Next day Johnny was informed that his attentions would be acceptable, and he could have a first interview that evening, as the old folks were to be from home for a couple of hours. At the appointed time Johnny went to the house, dressed up in his broad cloth and kid gloves, with a grand silk umbrella in his hand. He was duly introduced, and the discreet brother very considerately withdrew, and left them to arrange matters. How Johnny conducted himself during the interview is now the subject of universal conversation at Croxdale.

The "young lady" at first absolutely refused to have anything to do with him, unless he would first shave off his whiskers and beard, which he promised to do before his next visit. She then promised to meet him at a certain hour on a certain night, dressed in a white shawlet, and have a moonlight walk with her devoted admirer. From this time forth Johnny and his "lady love" met regularly, and the couple might have been seen any night on the Darlington road beyond Croxdale, walking side by side, the arm of the swain fondly encircling the waist of his adorable mistress. Johnny was not so deeply smitten, however, but that he noticed some rather strange peculiarities in the manner and behaviour of his charmer. She wore very strong boots, for instance, and walked with a firm, vigorous step, like a female Weston, but she explained that she liked to keep her feet warm, and Johnny acquiesced with the trite remark that when the feet were warm we felt warm all over. Then she grasped his hand at parting with a grip that always brought the tears to his eyes; but Johnny put this to the warmth of her feelings.

Marriage was eventually proposed and the offer accepted. The ring was to have been bought last Saturday, and the ceremony completed by special license. But, alas for Johnny's peace of mind--they took their last walk on New Year's Eve. Johnny on that night was more affectionate and pressing in his suit than ever, but "the lady" reminded him that he would have to go home with her and ask the consent of her parents to the match. Nothing loath, Johnny expressed himself perfectly willing to do so, and the twain at once proceeded to the girl's domicile for that purpose. But the evening appeared to be inauspicious, as there was quite a large party assembled. Johnny, therefore, thought the time inopportune to prefer his request for the daughter's hand.

Not so, however, "the lady," for she stood forth, and informed the company that he had proposed to marry her, and she desired them all to bear witness to the fact, for she was now going to put his love to the test. Saying which, she proceeded to divest herself of her bonnet, fall, gloves, shawlet, gown, and other female attire, and presently stood before them in the form of a strapping potter lad, known as "Queer Tommy." It would be impossible to describe the scene which ensued upon this exposure. Suffice it is to say, that the would-be bridegroom eventually made his escape from his tormentors amid much merriment.

Since the above event was made public "Johnny" has been so unmercifully chaffed that he has threatened several people with personal chastisement; he has sought the protection of the local policeman, and got the viewer to give a general notice that any one interfering with him in future will be discharged from the colliery. It should, however, be known to all men and women, whom it may concern, that he is again cultivating his hirsute appendages, and presents a very grisly appearance in his woeful devastation.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 02:04

Wheat Loaf: Feb 13, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

e: image leeching, sorry

Wheat Loaf has a new favorite as of 18:14 on Jan 8, 2016

# ? Jan 8, 2016 18:12

CJacobs: Apr 17, 2011; Reach for the moon!

Mulva posted:

Yeah but allowing for split "interest" in photos would open up a whole can of worms. If someone takes a funny picture or video of me in a public place and it goes viral do I get a shares of the copyright? After all I am the performer in this case and the work wouldn't exist without me. What about Apple? After all if not for them making the iPhone I could not have bought it and taken the picture? If the case was decided the way you want it to be, every photographic or video work done without a release or contract would be like a song with 1000 writers.

Yeah but in this case the other half of the split party is a monkey, a creature that has no knowledge of a camera or what it does or what buttons are or how to purposefully press them for the intentional action of creating a photograph. Just because the monkey is sentient doesn't mean that it taking the picture was as intentional as if a person did so. Like someone else said, it's closer to a rock falling on the button or something. I would certainly say that in such cases where the party that actually took the picture had no possible way to understand what it did, that it did, or how it did (or is not sentient), the copyright would fall on the owner of the device, the other half of the "split".

CJacobs has a new favorite as of 18:22 on Jan 8, 2016

# ? Jan 8, 2016 18:19

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

The irony is that the guy probably made up the part about the monkey tripping the shutter.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 18:23

Gynocentric Regime: Jun 9, 2010; by Cyrano4747

CJacobs posted:

Yeah but in this case the other half of the split party is a monkey, a creature that has no knowledge of a camera or what it does or what buttons are or how to purposefully press them for the intentional action of creating a photograph. I would certainly say this is a special exception.

That would be ok, except the US is a common law system so the lawsuit could end up setting all kinds of precedent on the way to resolving this single case. Shutter throw is probably still the best line to draw in the absence of contracts or releases, it's not perfect but it's the best we have for now.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 18:23

CJacobs: Apr 17, 2011; Reach for the moon!

I don't want to live in a world where people cite "Man v. A Monkey (and also PETA)" as a defending argument for who owns a copyright in a court case

# ? Jan 8, 2016 18:25

Solice Kirsk: Jun 1, 2004; .

CJacobs posted:

I don't want to live in a world where people cite "Man v. A Monkey (and also PETA)" as a defending argument for who owns a copyright in a court case

They didn't rule in favor of the animal/PETA though right? So I doubt any other claims would be made. Otherwise every singe "animal steals go pro" video would be upfor grabs to anyone willing to represent the pigeon/monkey/dog.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 18:46

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Next you�re going to tell me that the Tree That Owns Itself is a fraud.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 18:52

Wheat Loaf: Feb 13, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

Famous puddle drained by accident.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 23:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 00:30

christmas boots: Oct 15, 2012; To these sing-alongs 🎤of siren 🧜🏻‍♀️songs
To oohs😮 to ahhs😱 to 👏big👏applause👏
With all of my 😡anger I scream🤬 and shout📢
🇺🇸America🦅, I love you 🥰but you're freaking 💦me 😳out; Biscuit Hider

Wheat Loaf posted:

Famous puddle drained by accident.

"I'd love to say there's some clever deep strategy but it is just genuinely hilarious."

Haha, I appreciate their honesty.

# ? Jan 9, 2016 00:17

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > Weird News Headlines: Twerk will set you free

«‹›848 »