|
Wasn't aware that she did porn, she was collegehumor.com's #1 college hottie or something like that one year.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
The Door Frame posted:Do those meme people own their own likenesses? A lot of memes are actually based on stock photographs, there have been cases of random people getting harassed because a photoshoot they did years ago was used for the face of one of the endless "person who likes things Reddit doesnt"/"person who hates things Reddit likes" image macros.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Wilford Cutlery posted:Wasn't aware that she did porn, she was collegehumor.com's #1 college hottie or something like that one year. I thought I heard that photo was from the beginning of a porn shoot. Could've been wrong I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
You might remember vegan mayonnaise substitute product Just Mayo for coming under fire a while back for calling itself mayonnaise when it didn't actually contain eggs, despite having a stylized egg as its logo. Its parent company Hampton Creek Inc is now under fire again for artificially inflating its sales and marketing figures by paying people to buy its own product.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:Do those meme people own their own likenesses? No one owns their own likeness. Generally the copyright on a photo is held by the photographer or the organisation that employed them to take the photo (unless they sell or waive it). You could make a case for defamation though if your photo is used without your permission in a way that implies something negative about you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Actually, yeah, if you're a celebrity or an athlete or something, you can license out your own likeness for video games and stuff. It's why the main character in the Minority Report video game looks nothing like Tom Cruise, they couldn't get his likeness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:Actually, yeah, if you're a celebrity or an athlete or something, you can license out your own likeness for video games and stuff. It's why the main character in the Minority Report video game looks nothing like Tom Cruise, they couldn't get his likeness. I had the N64 Mission Impossible and he was a dick about that one too. The main character ended up looking kinda like Ethan Hawke I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:Actually, yeah, if you're a celebrity or an athlete or something, you can license out your own likeness for video games and stuff. It's why the main character in the Minority Report video game looks nothing like Tom Cruise, they couldn't get his likeness. That's different to the issue of memes though, because it's a commercial product. You're not allowed to use someone's likeness to advertise without their permission, and having him in the game would be a key selling point. And it applies to normal people too; your hairdresser can't take a photo of you and use it to promote their business without your permission. An artist can take a photograph of you (or Tom Cruise) and put it on display without even telling you about it though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:A lot of memes are actually based on stock photographs, there have been cases of random people getting harassed because a photoshoot they did years ago was used for the face of one of the endless "person who likes things Reddit doesnt"/"person who hates things Reddit likes" image macros. The You Gonna Get Raped man got screwed pretty hard, poor guy
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
The singer from Dee-Lite sued a software company that used her as the main character in a video game without her permission.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Wilford Cutlery posted:The singer from Dee-Lite sued a software company that used her as the main character in a video game without her permission. ...and she lost. *slide whistle*
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Oh well, so did Sega 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:The You Gonna Get Raped man got screwed pretty hard, poor guy None of that story is actually true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:An artist can take a photograph of you (or Tom Cruise) and put it on display without even telling you about it though. No, it's not that clear-cut. Model release forms are a thing for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:I had the N64 Mission Impossible and he was a dick about that one too. The main character ended up looking kinda like Ethan Hawke I think. Remember that train level? I think you had to snipe a few people in really quick succession at some point or the mission failed. Brutal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:That's different to the issue of memes though, because it's a commercial product. You're not allowed to use someone's likeness to advertise without their permission, and having him in the game would be a key selling point. And it applies to normal people too; your hairdresser can't take a photo of you and use it to promote their business without your permission. An artist can take a photograph of you (or Tom Cruise) and put it on display without even telling you about it though. Not quite so fast; as with anything its complicated. It depends where the photo was taken, for one. In public spaces there's no expectation of privacy so you can take pictures. But in private property it is up to the owner and they can disallow it. You can however take pictures of private property from public property, or from your own private property. And then some states have additional restrictions, like California. There's also specific laws covering things like recording naked people in public bathrooms or public locker rooms, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:I had the N64 Mission Impossible and he was a dick about that one too. The main character ended up looking kinda like Ethan Hawke I think. I believe his started issue was that he didn't want to be involved with something where he wasn't in control of how he would appear. In other news, turns out the FTC has decided to start cracking down on celebrity Instagram/Twitter product endorsements. They've decided that the gravy train is done and that if a company wants a celeb to sell the product they have to be unambiguously clear that they are getting paid to promote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
While I don't care for image macros at all this is still pretty funny and it seems they didn't remember the movie well at all
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
You wear your Beats by Dre everywhere? How are they not broken by now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
stringball posted:While I don't care for image macros at all this is still pretty funny and it seems they didn't remember the movie well at all https://www.frackfeed.com/category/memes/
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:You wear your Beats by Dre everywhere? Beats are literally a fashion to some people and buy them just to wear around to look cool
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
I got a pair of Beats earbuds one Christmas and one of the buds went out in less than a month. Beats are garbage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
I had a pair of the original giant Beats "studio" headphones and they lasted for about 6 years, through heavy wear and tear, being dropped etc. I was really bummed when they broke but if I ever replace them it will probably be with a pair of Sennheisers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
stringball posted:While I don't care for image macros at all this is still pretty funny and it seems they didn't remember the movie well at all I really do love it when companies show out of touch they are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
So when does this regulation come to Steam and YouTube? I like the wild west as much as the next guy, but there has to be a line drawn at some point. How much did those Counterstrike gamblers make by not disclosing their involvement in the company they kept plugging? Tiggum posted:That's different to the issue of memes though, because it's a commercial product. You're not allowed to use someone's likeness to advertise without their permission, and having him in the game would be a key selling point. And it applies to normal people too; your hairdresser can't take a photo of you and use it to promote their business without your permission. An artist can take a photograph of you (or Tom Cruise) and put it on display without even telling you about it though. So that's why barbers ask about the before and after pictures every time. After the first time, I thought he was asking permission again just to be polite, but by the fourth time I was starting to get offended that my barber didn't even recognize me. I tip well...
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:No one owns their own likeness. Generally the copyright on a photo is held by the photographer or the organisation that employed them to take the photo (unless they sell or waive it). You could make a case for defamation though if your photo is used without your permission in a way that implies something negative about you. For example: The guy whose picture Josh Duggar stole to use for this profile pic on Ashley Madison is now suing him  Tiggum posted:That's different to the issue of memes though, because it's a commercial product. You're not allowed to use someone's likeness to advertise without their permission, and having him in the game would be a key selling point. And it applies to normal people too; your hairdresser can't take a photo of you and use it to promote their business without your permission. An artist can take a photograph of you (or Tom Cruise) and put it on display without even telling you about it though. The key issue to this is "implied endorsement". Tiger Woods lost a lawsuit against a painter who sold paintings of Woods. You can generally use someone's image because your image itself is not copyrightable. You can't use someone's image if you are creating the impression that they endorse or approve of your message. Michael Jordan won a lawsuit against a grocery store who ran an ad that said "congrats for making the hall of fame! Here's a coupon to use in our stores" because it created the impression that MJ was endorsing the store. He donated his winnings to charity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:So when does this regulation come to Steam and YouTube? I like the wild west as much as the next guy, but there has to be a line drawn at some point. It already exists, that's why there has been such a huge tussle about YT stars secretly endorsing products recently. And the answer is probably hundreds of thousands of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:No one owns their own likeness. Generally the copyright on a photo is held by the photographer or the organisation that employed them to take the photo (unless they sell or waive it). You could make a case for defamation though if your photo is used without your permission in a way that implies something negative about you. This post reminded me that this was a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 10:09
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:This post reminded me that this was a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie Dumb moves in marketing: claim that the monkey pressed the shutter to bring your photo attention, simultaneously forfeiting all rights to the photo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
republicant posted:I had a pair of the original giant Beats "studio" headphones and they lasted for about 6 years, through heavy wear and tear, being dropped etc. I was really bummed when they broke but if I ever replace them it will probably be with a pair of Sennheisers. I get the hate for Beats headphones. They are ludicrously overpriced but they seem well built and they sound pretty good if not a little bass heavy. I own a pair of Sennheisers that sound almost as good but cost me about 1/3 as much as a set of Beats. Kind of like how almost every Audi is pretty much a gussied up Volkswagen. Sure, the Audi is nicer but how many dollars nicer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
I thought Sennheiser was generally regarded as the top. most expensive/quality brand?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
If I had money I'd do that thing where you wear the big Beats headphones out in public with the cord just attached to nothing and dangling at your side.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:I thought Sennheiser was generally regarded as the top. most expensive/quality brand? Well yeah some of their offerings do reach stratospheric prices for a set of headphones. But their baseline/middle level of quality is so much higher than most common/lifestyle brands. In fact most earbuds that are from 'lifestyle' companies , so skullcandy and friends, or from electronics companies ,phillips and the like, use the same exact drivers (read:speakers) in different cladding, Sennheiser may also be guilty of this on their cheaper offerings. In fact ,objectively, the best earbuds you can get under 20-30 bucks are JVC Gumys/marshmallows. However the 100-200 dollar range is incredibly saturated with so many amazing options that outclass any of the more famous headphones. (For the interested the brands to look for are Sennheiser, AKG, Audio Technica, Beyerdynamic, Sony (not all of them tho) and Grado, just to name a few) Rigged Death Trap has a new favorite as of 13:11 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
I have yet to hear a set of headphones that beat the Beyerdynamic DT 23x series, at anything even close to the same price. Even with headphones 5 times as expensive, they still punch way above their weight, the price:quality ratio on them is absolutely ridiculous. They're too ugly to function as a fashion statement, but that's also part of why they cost so little. I'm still using my DT 231s that I bought ~15 years ago. I've replaced the earpads once, with cheap Ebay replacements, as the foam inside had disintegrated. The cord has stood up to regular abuse, including being constantly run over by my office chair and the headphones yanked from my head, and it still works perfectly. Best $30 I've ever spent on electronics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
El Estrago Bonito posted:It already exists, that's why there has been such a huge tussle about YT stars secretly endorsing products recently. And the answer is probably hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yeah, the FTC recently gave Warner Bros a public scolding about how crappy their disclosure stuff was on paying YT people to promote a videogame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Grumbletron 4000 posted:I get the hate for Beats headphones. They are ludicrously overpriced but they seem well built and they sound pretty good if not a little bass heavy. I own a pair of Sennheisers that sound almost as good but cost me about 1/3 as much as a set of Beats. Kind of like how almost every Audi is pretty much a gussied up Volkswagen. Sure, the Audi is nicer but how many dollars nicer? Beats by Dre has been proven to shove useless hunks of metal in the headphones for no reason other than making them feel heavy and solid. They cut corners on cost as well, by snapping or gluing pieces together instead of using screws to make them faster to assemble (at the cost of being much more breakable). All the actual electronics are cheap and generic pieces, and it's estimated that the headphones cost only about $16 to make. At least with Audi, you're not paying the majority of the money for the brand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:I got a pair of Beats earbuds one Christmas and one of the buds went out in less than a month. Beats are garbage. Really? I bough a pair at an airport to replace ones I broke (zippers are hard ok) and they sounded decent and lasted a few years of pretty frequent use. They were expensive as poo poo but I assumed it was just lol airport pricing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
SO, which headphones are the best for your buck?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Beats by Dre has been proven to shove useless hunks of metal in the headphones for no reason other than making them feel heavy and solid. They cut corners on cost as well, by snapping or gluing pieces together instead of using screws to make them faster to assemble (at the cost of being much more breakable). All the actual electronics are cheap and generic pieces, and it's estimated that the headphones cost only about $16 to make. Modern glues are just as strong as any screw and sometimes superior  .As long as the pieces being glued dont have to pried apart to service the thing or the glue is a nice resin epoxy instead of from a hot snot gun it's good. Tired Moritz posted:SO, which headphones are the best for your buck? The ones that sound most pleasing to you and are within your budget.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Tired Moritz posted:SO, which headphones are the best for your buck? If you're not investing in really good ($150+) headphones, https://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-II-Precision-Enhanced-Earbuds/dp/B001EZYMF4/ref=sr_1_1?s=aht&srs=2530385011&ie=UTF8&qid=1470498212&sr=1-1
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 16:44
|
|
