I recently wrote a request to boing boing asking for a copyright release to in effect get a tee shirt embroidered with some kind of logo (I can be specific)
as the work is carried out by a high street .com and they asked me to sign a release of etcetera
1 Like
Nicely drafted motion.
I particularly like the citation of Calkins v. Playboy Enterprises International, Inc.
Always nice when you can quote a case where your opponent successfully argued the exact opposite of what they are arguing now.
15 Likes
Boing Boing is now a force to be reckoned with. A moment to be proud of?
3 Likes
No, but if you need help I can hook you up. It might not be what you’re expecting. 
Playboy is still around? I thought the magazine went tits up when they eliminated nudity a couple years ago.
3 Likes
That didn’t last long.
9 Likes
In the event that this post and corresponding comments are brought in any kind of suit, may it please the court to know that the plaintiff and those representing the plaintiff are complete and utter putzes.
1 Like
Right; they basically went back to pre-1969 standards on the nudity.
Can…can we fucking stop with this example?
When A. J. Daulerio gave his deposition, he said the only way a celebrity sex tape would be non-newsworthy is if the celebrity was under the age of 4. Yes, I do get the difference between this and other revenge porn cases. Gawker deemed it to be newsworthy. And Gawker has drawn a line in the sand against revenge porn…if the primary victim is a woman. And I get that the judge could have simply said, hey, this isn’t defamation, because it’s true that you had sex with this woman, we’ve literally all seen it. But something seems…icky…about using this as an example of the press being wronged.
If nothing else, maybe Gawker going down in flames will mean I won’t see headlines like, “Jennifer Lawrence victim of iCloud hacking, nudes leaked, Internet outraged [PHOTO GALLERY INSIDE]” for a while. Think about Jennifer Lawrence and the other women who were victims of the iCloud theft. If Gawker had published those and Nick Denton’s defense had been, “I think celebrities have a smaller zone of privacy than private individuals,” do you agree? Because that was his defense in the Hogan case.
Anyway, this is totally different anyway, because unlike Hulk and unlike The Fappening, the primary concern here is copyright infringement, as the women in Playboy have signed releases. At least they can’t claim the images were used against the women’s permission. Not sure why they’re not trying to make an example of imgur, though; they have almost zero control over what gets posted. If BoingBoing goes down in flames, I hate to think what that will mean for services like Google Image Search.
4 Likes
Although I agree Thiel has set a dangerous precedent when it comes to billionaires funding proxy suits to shut down sites that hurt their fee-fees, I doubt that’s what’s going on here. This is bog-standard “throw it on the wall and see what sticks” IP driving trollies. Playboy has enough money to file a frivolous boilerplate lawsuit like this on its own in the hope that someone will just pay up just to avoid the hassle. In this case they messed with the wrong target, and the result will likely be that going forward they’ll have to do the much harder work of going after sites that make money directly off infringement.
8 Likes
“Snake” Plissken, is that you?
1 Like
2 Likes
eggnogblog?
2 Likes
they only read boing boing for the articles, tho
4 Likes
“This article sponsored by Playboy.”
3 Likes
Now I want to see “Escape from M. Night Shyamalan”, in which Bruce Willis and Kurt Russell team up.
8 Likes
Yes. There is also an XKCD for it.
4 Likes
So, inserting a link in this comment session could make anyone of us a criminal?
6 Likes
That comic is referencing this:
3 Likes
yes, and panel 4 of the homage is referencing here.
2 Likes
