Hasidic Newspaper Removes Clinton, Another Woman From Iconic Photo

Update from the Washington post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...itung-newspaper/2011/05/09/AFfJbVYG_blog.html

Peace
Steve

The Washington Post blog post above acknowledges that the government indeed cannot hold copyright.

OK 4 - 1 = 3
But the conditions of use are actionable.

Steve

Sirius Glass said:

......the conditions of use are actionable........

Click to expand...

Exactly. The newspaper has violated the terms of use. Period.

Sirius Glass said:

1. The photographs are not in the public domain.
2. The photographs are copyrighted.
3. There are legally binding conditions for use.
4. The copyright is enforceable.

So you are 100% wrong on at least four counts.

This might be a good time to gracefully back out.

Steve

Click to expand...

Steve- You write with great authority, so you obviously must know what you are talking about. Please elaborate for the mere mortals among us and give us further education. Citations would be particularly helpful. (Or you can just back out, but the "gracefully" part is probably beyond your abilities).

Sirius Glass said:

OK 4 - 1 = 3
But the conditions of use are actionable.

Steve

Click to expand...

Steve-
Please see post #31.

resummerfield said:

Exactly. The newspaper has violated the terms of use. Period.

Click to expand...

Resummerfield-
I can place an image in the public domain on flickr, too, and put the same "restrictions" on its use. My doing so does not make it any more enforceable than the WH's.

If it was a Baptist, or Catholic, or Lutheran publication that did this, no one would be talking about it. How about we talk about something that matters, like what's the best temperature to serve beer at.

QUOTE Dave_ON
If it was a Baptist, or Catholic, or Lutheran publication that did this, no one would be talking about it. How about we talk about something that matters, like what's the best temperature to serve beer at.


i don't care what religion it is, that was not the issue in the first place. The fact that an image was manipulated before publication is the issue. i don't care if it was a catholic (which I was) lutheran..... ANY of them.
people get blinded by religion to where they cannot even think straight.

These threads get soooooo twisted it blows me away sometimes.

ishutteratthethought said:

i don't care what religion it is, that was not the issue in the first place. The fact that an image was manipulated before publication is the issue. i don't care if it was a catholic (which I was) lutheran..... ANY of them.
people get blinded by religion to where they cannot even think straight.

These threads get soooooo twisted it blows me away sometimes.

Click to expand...

Religion isn't about truth or accuracy it is about religion. People get offended when you point out this bitter fact.

Alan W said:

When I saw the title I thought someone had a photo of Bill minus Monica!

Click to expand...

Someone on another site suggested Bill probably wishes it were that easy to get rid of Hilary.

ishutteratthethought said:

These threads get soooooo twisted it blows me away sometimes.

Click to expand...

Threads, like White House photos, are out of control of the original poster....

billbretz said:

Steve- You write with great authority, so you obviously must know what you are talking about. Please elaborate for the mere mortals among us and give us further education. Citations would be particularly helpful. (Or you can just back out, but the "gracefully" part is probably beyond your abilities).

Click to expand...

I have dealt with these issues at work. This is common knowledge about property rights.

Do your due diligence and spend sometime researching the subject on the internet. There is a lot of material there and a few hours reading would do you a lot more good than shooting from the hip. Since you are still wet behind the ears, Grasshopper, take that as an assignment.

Steve

ishutteratthethought said:

QUOTE Dave_ON
If it was a Baptist, or Catholic, or Lutheran publication that did this, no one would be talking about it. How about we talk about something that matters, like what's the best temperature to serve beer at.


i don't care what religion it is, that was not the issue in the first place. The fact that an image was manipulated before publication is the issue. i don't care if it was a catholic (which I was) lutheran..... ANY of them.
people get blinded by religion to where they cannot even think straight.

These threads get soooooo twisted it blows me away sometimes.

Click to expand...

You were dragging your coat, as the Brits say, by posting this story this way. This last bit of disingenuousness doesn't change that fact. In the end, I'd find bigger axes to grind next time.

ishutteratthethought said:

QUOTE Dave_ON
If it was a Baptist, or Catholic, or Lutheran publication that did this, no one would be talking about it. How about we talk about something that matters, like what's the best temperature to serve beer at.


i don't care what religion it is, that was not the issue in the first place. The fact that an image was manipulated before publication is the issue. i don't care if it was a catholic (which I was) lutheran..... ANY of them.
people get blinded by religion to where they cannot even think straight.

These threads get soooooo twisted it blows me away sometimes.

Click to expand...

If I believed your original post had much to do with artistic license and copyright, I wouldn't have had an issue with it.

I was really hoping I wasn't going to have to explain this, but......

- You chose to use the religion in your post title. It was totally unnecessary to do so for the point of discussion you are professing your post to be about. We're all capable of clicking on the link you provided and reading it for ourselves.

- You stated, "How they planned on getting this through without anyone noticing is beyond me, maybe they just don't care". Yet you failed to acknowledge in your original and subsequent posts that the publication itself admitted it was an error in judgment and apologized. Presumably you read the article you supplied the link for?

- You stated, "I found it interesting how they do not print images of women in their newspaper." Having not provided any further explanation to that statement, you leave one to assume you're making a judgment on a religions beliefs and practices. Furthermore, the statement has nothing to do with (once again), what you profess your original post to be about.

- It's safe to assume you don't know a lot about the publication of which you speak, nor it's publisher, editors or staff. Despite that, in subsequent posts you referred to it as "a rag" and "a piece of crap." This has something to do with artistic license and copyright? Please explain. Furthermore, again you did this with no acknowledgement that the publication itself recognized its lack of judgment and apology on the issue.

- You stated "I will not subscribe to this rag anytime soon." Pretty safe bet, without needing to be said and again having nothing to do with the subject.

-The link you so kindly provided contained a subsequent link to an obviously anti-Semitic web-site. The story was available on other legitimate web sites that have the integrity to not post links to anti-Semite sites.

"These threads get soooooo twisted" you say? Not from my point of view. I saw your original and subsequent posts for exactly what they were.

It's easy to hate what we don't don't understand. Intelligence is a choice.

Dave

Sirius Glass said:

I have dealt with these issues at work. This is common knowledge about property rights.

Do your due diligence and spend sometime researching the subject on the internet. There is a lot of material there and a few hours reading would do you a lot more good than shooting from the hip. Since you are still wet behind the ears, Grasshopper, take that as an assignment.

Steve

Click to expand...

I'll look past your silly name calling and stick to the facts, something that you seem to be unable to do.

The government cannot, by law, claim copyright. Doesn't take a few hours of research. Since you decline to cite your sources (have none?) here's a start for you to research. There's plenty more, just Google it:

http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml

Here's the relevant passage if you can't find it (it's right at the top of the page):

"A United States government work is prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties.

It is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws:

reproduce the work in print or digital form;
create derivative works;
perform the work publicly;
display the work;
distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending."


And your argument is based on what facts?

Please, again, give me your sources, citations, anything that shows proof you know what you are talking about, besides saying "I know what I'm talking about."

ishutteratthethought said:

Not only terms of use but the fact that the image is manipulated and therefore untrue violates the publics trust.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with that. The newspaper violated the basic ethic of journalism. They should reflect better about the border separating opinion, or even prejudice, and straight falsification of a fact.

Religion is no excuse. Religion doesn't justify everything.

Diapositivo said:

I totally agree with that. The newspaper violated the basic ethic of journalism. They should reflect better about the border separating opinion, or even prejudice, and straight falsification of a fact.

Religion is no excuse. Religion doesn't justify everything.

Click to expand...

I also agree. Religion is no excuse to distort fact.

We have enough of this!

I found this really interesting. I have an interest in issues where two conventions clash but I'm not really interested in the issues of journalistic ethics, censorship or copyright. For me it was the status of women that was most interesting. I read about Tznius and its interpretation is clearly cause for debate just as the status of women is in Islam and even some Christian groups - that debate is both internal and external. And then I remembered a conversation I had back in 2004 with an (secular) American friend. She claimed that the then proposed French law to prohibit face veils was anti-Semitic. I thought it was clearly anti-Islam but she was adamant. This story has just brought that debate back to my mind and it shows firstly how similar religious conventions are no matter the name of the religion, but also that these conventions which were designed for a distinct group come under great stress as modernity opens the group up to greater scrutiny.

This was a useful site I found:
Dead Link Removed (I had no idea about the female singing voice)

As was this commentary:
http://www.elegantreviews.com/rabbi...ewspaper-erased-hillary-clinton-from-history/