The question was why isn’t it okay to steal other people’s work and pass it off as your own if you don’t get paid. My response was that he’s gaining both real (donations, sale of signatures on prints of ‘his’ work), and more intangible rewards from the theft like fame, connections, and potentially further employment.

He raised $12k to pay himself for stealing it, and was offering signed prints of “his” work as a donor reward. So he certainly was earning money from it.

Um... I’m suggesting the guy is a pedo, so if I’m trolling anyone, it’s the guy who stole the artwork...

Her use of the image might come the “fair use” clause of copyright law, which is a fairly loose clause, from what I understand. His use of the image, and directly lifting her interpretation of the image to raise money on the other hand ...

It isn’t commercial work so no, she didn’t need to licence the photo for this.

She did credit the photographer for one thing (the image Devins “found” was a re-colour she did later, the first upload had a credit) but also no, she’s not selling it and not being paid to create it so it’s a different case to what he did.

He may have gotten more than he needed in donations (so a profit), or at least some seem to view it that way. Then of course their is the plagerism which while fairly common in art as well as in many areas of life throughout history (Dr King for instance plagerised his doctoral thesis it seems and the Lion King has…

See also from legalzoom (I remembered this case from a few years ago);

I’m guessing they did say it. I doubt the manager on duty knew any of this. A lot of the system is automated. The only reason I’m an actual projectionist, like a human in a projection booth, is because we show all different formats of film. I’m guessing Showcase Cinemas only shows digital film.

Agreed. They handled it poorly.

i didn’t go full throttle. “almost feels like a stunt”. i was being speculative. your absolutist response is too much for me.

you make it sound like they’ve never been to see a film before, or sought accommodation from a movie theatre before, despite being a group of 18 deaf people. i’m sure that with such a brain trust of deaf people they would’ve thought to contact the theatre in advance to ensure they’d receive proper assistance -aware as…

well, realistically speaking they probably didn’t reach out to the theatre in advance to ensure they’d be properly accommodated. it sucks, but the reality is what it is - most theatres don’t have that many closed caption devices ready for 18 filmgoers simultaneously... and if we’re talking about a group of 18 -surely…

i assume any group of adult friends with hearing loss probably have experienced going to a movie theatre before and using a closed caption device provided by the theatre. my underlying point was that few theatres are prepared to deal with 18 deaf or hard of hearing individuals at once - especially without advance…

I’m wondering if calling the theater ahead of time and letting them know that 18 people would be coming to see that particular showing would allow the theater ample time to make adjustments or let them know over the phone that they couldn’t accommodate them would have been a better idea.

the captions don’t show up on the screen - they’re transmitted to a device for personal use.

I’d be willing to bet they ARE doing something wrong. Like I said, the fact that they handled it so poorly speaks to the accesibility concerns and needs that aren’t being met. Frankly, I’d be pretty surprised if a 12 screen multiplex had 18 closed caption devices.

I’m a film projectionist and it’s not as easy as turning the closed captions on. Films come on drives now, and they are unlocked with digital “keys.” The keys unlock all the different versions on the film (2D, 3D, 5.1, 7.1 etc) These keys come from the distributors, and unless they are provided and then installed,…

First Cloney, outfitted in a fedora and overcoat, physically tried to stop Switzer, but she avoided his clutches.