..does your friend think that distributing pornography is illegal?
mynameagain
mynameagain
Given that the images are already publicly available, the artist is not violating anyone's privacy (i.e., once information is made public, it is no longer private in the legal sense). They are not revealing or exposing anything that has not already been revealed or exposed. Your cop example is not analogous; a police…
With what sex crime, exactly, should attendees be charged?
: |
He is not exposing anything that is not already exposed, nor committing any act of intrusion (unless it can be proven that he is the person who originally hacked their accounts). He is not the violator of any privacy - the images are already public. That is the part of the point of the body of work.
Yeah - that was an interesting case. I think the line drawn was that the photographer was not necessarily intending to get shots of (the) monkeys in that specific situation - whereas had he set up the camera with a motion-sensor triggering mechanism, he would have done enough to claim copyright in any images he got as…
I was addressing your blanket statement, which is extremely broad - and would thus (as written) include all types of Fair Use (including that in the case I cited). That statement is incorrect, as the case cited is an example of fair use of pirated materials. The same rule would likely apply here, as well; the artist…
I think you'd be heard pressed to find a jurisdiction that makes it illegal for an artist to create a work of art depicting a famous person without first securing that person's permission and / or paying them a cut of the profits. Additionally, personality rights are limited by the First Amendment, which would most…
You were equating the images in question to child pornography, and how making "Art" from them would effect the legality of displaying the images. The comparison is not analogous, as the very nature and content of child pornography itself is illegal from the get-go - the nature and content of these images is not (even…
I highly doubt that is their actual defense - it is simply a public statement.
A trial in which evidence is presented and considered by a jury in determining whether or not the defendant is guilty of the charges. That's the point of pleading not guilty even when you are guilty. Case in point; OJ Simpson.
If the artist is not the one who stole the images, then displaying them, in and of itself, would most likely not be illegal; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartnicki…
Not necessarily illegal; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartnicki…
It's not without precedent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherrie_L…
"There's no such thing as fair use on pirated materials" - Actually; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartnicki…
The case I linked to specifically points out that the fact of it being stolen property has nothing to do with whether or not the artist using / displaying the property is legal or illegal. Did you bother to read it?
The artist could very well be protected, for two reasons;
Actually, since the artist isn't the one who stole the images from the copyright owner, they could very well be acting within the Law. Not the same as kiddie porn, as the content of kiddie porn itself is what is (also) illegal.