You are criticizing the "non-inclusiveness" of addressing people as either male or female on JEZEBEL. Think about it.

"..and now a generation and a half later we're tossing it out because, I dunno, somehow it's not inclusive enough." - Quite funny that you post this on jezebel.

Then they can simply choose to not have the service., just as one can choose to not patronize a video store that has a porn section.

"In order for a child to watch the Disney Channel, her parents must now also pay for a live sex show on WE tv,"

"...with a dash of Prometheus. There is a car driving through a corn field, there is a seemingly secret military project meeting, there is someone playing baseball and another person fixing a car in what looks like every day America." - I don't recall any of those things being in Prometheus.

"I got this tattoo for you" - I love when people do that. In what way is a tattoo that one gets on oneself a gift for someone else? "Hey honey - check out this new sports car I bought for myself that you're not allowed to drive or even ride in! Happy anniversary!!!" Makes no sense.

The owner in the copyright of the original images still owns them - however, these would be considered Fair Use as "Transformative Works".

Relevant:

"...warping and destroying her body without her consent" "It's essentially the artistic form of rape." - No, it is not rape in any way whatsoever, and this is not "warping and destroying her body" - he is transforming the images. The issue of consent is not even relevant here.

What type of lawsuit?

"Fairey tried to argue that he'd "changed the original enough" the court disagreed." - EXACTLY; had he done more to change the image, i.e. had his piece been more "transformative", it would have fallen under Fair Use.

"This is straight up copyright infringement if he didn't have permission. I'm not stating an opinion. Just facts." - No, you are making false claims.

These pieces clearly fall under Fair Use as transformative works. If he didn't have permission and somebody is mad, they can take him to court and they'll probably lose. If you seriously think there are not countless artists out there in the world legally working with appropriated imagery, you have very limited…

Yes, they most certainly can. See: Andy Warhol. Also see: Sherry Levine ("After Walker Evans").

Ah - got it. All-around terrible, either way.

No, the "photographer" is just terrible at processing their images.

Uh... what...? What does "party(ing) naked" have to do with anything?

More like excessive lightening in post-processing.

So, you were in a relationship with a married man...?

Well I doubt I am anywhere near as qualified as he, but having dealt with similar situations in the past I am happy to pass on some wise words that others gave me at the time! It wasn't the easiest conversation to have, but it made everything else from that point forward much easier to deal with because both I and the…