Where in your video from Al Jazeera (which has no credibility unless you’re a gullible fool with no media literacy) do you see or hear anything resembling a sniper?

How do you watch that video and think you’ve discerned any information from it other than someone somewhere got shot while trying to help a kid? You don’t even know if the kid was shot, let alone who shot him. What a wildly unsupported claim you repeated and shared from Qatari state media.

Just as likely, based on your video showing next to nothing informative, that Hamas is shooting at that guy to inflate the civilian casualties, as they do.

And, wow, you know what beliefs others hold? Are you psychic in addition to omniscient? I wonder, if nobody in Israel thinks anyone in Gaza is innocent, why do they bother with evacuations and air strike warnings? Wonder why does Israel send in food and medicine thousands of trucks at a time. Don’t these facts tend to show that you’re wrong about what you were told to think that Israelis believe?

Oh there’s a pattern alright. It leads directly to Hamas and their fucked up ideology.

That’s already the case. There would be two copyrights for a cartoon for Donald duck, and possibly, in fact likely, many others.

A copyright is essentially a right of enforcement. You don’t have to register anything or file anything in order to gain that right. It’s a right to sue someone to enjoin further use and potentially to recoup money damages if you can prove loss.

The standard for whether something is copyrightable at the outset is whether it is the product of a modicum of creativity, and reduced to a tangible medium of expression.

So far one cartoon of Donald duck, each drawn frame of the show would have its own copyright. Also, the character would have a copyright. The dialogue of the script would have another copyright. And the test for whether a particular character is something that can be copyrighted is to ask whether the character is separable from the overall work and whether the character is “well delineated.”

Donald duck is certainly the product of creativity, it is reduced to a tangible medium of expression when it is drawn on paper, and it is the main character of the show and has its own personality and behavior. So it is pretty clearly of deserving protection. Although at this point in time, I believe some of Disney’s earliest characters are now in the public domain, Even Mickey mouse, which people like my IP professor in law school said was never going to happen. This is because I believe in 1984 there was a law called the copyright act of 1984 but was colloquial referred to as the Mickey mouse copyright act. It was championed by Sonny Bono, who I believe was friends with Walt Disney personally, and which many said had the sole purpose of extending Mickey mouse’s copyright for another 25 years or whatever it was. My memory is a little fuzzy on this. My professor figured that Disney was such a powerful institution that anytime Mickey mouse was about to fall into the public domain, Congress would stop it.

A doctrine sort of related to your question is called scen a faire. It is a French phrase which I have no doubt spelled wrong because I am on mobile. It means that elements essential to a scene of the kind which would be common to all scenes of that type, are not copyrightable. So this would include some background characters such as those that, despite being drawn in a creative way, are more so the product of the scene itself rather than any creativity. For example, if there is a scene in a cartoon where the character gets onto a train and hands the ticket to a ticket taker, the ticker taker character is probably not copyrightable.

Thanks for that explainer. I thought the verbiage in the article was a little over the top.

However there is a point at which the “style” of the art is the thing that is copyrightable, sort of by implication.

The standard for proving a copyright violation where a defendant claims a transformative use or a derivative work is “substantial similar.”

For as long as I can remember that includes the overall presentation of the work, and it’s hard to describe that as anything other than a “style.”

The article draws a comparison that allowing copyright protection for styles would be like allowing copyrights for entire genres. I don’t think that’s right. Nobody could copyright all “landscape paintings” as a genre, but look at landscape works by Katsushika Hokusai, and that style, to me, is creative enough to warrant protection, if it were made originally in America today and not already in the public domain. And he didn’t invent woodblock prints or even woodblock prints of landscapes, but the way he did it is so unique as to be insperable from the copyrighted work itself and arguably deserving of protection simply for its advancement of the art.

If you made a woodblock print in the same style but used it to portray a scene typical in anime, rather than a landscape, that’s clearly transformative and derivative, but not substantially similar. If you use the style to make prints of waves breaking around Mt. Fuji, that’s substantially similar. So like, as to dude’s anime style, if you use the same style to make landscapes, certainly that’s not infringing, as it’s not substantially similar.

I also don’t see the threatening outcome the author suggests as worrisome. There are still exceptions for blatant copying that apply, mainly parody and fair use.

Yeah why haven’t they then I wonder.

Maybe if you can’t read and add projecting your own anger.

Shocker. Back to your safe space.

Hamas is the most modern entrenched power in Gaza. It ha ideological predecessors they are indistinguishable.

You seem very aware of the situation so I’m sure you know more than I but from what I’ve read multiple times the aids towards Gaza was stopped in its track by the IDF including at the ports.

That’s because you’re getting your media from actually full of shit sources. Everything that goes into Gaza is because Israel lets it in. They built two or three new desalinization plants since the war started. “Oh but isn’t Israel purposely destroying water infrastructure to make people die of thirst?” No. That would be genocidal. What they have done is blow up tunnel shafts where Hamas hides out, and it’s Hamas that tied those systems into anything resembling a public water supply.

Israel, aside from a few weeks recently, has been letting in between hundreds and thousands of trucks of food and medicine per week.

The US floods in money to Israel for two reasons, one of which is not legitimate. The main reason, and the one that’s legit, is because contrary to what absolute donkeys on the internet say, Israel is a democracy surrounded by hostile religious dictatships. The west cannot allow it to fall for ideological reasons, for reasons of global hedgemony. It’s like how French General Lafayette dropped everything to come help America fight the British. He said “The happiness of America is intimately connected with the happiness of all mankind.” He recognized what democracy could mean for the world; democracy is a radical idea. It needs to be protected from hostile dictatorships who think liberal ideas such as voting are blasphemous to the word of God and a capital offense. They are insane.

The illegitimate reason is some mystical Bible nonsense about the return of Christ only taking place once Jews inhabit the holy land. Also insane.

For incoming rocket alerts: rocketalert.live

4 on 3/28. 255 on 3/27. ~2,124 rockets since January 5 of this year.

“The US.” It’s a judicial decision. Based on expert testimony. Seriously, how old are you? How far did you go in school?