Reply #132: Think hard before you write. [View All]

[fat free goodness]

RE: "He said he had consent from the original artist... prove he didn't or else your just hocking second hand right wing indignation."
a) The copyright owner (who is also the original artist’s son) says Churchill did NOT have permission. I believe this information was included in the original article that started the thread.
b) As anyone familiar with copyright law would know, permission to use a copyrighted work must be in writing and clearly define the circumstances under which it can be used. Else, the grantor runs the risk of weakening or destroying copyright protection, and the grantee runs the risk of not being able to prove such permission was granted. Churchill has not produced any written permission to use the work.
c) The copyrighted publication containing the work included a notice that written permission must be obtained before reproducing the material.
d) Churchill also says he told prospective purchasers that the work was “derivative” and not original. Oddly, the purchasers say they were told it was original, and express surprise and disappointment that it is not.

RE: “I'm assuming he did and you are really just a willing mouth piece for a Crucible like political witch hunt. You should be proud.”
You demand that I check my facts, yet make such an accusation based on what you admit is assumption? Perhaps you should take your own advice and check your facts before making such accusations. (It's easy to get enthusiastic in such a discussion: no hard feelings.)