Comments on: An Open Letter to Michael Crook

By: JB

JB — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:05:56 +0000

Rob,

Thanks for the heads up. The link has been removed. That must have been a recent change I was using the link in my bookmarks up to a few weeks ago.

Leave it to Crook to screw over Webmasters who were depending on his link.

By: PlagiarismToday » Update: Michael Crook Responds to EFF

PlagiarismToday » Update: Michael Crook Responds to EFF — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:03:23 +0000

[...] As I stated before, I feel that Crook is grossly misreading copyright law and abusing the DMCA to silence those critical of him. Though I will have to see the actual document to see what his arguments are, these updates seem to continue the same flawed logic. [...]

By: Rob A

Rob A — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:34:17 +0000

Might want to fix that link to [redacted]

It appears to be redirected to a porn site now…

By: JB

JB — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:05:56 +0000

Rob,

Thanks for the heads up. The link has been removed. That must have been a recent change I was using the link in my bookmarks up to a few weeks ago.

Leave it to Crook to screw over Webmasters who were depending on his link.

By: Rob A

Rob A — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:34:17 +0000

Might want to fix that link to [redacted]

It appears to be redirected to a porn site now…

By: PlagiarismToday » Welcome BoingBoing, Digg & 10ZenMonkey Visitors

PlagiarismToday » Welcome BoingBoing, Digg & 10ZenMonkey Visitors — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:54:44 +0000

[...] Also, to those who have read my article on 10ZenMonkeys, you might be interested in my previous articles on the subject. How Not the Use the DMCA, An Open Letter to Michael Crook and Hosts: The Real DMCA Problem. [...]

By: Laughing Squid » EFF Sues Michael Crook for Bogus DMCA Claims

Laughing Squid » EFF Sues Michael Crook for Bogus DMCA Claims — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:31:40 +0000

[...] UPDATE 11: Jonathan Bailey writes an An Open Letter to Michael Crook, explaining to him that you do not own the copyright to your image. [...]

By: Yaron

Yaron — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:46:49 +0000

“One’s face is not a work of original authorship, one does not “create�? their own face, and a face is not fixed in a tangible medium of expression”

Just out of curiosity, and an odd sense of humour, what would be the case for non-trivial plastic surgery then?
Copyrighted by the surgeon? Do the release forms transfer copyright to the patients so they will be allowed to show their face in public?

By: JB

JB — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:14:40 +0000

Interesting question. I can't point to any case law here but judging from the lack of plastic surgeons suing paparazzi photographers, I'd say it doesn't hold up.

The problem there probably is the lack of fixation into a tangible medium. I seriously doubt that plastic surgery, which can shift and change and can not be easily reproduced, qualifies.

Still, it is an amusing question. It would be a very entertaining lawsuit.

By: Yaron

Yaron — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:46:49 +0000

"Oneâs face is not a work of original authorship, one does not âcreateâ? their own face, and a face is not fixed in a tangible medium of expression"

Just out of curiosity, and an odd sense of humour, what would be the case for non-trivial plastic surgery then?
Copyrighted by the surgeon? Do the release forms transfer copyright to the patients so they will be allowed to show their face in public?