JHDK

yeah, I’ve showed the gameplay trailers to all my friends and they’re all in on it too. I’m so excited to play it. 

Mario Golf has me mad hype.
 
It looks like the closest thing to the PS2 era of HotShots/Everybody's Golf that I've seen in a couple of generations.

Mario Golf has me mad hype.
 
It looks like the closest thing to the PS2 era of HotShots/Everybody's Golf that I've seen in a couple of generations.

Mario Golf has me mad hype.
 
It looks like the closest thing to the PS2 era of HotShots/Everybody's Golf that I've seen in a couple of generations.

Which is positively lame.
 
If that shit were even remotely reasonable, then The 1975 would have been decimated (23d-ed?) by Jimmy Eat World for their debut banger, Sex, maybe a third of Dawes's catalogue would be null and void, and the industry would be bereft of one of its better producers in Butch Walker, for his charming little ironically dubbed Synthesizers coming all up on Eileen.

A tool to be utilized for various ends.
 
In the given scenario, a memento, assuming the photo was taken to preserve the pretty scene in said photo.

Which is positively lame.
 
If that shit were even remotely reasonable, then The 1975 would have been decimated (23d-ed?) by Jimmy Eat World for their debut banger, Sex, maybe a third of Dawes's catalogue would be null and void, and the industry would be bereft of one of its better producers in Butch Walker, for his charming little ironically dubbed Synthesizers coming all up on Eileen.

Birth control in the piped water supply.
 
*cracks open a Perrier*

Fight?
 
This is me winning 5 out of 5, alternating pressing the Atari 2600 joystick button and F5 with my offhand, whilst surfing the web with the other.

Commoner?
 
Calling someone "commoner" sounds like crossing Terry Bogard with Scorpion.
 
Street Fighter 5 levels of godawful.

It sounds like the artist had multiple purposes for the copyrighted book and CD. Not just to create a portfolio of art, but to also sell it as clipart for a side hustle. Clipart books were big back in the 1990's  (I have an ancient clipart book with CDs in my office that I still use for design). For this conversation, it is pretty photos for art and sale, such as taking a picture of a sunset and selling it for a postcard, advertisement etc.
 
The use is of commercial nature or if it is for nonprofit education purposes The copyrighted work is highly creative or if it is fact-based Part of the entire original work was reproduced or just a part of it The reproduction reduces the value of the original work or has no effect Take your pick, any answer would be a great punchline for a joke.

Sometimes I'll find photos of my buddies on Facebook and use them to Photoshop their faces on two dudes fucking and shit like that. Would that be considered fair use?

Lest we be remiss, the REAL artist is the person whose design is upon the door.
 
That the photographer would demand recompense for photographing someone else's inarguably genuine art, is mad shady.

No, no.
 
I meant the dudes. Too much Estrogen up in their sippy-simpy cups.
 

they need to up the dosages.  Some of these chicks in wal mart got a whole swat team in tow with them.  The line is taking up three isles and it's one family.  

Funny that im having a legit convo with you about what it means to do good and havent insulted you at all but you still felt the need to call me a commoner. 
 
Call me a commoner all you want, just proves me right that your not half as put together as think you are.

Birth control in the piped water supply.
 
*cracks open a Perrier*

Where it gets weird forme is thinking about like...if I take a picture of the Mona Lisa I apparently have ownership of a photo of someone else's hard work that I can then use to make money on? 
 
Like one of her examples is the door decoration. Like did they steal her photo or did they steal the door design? Does she really deserve credit and pay for taking a picture of someone else's work and then selling that picture of their work?
 
Taking the perfect landscape picture or picture of people in a moment is hard as he'll and worth being credited for, but to be perfectly honest with you, in this particular case imo, Capcom stole a door design and a broken window. How much ownership do you really have someone else's stuff, their door and their window? Does she owe royalties to the owner of the door and the window she took a picture of? She didn't make the door, she didn't break the window, she just took a picture. What about the artist or artists family who made the door? Any residuals from her when she makes money on their door? It's all so very weird to me as far as law is concerned. 
 
This is kind where I am at mentally on this. She took a picture of someone else's art, I don't really understand how you can claim ownership of someone else's (in a different form) art because you own a camera. 

Lest we be remiss, the REAL artist is the person whose design is upon the door.
 
That the photographer would demand recompense for photographing someone else's inarguably genuine art, is mad shady.

I'm kind of weird on this myself but photography is considered art...I'm just wondering where the line is on this.  Like if some person took a throwaway HD picture of some grass and put it up and then a VG dev takes that and uses it for a texture...does that give that person the right to try to sue for it just because the dev didn't go outside to take an HD picture of grass themself?

I didn't even make a choice, per se.
 
I met one whom I got on with, and simply kept going.
 

Wake me up when the Whole Woke Movement has been flushed twice.

The China thing is actually kind of a big deal, and illustrates a rather telling indifference on his part per the suffering of billions, when billions are on the line.

I have always been the exact opposite of that.
 
I don't require their validation.
 
Which is probably why ones 15 years my younger keep "accidentally" crossing into my path at the store a dozen times. 
 
Like, okay. The first few I can write off, but y'all had to backtrack twice now...
 
Dunno what it's about.
 
Don't care.
 
Never played the game, never will.

I think a lot of people these days are just plain content to not settle.
 
Good for them.
 
That's 1.25 unhappy childhoods apiece that have been prevented.