law.justia.com
Judge James E. Gritzner ruled in United States v. Handley that two parts of the PROTECT Act of 2003 criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" was unconstitutional.
Why does Patreon violate artists' freedom of speech and intellectual property rights?
Patreon has no right to tell an artist their adult character is not an adult.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Based BTFOing of pedophiles.
Shameful, fascist act of censorship.
again?!
get ready for the next week or so of spam threads for muh thundercats and this.
>pedophiles.
Go back to twitter
what freedom of speech is? The situation here can be categorized as breaking a contract, but freedom of speech is not applicable in private property from other people
fpbp
Freedom of speech is the artist saying the character she created is 18+. That is also copyright and intellectual property. Any attempt to claim the character is not 18+ is a violation of these rights.
Daily reminder:
Judge James E. Gritzner ruled in United States v. Handley that two parts of the PROTECT Act of 2003 criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" was unconstitutional.
Referring to previous U.S. Supreme Court cases on obscenity and child pornography, he held, "Free Speech Coalition made clear that banned material must meet either the Ferber or Miller standards. There is no dispute the images in this case do not involve real children, thus Ferber is inapplicable."
Sjws are full of shit.
Here's a new take. Artists shouldn't be allowed to profit off of copyright material regardless of any circumstance.
There's nothing stopping Patreon from reporting you to Nintendo and Game Freak in order to shut you up.
She did not create that character you fucking retard
They do, though. It’s their servers so their freedom of association outweighs your freedom of speech.
You're claiming there's no original art on Patreon, now?
Their servers have no right to infringe copyright. The lawsuits are going to be juicy.
Freedom of speech doesn’t extend to someone else’s private platform. Nothings getting violated. Trash is just being taken out.
this, fuck fan artists
Bro criminalizing and banning are 2 different things.
Japan boomers actually tried to kill doujins, but the community fought back and got the bill killed.
Didn't you just make this thread
Not pedo if there are Tits, or the backup traits for those unendowed. The simple truth of it
This, anyone saying this is unconstitutional is a fucking moron. You can argue against the choice to crack down on drawn art by its own merits, but they're well within their legal right to do whatever the fuck they want with their own site.
First no wincest now this. What shit.
your autistic thread again?
fuck off weeb
They're not within any right to distort other people's art. It's copyright infringement to claim art you don't own depicts minors when the artist has stated the characters are 18+.
NOOOOOOOO NOT MY HECKIN LOLIRINOS NOT MY LITTLE CUN CUNS HOW WILL I JERK OFF MY TINY PEEPEE NOW
If you believe ANY fictional content should be banned, censored or forced off platforms by moralfags either running the companies involved or pressuring them to do so, you are a freedom hating cunt. That is all I have left to say.
Go ahead and look up copyright infringement and see if you can find your insane definition of it.
1. the artist's word is worth less than shit if it's a drawing of a character somebody else owns
2.even if the character is original to the artist and it's depicted as +18. Patreon can still choose to not be cool with that since it's their platform.
you can't win, weeb.
Reminder:
Since 2002, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition established that two overbroad provisions of the CPPA of 1996 was struck down by the US Supreme Court because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech."
The Court found the CPPA to have no support in Ferber since the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production.
Furthermore, district court Judge James E. Gritzner ruled in United States v. Handley that two parts of the PROTECT Act of 2003 criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" was unconstitutional.
>But what about the Miller test
The Miller test only applies to works that have no literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Art always has huge artistic value to the artist and her fans, it elicits and invokes emotions as art is supposed to. Any attempt to claim drawings are obscenity is an attempt to restrict artistic freedom.
Forcing companies to host pedophiles is freedom?
What?
en.wikipedia.org
>The Berne Convention, in Article 6bis, requires its members to grant authors the following rights:
>the right to claim authorship of a work (sometimes called the right of paternity or the right of attribution); and
>the right to object to any distortion or modification of a work, or other derogatory action in relation to a work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation (sometimes called the right of integrity).
Eat shit.
Who is criminalizing?
What the artist says about her work is an undisputable fact. The artist says her characters are adult, that means her characters are adults. No matter how they look to you.
is Yas Forums the only board wich actually endorses censorship?
Sjws, who want art to be "pedophilia".
This shit again? Go away already
So how do you feel about people who create fiction where other illegal things happen? Murder? Rape? Theft? Should all these things also be removed from fiction?
I guess Im also a murderer because I played GTA one time
I love to see your common lewd drawfrag going to court to defend his titty doodles of raven and the lawyer is an unicorn.
Yas Forums will defend Nazi book burnings.
Forcing companies to respect freedom of expression is freedom.
YEAH, I'M THINKING HE'S BACK!
art can never depict minors because drawings arent people and drawings cant be minors
I agree with you user, but these nazis are looking for excuses to ban art they don't like.
No. But if the companies don't want to host that stuff they should be free to remove it. You sound like a commie demanding people bake faggot cakes.
Based.
That's not what patreon wants to do. Patreon wants to control how artists draw their characters.
Tell that to Georgia O'Keeffe.
So, genuine question. In what countries is it perfectly legal to host lolicon, because someone needs to set up a site there. Fuck moralfags.
>the government forcing companies to do things is freedom
Move to China if you want that kind of "freedom"
Ummm the pedophile clearly lost. Did you not read your own link?
>burning the 30s equivalent of tabloid media and clickbait
>bad
Why is it always surface level takes with you bozos?
He didn't lose. He plead guilty because he had been scared into doing so. All the judge had ruled so far is that drawings are not CP because they do not involve they real children.
Thanks for proving it.
No part of this covers against someone's interpretation of a work, in this case Patreon claiming they look young. In fact, the only copyright claim I could see here would be on behalf of Nintendo against the fanartist for actually making alterations of their character. Finally, the actual ground that Patreon is giving for removing the work does not matter- they can give any reason whatsoever to do whatever they feel like with their own platform. There is no legal recourse to force someone to host rule34 art.
You fucking moron.
Yeah, but patreon aren't doushins. They can't publish shit independently
>No part of this covers against someone's interpretation of a work
Yes it does, the part where the artist has the right to object to any distortion or modification of her work. Her characters are adult. To say that they are minors is an unlawful modification and distortion of her work, since they are not minors. Their status as adults is not up to interpretation, it's a fact decided by the artist that created them.
>Victor Hugo is clickbait
Shut the fuck up and die.
lol patreon is a private company who can do whatever they want with their platform
Keep the porn.
Unless Gamefreak plans to make lewd pikachu pictures for me.
The way they phrased it, it's impossible to use this case to make any statement about patreon since the case ends with determining whether pedoporn is art or not is stated by the jury of a court at that time. If the fanartist wants a similar appeal not related to patreon, they need to take this to court themselves and let the jury interpret this. But this whole thread was a strawman in the first place since fanartist wasnt charged of possessing anything
It's freedom of EXPRESSION you fucking sperg
and fuck patreon go make a Newproject2
If a policy like that killed fujoshits I'd be all for it.
no exceptions you degenerate
Except it's a private business and they can allow whatever they want.
Do americans unironically believe they have free speech even thought the FCC will fine your ass into oblivion if you say "tits" on the radio?
>Fujos having money
>Fujos buying shit
kek
Refusing to host material isn't "infringing copyright" retard
Otherwise I could go spray-paint a dick on the side of your house and you'd have to keep it up
That's 100% obviously untrue. Have you not seen Birds of Prey?
Does it say somewhere, in the picture, that the character is an adult?