Artists, merch sellers, and journalists making and posting Luigi media have become the targets of bogus DMCA claims.

Artists, merch sellers, and journalists making and posting Luigi media have become the targets of bogus DMCA claims.

  • spider@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    42·
    3 days ago

    “We’re sorry to inform you that an intellectual property claim has been filed by UnitedHealth Group Inc against this design of yours on TeePublic”

    If UnitedHealth really filed that claim, they’re even more tone-deaf than I thought.

  • RumorsOfLove@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    51·
    3 days ago

    ‘There is no world in which the copyright of a watercolor painting of Luigi Mangione surveillance footage done by Kenaston is owned by United Health Group as it quite literally has nothing to do with anything that the company owns.’

    wake up and smell the daisies United Health Group owns everything and everyone in North America

  • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
    631·
    3 days ago

    She got an email from TeePublic that said “We’re sorry to inform you that an intellectual property claim has been filed by UnitedHealth Group Inc against this design of yours on TeePublic,” and said “Unfortunately, we have no say in which designs stay or go” because of the DMCA. This is not true—platforms are able to assess the validity of any DMCA claim and can decide whether to take the supposedly infringing content down or not. But most platforms choose the path of least resistance and take down content that is obviously not infringing; Kenaston’s clearly violates no one’s copyright. Kenaston appealed the decision and TeePublic told her: “Unfortunately, this was a valid takedown notice sent to us by the proper rightsholder, so we are not allowed to dispute it,” which, again, is not true.

    It’s time to boycott TeePublic.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      232·
      3 days ago

      Don’t go that far. Just ask someone to sign their name to the statement that they truly believe that UHG literally owns the likeness of the dude who (allegedly) shot one of their CEOs so you can call them a fucking moron by name online.

  • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
    754·
    4 days ago

    I wonder who saw this coming?

    Was it stallman again?

    Yeah it really was. It’s annoying and terrifying how right Richard stallman always is.

    • trucy@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      616·
      3 days ago

      Was he right when he wrote “I think it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17”?

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        26·
        3 days ago

        Out of context, I see nothing wrong with that. Rape is rape. Location and age shouldn’t be a factor in deciding whether something qualifies as rape or merely sexual assault. And while we’re at it, can we also get rid of the ass-backwards criteria in some jurisdictions that make being penetrated a requirement?

        • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          210·
          3 days ago

          Maybe so, but it’s also like “is this really the hill you want to die on?”

          What “maturity” is is a complicated and nuanced subject. Hell, some 50 year olds are less mature than 16 years old, what implications might that have? Not to mention how to even quantitatively measure maturity. You’re getting out in the weeds in a similar way of how you would regarding intelligence

          At some point you just have to pick your poison, and saying “18 years is the age of consent” and strong protections for victims is considered good enough for most.

          Edit: on re-reading, you didn’t say what I thought you said, that’s my bad, either way, I’ll keep this comment up assuming that stallman was arguing for changing age of consent laws.

          • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
            101·
            3 days ago

            Wild to assume that and not the much more reasonable idea that he was pointing out how absolutely insane it is that a couple can be making love in one area and cross an imaginary line and suddenly it’s rape because one of them is 17 and the other 19.

              • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
                2·
                3 days ago

                After reading the entire section I still don’t think I see your point of view. He says clearly that the girl was being harmed and doesn’t defend Epstein, in fact, criticizes him. It’s gross, but seems accurate to assume Epstein would have made his victims lie and act.

                • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  11·
                  3 days ago

                  My point was that the context was about age of consent laws. I believe stallman backtracked afterwards a little, but he also has a history of skeevy behaviour, so I don’t know how much benefit of the doubt he should be given

                  Either way, the point was more regarding the whole “this is the hill you’re willing to die on?”, he could have just kept his mouth shut

                  I’m not really invested in the conversation regarding stallman, there are a couple of other additional reasons why I’m uncertain about him, but I leave this stuff to the organizations and the people affected. I just tried providing more context for the whole thing surrounding stallman, and why this stuff is not baseless

      • sunglocto@lemmy.zipEnglish
        61·
        3 days ago

        Saying one correct thing doesn’t mean everything else you say is right