Liberal Forum

Huey » 25 May 2024, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 9:25 am

It would be stupid to go for a cease and desist order on a pic that isn't of him.

Stupid, on so many levels.

On what grounds would he do so if the photo and caption are accurate?

Given that it is already published, from what would they cease and desist?

You're a **** idiot.
 

Blackvegetable » 25 May 2024, 12:56 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 12:56 pm

the copyright remains with the artist, you **** idiot...it is why she is credited.

Not if the photographer worked for the tabloid or else sold the rights to YOUR TOTALLY DEBUNKED PHOTO...!!!      
Vanity Fair used a Getty Image that originally belonged to another Gay Tabloid publication that were listed as the owners.    
I posted proof of this earlier in the year  to expose you as a bat **** crazy  liar.     
The other Gay Tabloid Publication  [that owned the photo] could have made tons of money if they decided to claim that was a photo of Trump....but they  didn't. They didn't because they gave their subscribers more "Sanity Credit"  than what Vanity Fair gave their Bat **** Crazy, Gay  Subscribers [people like you]. .
 

Blackvegetable » 25 May 2024, 12:51 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 12:51 pm

Who do you think "you" is, **** *******?

The photo  belonged to the Gay Tabloid that could have claimed it was Trump, but didn't because it doesn't even look like Trump.... Dumb ****
https://www.photographytalk.com/photogr ... our-photos
"Getty Images photos are exclusive, which means although you retain the copyright, you aren’t allowed to sell them to anyone else."

GHETTOBLASTER » 25 May 2024, 1:05 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 1:05 pm

Not if the photographer worked for the tabloid or else sold the rights to YOUR TOTALLY DEBUNKED PHOTO...!!!      
Vanity Fair used a Getty Image that originally belonged to another Gay Tabloid publication that were listed as the owners.    
I posted proof of this earlier in the year  to expose you as a bat **** crazy  liar.     
The other Gay Tabloid Publication  [that owned the photo] could have made tons of money if they decided to claim that was a photo of Trump....but they  didn't. They didn't because they gave their subscribers more "Sanity Credit"  than what Vanity Fair gave their Bat **** Crazy, Gay  Subscribers [people like you]. .

Not if the photographer worked for the tabloid or else sold the rights to YOUR TOTALLY DEBUNKED PHOTO...!!!    

She didn't...which is why SHE'S credited.

You're as dumb as **** ****.

GHETTOBLASTER » 25 May 2024, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 1:06 pm

The photo  belonged to the Gay Tabloid that could have claimed it was Trump, but didn't because it doesn't even look like Trump.... Dumb ****
https://www.photographytalk.com/photogr ... our-photos
"Getty Images photos are exclusive, which means although you retain the copyright, you aren’t allowed to sell them to anyone else."

Read the question.

Answer it.

**** inbred rube.

Blackvegetable » 25 May 2024, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 1:07 pm

Read the question.

Answer it.

**** inbred rube.

Not if the photographer worked for the tabloid or else sold the rights to YOUR TOTALLY DEBUNKED PHOTO...!!!       
Vanity Fair used a Getty Image that originally belonged to another Gay Tabloid publication that were listed as the owners.     
I posted proof of this earlier in the year  to expose you as a bat **** crazy  liar.      
The other Gay Tabloid Publication  [that owned the photo] could have made tons of money if they decided to claim that was a photo of Trump....but they  didn't. They didn't because they gave their subscribers more "Sanity Credit"  than what Vanity Fair gave their Bat **** Crazy, Gay  Subscribers [people like you]. .
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 25 May 2024, 1:08 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 1:08 pm

Not if the photographer worked for the tabloid or else sold the rights to YOUR TOTALLY DEBUNKED PHOTO...!!!       
Vanity Fair used a Getty Image that originally belonged to another Gay Tabloid publication that were listed as the owners.     
I posted proof of this earlier in the year  to expose you as a bat **** crazy  liar.      
The other Gay Tabloid Publication  [that owned the photo] could have made tons of money if they decided to claim that was a photo of Trump....but they  didn't. They didn't because they gave their subscribers more "Sanity Credit"  than what Vanity Fair gave their Bat **** Crazy, Gay  Subscribers [people like you]. .

You're an unusually stupid human being.

The other Gay Tabloid Publication  [that owned the photo] could have made tons of money if they decided to claim that was a photo of Trump.

You're so **** goddamned stupid.

The blog posted the picture under "Fair Use". If it were doing so for "profit", it would have to pay the Getty Archive for its use.

GHETTOBLASTER » 25 May 2024, 1:08 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 1:08 pm

Not if the photographer worked for the tabloid or else sold the rights to YOUR TOTALLY DEBUNKED PHOTO...!!!       
Vanity Fair used a Getty Image that originally belonged to another Gay Tabloid publication that were listed as the owners.     
I posted proof of this earlier in the year  to expose you as a bat **** crazy  liar.      
The other Gay Tabloid Publication  [that owned the photo] could have made tons of money if they decided to claim that was a photo of Trump....but they  didn't. They didn't because they gave their subscribers more "Sanity Credit"  than what Vanity Fair gave their Bat **** Crazy, Gay  Subscribers [people like you]. .

don't make him cry!

Blackvegetable » 25 May 2024, 12:41 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 12:41 pm

Are these your words, cretinous ****?

What don't you understand?

As I already said, which you conveniently ignored, both claims were already proved. Your illiteracy is not my problem. 

I see you are back to stalking again. 


1. More copy/paste

Vegas » 25 May 2024, 1:49 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 1:49 pm

As I already said, which you conveniently ignored, both claims were already proved. Your illiteracy is not my problem. 

I see you are back to stalking again. 

1. More copy/paste

As I already said, which you conveniently ignored, both claims were already proved.

Prove it

Blackvegetable » 25 May 2024, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 1:13 pm

The blog posted the picture under "Fair Use". If it were doing so for "profit", it would have to pay the Getty Archive for its use.

Stop it, okay? You're just embarrassing yourself at this point. 

Concede that the left can't meme and move along, because you're holding up the line for those of us with real meme copy/pasta talent

Blackvegetable » 25 May 2024, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 1:13 pm

You're an unusually stupid human being.

You're so **** goddamned stupid.

The blog posted the picture under "Fair Use". If it were doing so for "profit", it would have to pay the Getty Archive for its use.

The publication that posted "your photo of Trump" IS A  GAY TABLOID that could have and would have claimed that was a photo of TRUMP...but they stuck to the truth.
They  didn't claim it was Trump [even though they would have profited greatly if it WAS Trump] because it doesn't look anything like Trump.
The original publishers of that photo  obviously have too much self respect and too much respect for the intelligence of their subscribers to make such a ridiculous claim...!!

GHETTOBLASTER » 25 May 2024, 2:31 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 2:31 pm

The publication that posted "your photo of Trump" IS A  GAY TABLOID that could have and would have claimed that was a photo of TRUMP...but they stuck to the truth.
They  didn't claim it was Trump [even though they would have profited greatly if it WAS Trump] because it doesn't look anything like Trump.
The original publishers of that photo  obviously have too much self respect and too much respect for the intelligence of their subscribers to make such a ridiculous claim...!!

No one gives a **** about your conjectures...you're **** ignorant.

Blackvegetable » 25 May 2024, 2:33 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 2:33 pm

No one gives a **** about your conjectures...you're **** ignorant.

The reason you are the daily post leader by a long shot is because in the real world no one gives a **** about your conjectures...you're **** ignorant.
 

Huey » 25 May 2024, 2:37 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 2:37 pm

The reason you are the daily post leader by a long shot is because in the real world no one gives a **** about your conjectures...you're **** ignorant.

You have nothing to contribute, Runny...

You're athwart yet another citation.

Huey » 25 May 2024, 2:37 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 2:37 pm

The reason you are the daily post leader by a long shot is because in the real world no one gives a **** about your conjectures...you're **** ignorant.

Post your "Post/Notification" ratio...

Blackvegetable » 25 May 2024, 2:33 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 2:33 pm

No one gives a **** about your conjectures...you're **** ignorant.

You look just as stupid today as the day that I originally debunked your ridiculously stupid   claim.....!!!

Blackvegetable » 25 May 2024, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 2:39 pm

You have nothing to contribute, Runny...

You're athwart yet another citation.

Looks lie you are taking the L.  When you  line out posts, you are done.  I'll answer these last few posts and bbl.

Blackvegetable » 25 May 2024, 2:40 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 2:40 pm

Post your "Post/Notification" ratio...

No.  If you want to, go ahead.  But the notifications are not accurate due to the forum going down a few time and the archive.  

But you have fun.

Blackvegetable » 25 May 2024, 2:40 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2024, 2:40 pm

Post your "Post/Notification" ratio...

I notice you did not protest the fact that "in the real world no one gives a **** about your conjectures...you're **** ignorant.

Thanks!  You're a peach.