Now I am a Cyberstalker or how Baldr Odinson is an invisible public figure.

Jason Kilgore apparently did not like the screen capture of his very much public image at the Million Mom March in Oregon last year and is threatening me with the Law.

And, of course, my response follows.

UPDATE: And I found this jewel too.

I am guessing KVAL, a local TV station that ran the story will also be hearing from Jason’s lawyers.

42 Replies to “Now I am a Cyberstalker or how Baldr Odinson is an invisible public figure.”

  1. Yeah, sucks when it happens to you doesn’t it bub. If you don’t like it bitch to your buddy Ladd, he started it.

    I know why many use pseudonyms, however when you start harassing and insulting others for using them while using one yourself. You kind of deserve it. Then again logic hasn’t been their strong suit. Not to mention they appear to strongly believe in the “For thee, not for me” philosophy.




    0



    0
    1. I use one out of habit mostly, I’ve had it for many years (I think it started with an online game or something, I forget), but I’m not trying to hide or anything. I think it’s kinda silly for him to get his panties in a bunch when he and his buddies were trying to ‘out’ people though.




      0



      0
    1. Yep…
      “For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account “




      0



      0
  2. Miggy, my butcher’s sister’s DUI lawyer’s plumber’s apprentice told me that, because I thought of saying what you said before you said it, I can sue you for eleventy-billion Euros and have a judge issue an injunction forcing you to un-think any thoughts I thought I thought before you thought you thought them.

    PS: You cannot comment on this comment because my wife’s brother’s lawyer’s lawn guy said that would be against the law that he he heard someone read about one time at band camp.




    0



    0
  3. Is this like the time that JadeGold, Internet Superhero! posted my facebook profile photo on MikeB’s blog? Can I sue him? Or do I have to just suck it up because I’m an EBIL GUNLOON!

    Public figure, public photo, public place. Can you say “Streisand Effect?” I knew you could.

    Plus, if he had a lawyer, you would have received a letter or an email, not a comment from Jason.




    0



    0
    1. Shame, shame, hiding behind such an obviously fake name as Sean D Sorrentino, and such a cartoonish picture! You should be outed at once! I shall unleash my huge staff of volunteer researchers to find and publish your real identity! We are legion! You won’t hide for long, “Sean D Sorrentino”.




      0



      0
  4. Baldr now is gonna tattle to WordPress. [facepalm]

    I am seriously tempted to contact Marvel Comics and let them know he is using the name of a copyrighted comic to engage in politics and fundraising.




    0



    0
      1. Yep. A common misconception is that the subject has the rights to the picture, rather than the person who took it. If someone takes a picture of him in public, it’s their picture, not his.




        0



        0
      1. I think your annoyance should check out FaceBooks policies, etc…

        http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms?ref=pf

        “4. When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).”

        Gee, who’s not reading their licensing and use agreements?

        End of story…

        Uncle’s right, this goof never talked to an attorney…

        Dann in Ohio




        0



        0
  5. He cannot even claim that. He did not take the picture!

    That, right there, is the key element.

    Baldr was in a public place, acting as a public figure. As such, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy when that photograph was taken. As such, he has no copyright claim, whatsoever, to that picture, despite being the subject of it.

    The only person who originally owned the copyright was the person behind the camera that took it. Did Baldr have that person’s permission to put the picture on his Facebook page?

    Seemingly petty though that question may be, it is invaluably important, given Facebook’s rather… demanding… copyright rules, in that they claim ownership of anything and everything that is posted on their domain, regardless of who owned it previously.

    Unless Baldr has a notarized power of attorney (or equivalent documentation) from the person who took the picture, or from Facebook themselve, he simply has no standing.

    IANAL and all that.




    0



    0
    1. That’s not the key. You didn’t reuse his picture. You captured the picture with the surrounding page because what you wrote is specifically about that exact picture and the article associated with it. You wrote an article ABOUT the picture, so reproducing it as such is very very clearly covered under fair use.




      0



      0
  6. His Facebook is practically wide open still.

    No photos of him with women, or children. I thought he was a family man…….

    He must really be a gorilla, he has a funny way of shaving his chest hair.




    0



    0

Comments are closed.