Baylee the Awesome and the fraktastik Bates fan page

[Buzzard]

I think we all (except maybe Baylee) are on the same page that the United Bates of America was a slow motion train wreck set to a soundtrack slightly less annoying than nails on a blackboard. Sure, it brought us a few threads of joy, but HOLY SHIT BUCKLE UP FOR THE FAN PAGE!

 

https://www.facebook.com/fanpage4thebat ... atesfamily

 

Some fan pages are all about, you know, the subject of the page and how super speshul awesome they are. Not this page! Here you can drool at how kewl the Bates family is AND bow low to the awesome moderator!

 

 

Hey Baylee, your collage sucks. You also posted it on facebook on an open page. Its called fair use, go look it up. I can post it and comment on how crappy it is all I want.

 

Now that we've set the tone, lets move along... It used to be that you needed to have a blog to be persecuted. Apparently running a FB fan page where you swing a ban hammer for comments not to your liking also qualifies.

 

 

Really sorry your life got in the way of your obsessive fan page. Maybe if you stayed off FJ long enough you could keep your FB page in line more and go back to uploading shit to youtube.

 

 

Better lock down that wall and get the meanies off! Oh wait....

 

 

And just when you thought it was a fan page... Its really all about the mod!

 

 

Right, remember that fair use thing? These suck too...

 

 

[snarkbillie]

Um.......I don't think you're using "fair use" right. I'm not a lawyer though.

[Buzzard]

Um.......I don't think you're using "fair use" right. I'm not a lawyer though.

In some sense, yes, because its not copyrighted material but the heart of it is - post on internet, fair game for snark.

[snarkbillie]

In some sense, yes, because its not copyrighted material but the heart of it is - post on internet, fair game for snark.

Okay, no. Just because someone puts something on the internet doesn't mean it's "fair use" and also, how do you know it's not copyrighted?

[Gil]

Okay, no. Just because someone puts something on the internet doesn't mean it's "fair use" and also, how do you know it's not copyrighted?

Pretty sure you can't copywrite a Facebook page. It's not yours to begin with.

[synchroswimr]

In the US, the collages are under copyright, because that applies when you create something. However, there is an allowance for comment or criticism

[snarkbillie]

Pretty sure you can't copywrite a Facebook page. It's not yours to begin with.

I don't care about the snarking on Baylee or however she's spelling her name today. You can copyright content that you put on a FB page. I am not even trying to say that the OP is doing anything "wrong" because I'm not a lawyer and I don't know. I do know that "you put it on the internet so now it's fair use and totally not copyrighted" is bullshit. I know this as a person who creates things and puts them on the internet.

[Buzzard]

You may comment or criticize any image or work posted on the internet, especially if you cite the source.

[snarkbillie]

You may comment or criticize any image or work posted on the internet, especially if you cite the source.

I wasn't arguing that you couldn't. I think I should just shut up because we're talking past each other.

[Buzzard]

I wasn't arguing that you couldn't. I think I should just shut up because we're talking past each other.

LOL, back to our regularly scheduled snark. :D

But really, Baylee has outdone herself with the idol worship/self worship going on there.

[snarkbillie]

LOL, back to our regularly scheduled snark. :D

But really, Baylee has outdone herself with the idol worship/self worship going on there.

Indeed.

I don't for the life of me remember what my point was anyway, ah the magic of schnapps.

[Rowan]

The irony in the copyright thing is that Bayleeeeey didn't have the rights to use those photos in the first place. :doh:

[Seven Severn]

Could the guy posing with Zach near the bottom possibly have Addison's Disease?

[She Who Laughs]

The irony in the copyright thing is that Bayleeeeey didn't have the rights to use those photos in the first place. :doh:

The only way she could copyright the collage is if she owns all of the photos she used in the collage unless the owners of the photos gave her written permission to use them in a collage and claim copyright. I'm guessing she has taken these photos off of other webpages and the copyright still belongs to the photographer who took them, whether that photographer is a professional or one of the Bate's kids.

Everything that is created – a photo, a painting, a sketch on a napkin, is automatically copyrighted the instant it is created. Whether or not the creator could defend that copyright is another matter. You can't just take photos off the web, slap them on your facebook page and then claim that people have to get your permission to use them.

[Anxious Girl]

Does Baylee even know the Bates personally like she claims too? Or is she just a leg-humper like Dianne?

[Buzzard]

Does Baylee even know the Bates personally like she claims too? Or is she just a leg-humper like Dianne?

I seem to recall a Bayley that did claim to know them but the story changed a few times.

[Jessica]

How can she claim to own the pictures and that you have to ask HER for permission? The pictures belong to the Bateses.

[Anxious Girl]

The only way she could copyright the collage is if she owns all of the photos she used in the collage unless the owners of the photos gave her written permission to use them in a collage and claim copyright. I'm guessing she has taken these photos off of other webpages and the copyright still belongs to the photographer who took them, whether that photographer is a professional or one of the Bate's kids.

Everything that is created – a photo, a painting, a sketch on a napkin, is automatically copyrighted the instant it is created. Whether or not the creator could defend that copyright is another matter. You can't just take photos off the web, slap them on your facebook page and then claim that people have to get your permission to use them.

experiencedd, did you light the mesquite again? :whistle:

[DarkAnts]

experiencedd, did you light the mesquite again? :whistle:

:clap: :clap: :clap: She is quoting from the US copyrights office FAQ website (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what) , but is not citing the source. She is also avoiding the fair use act in regards to pictures posted on the internet.

Here is a wikipedia summery of a 2003 case about fair use on the internet in regards to pictures and linking.

"A US court case in 2003, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails, inline linking and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment, Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba's image search engine. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that it is clearly covered under fair use.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favour of the defendant. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. Firstly, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Secondly, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Thirdly, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_on_the_Internet)

[Paisy]

I'm confused about why people are so adamant that BayLee of FJ is the Bayley of the fan page. I know she's denied being so numerous times. Is there other evidence that says she is?

[DarkAnts]

I'm confused about why people are so adamant that BayLee of FJ is the Bayley of the fan page. I know she's denied being so numerous times. Is there other evidence that says she is?

I dont believe in coincidences like this.

[donks]

I wonder if Baylee refers to herself in the third person in a conversation IRL.

[Paisy]

I dont believe in coincidences like this.

Two people with the same name are fans of the same television show? I don't think that's beyond the realm of belief. I know it's annoying the way BayLee likes to slip into conversations about how "close" she is to the Bates, especially when it became quite clear some time ago that it would bring her only negative attention. But I honestly believe these are two entirely different people.

[emmiedahl]

If I recall correctly, the mod of the Bateses Fan Page also makes claims about being close to them.

Two Baylees? Of course that happens. Two Baylees obsessed with the same family (even before the show)? Sure, it's possible. Two Baylees obsessed with the same family and claiming to have sent them shit and/or know someone who knows them? I am inclined to think it is the same person in that case. I could be wrong, this is not a hill I want to die upon.

Also, Buzzard, if you ever cross over to the other side, you have a gay marriage proposal waiting for you for all this awesomeness.

[BayLee_10]

I'm confused about why people are so adamant that BayLee of FJ is the Bayley of the fan page. I know she's denied being so numerous times. Is there other evidence that says she is?

Me, too, since my name is not Baylee, I don't have a Bates fan page, AND I am 69 years old, which Bayley obviously is not. I don't post on the Bates site, neither have I written anything on ANYONE'S fan page. I take that back, I am a fan of Animal Planet and GeoWild and have a Cause an Uproar T-shirt. I am also a fan of Deadliest Catch, but do not know a single person on any of those shows. If I were Bayley and I did have a Bates fan page, why would I deny it? Some people on FJ are clearly obsessed with this nonsence. What I said was I know the Bates and like them although I do not share their beliefs. Why on earth does this upset people? Whatever!!! If it is true that they will be filming the Bates family in January, I wish them well. No doubt they could use the money, but no doubt having a show will change that family forever even if I would wish otherwise.