\n
![\"Honor\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/10\/Honor.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nYou\u2019ll notice it has no logo on it. That\u2019s because The Sniper wanted it freely shared, to any and all. But what he found today was something different. See, \u201cShooter Jobs\u201d took that Meme, and above it in the black area just photoshopped in \u201cwww.shooterjobs.com\u201d. (This is actually like the third time this has happened with this meme, everyone else was an adult about it.)<\/p>\n
You see the difference of course. Sniper wanted to share it without attribution and let whoever wanted to see it see it. It encompassed all the things that made what we did as infantrymen easily understood. What he DIDN\u2019T want was a for-profit company, \u201cShooter Jobs\u201d to use it as an advertisement. If someone can\u2019t see the difference between a meme to be shared because it espouses the value of honor among troops, and using someone else\u2019s work to advertise your company, there\u2019s not much I can do about it.<\/p>\n
So, Sniper asked me to contact them to take it down. I did. The reason he asked me to do it is he is actually at the memorial service for a lieutenant we served with in Afghanistan who died last week. It\u2019s been weighing heavily on all of us, so when Sniper saw someone appropriating his work, he asked me to get them to take their logo off it.<\/p>\n
So now I\u2019ve had a back and forth with the bitchy woman who runs their site, who apparently can\u2019t understand the differences I tried to explain above. Apparently the woman on the other end doesn\u2019t understand the subtle difference between sharing something, and affixing your own logo to it. To wit, I give you what she is selling to her minions:<\/p>\n
Warning to other pages. If you post this photo then the lawyer of Michael St. Jacques will write you and say that his client has this meme copyrighted. It’s his meme. He made it and no one else can post it without his permission damn it. His lawyer is Mark Seavey, you can contact him at [my email] and tell him what you think about him and his client. Michael you have been credited for this picture just how you demanded buddy. The credit is all yours.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Here\u2019s the thing, I made it clear no fewer than 3 times to this woman that it wasn\u2019t credit he wanted, what he wanted was for them not to appropriate it as their own.<\/p>\n
But then she banned everyone from explaining that, which is what you would expect from real hard chargers with a name like \u201cShooter Jobs.\u201d<\/p>\n
I did time attached to DynCorps. I love the PMFs in general. But it\u2019s asstards like this person who give them a bad name.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
BRIEF UPDATE: \u00a0Shooter Jobs too it down, but I wanted to note something else. \u00a0I largely avoided discussing the Copyright aspect here, because in my mind it was complicated. \u00a0As is usual, one of our readers is WAY smarter than me, and far more eloquent. \u00a0So, I wanted to post “gitarcarver” comment from below that lays it out way better than I could.<\/p>\n
NSOM,<\/p>\n
You are incorrect. In 1989 the copyright law was changed to where one does not have to affix a copyright or tm symbol to claim ownership of the work.\u00a0 The copyright is still in place no matter what. By law, the copyright is “birthed” at the time the idea is put to a medium – ie paper, a recording, a disc, etc<\/p>\n
People in the Facebook thread claimed that as Sniper had not created the picture, he could not claim a copyright.\u00a0 That too is false.<\/p>\n
Sniper’s attachment of words to to picture substantially “transformed” the work.\u00a0 It gave the picture a different meaning.\u00a0 That transformative work is protected under copyright laws.<\/p>\n
The company merely adding their name does not transform the work.\u00a0 They did not create a new work – they merely stole an existing work.<\/p>\n
Finally, copyright laws are negative \/ exclusionary laws.\u00a0 Copyright laws do not grant who MAY publish or use a work, they say who may not use the work.<\/p>\n
Sniper was correct and the company was wrong.\u00a0 I suspect the removal of the Facebook thread was due to a counselor saying, “are you nuts?\u00a0 We stole his work!”<\/p>\n
People need to understand that just because something is on the net does not mean it is “public domain.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"