You made the assumption that I was delegating a question to a matter of your experience.
I took your statement at face value because intent is not always obvious on the internet. Instead of correcting me, you decided to snark and score points, and now you seek to lecture me.
A simpler resolution would have been:
Me: There's no legal recourse there.
You: I'm aware of this; what is your opinion on the matter?
Me: I have none.
You: Okay, then.
Nice and civil, even.
"Seems to be" and "explicitly" might also be regarded as an invitation to provide some basis for why how something appears is not the case.
Or, it could be perceived as what Wikipedia calls "weasel words."
Because from where I stand, your original response was unhelpfully curt, excessively hostile, needlessly dismissive, condescending, and, to borrow a phrase, "presumptuous".
Stating a fact is hostile? Come now.
which, again, is not a statement without controversy
Not if you are aware of the legal standings here. Something you claim to be. If you are aware of how things work, you wouldn't attempt to portray this as controversial at all. You appear to be deliberately comflating multiple issues, and it reads as disingenuous. However, all I did was highlight another fact: nobody is actually fighting for control of his body. This is a separate instance.
it's considered a polite way people allow everyone to take a step back without losing face.
While being hostile, it doesn't work that way. For example, you don't call someone a dickhead and offer them an "out" to "save face" in the same breath. It's disingenuous and even kind of rude to put the burden on them like that.
In any case, I'm not about saving face. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. The problem is, you seem to have mistaken your failur to understand the case with me being mean to you. But even as you were offering me an out to "save face," you were defending the point that I was "clobbering someone over the head and congratulating [myself] over."
If you want to "ignore" me, then by all means. I honestly did not stop to consider your feelings when pointing out the facts at hand. Other people have offered valid counterpoints in this argument, whether I agree with them or not. Disney winning suits against Mickey Mouse tattoos isn't so much a legal victory as a "we will ruin you if this goes to court" sort of thing that large companies can get away with because they piss away more before breakfast than you make in a year, and can afford to starve you out. It also falls under Trademark laws.
You, instead, have sought to chastise me for using bold text to emphasise something in basically the way bold text is used to empahsise something.
I hold no ill will, but if your responses are to continue down this road, perhaps you should ignore me.
If you have any valid conversation on any further point, I look forward to such discourse.
Except Disney did not tattoo or give permissions to have the image tattooed on those people and thus maintained their copyright in those cases, the artist did it willingly and himself, thus giving permissions and thus giving up all rights to the image as it relates to the persons image and likeness rights.
You can't actually give up all legal rights to an image. There are a slew of non-transferable rights that are held by the artist in perpetuity. (Most particularly 'Moral Rights')
Further, we don't know that the artist did it willingly and himself. Try and follow me here: lets say tattoo artist A rips off tattoo artist B's design and puts it on Fighter X. Fighter X isn't really guilty of anything, but Fighting Event Company is putting that design on TV. Odds are, when approached, they settle out of court, but in the mean time have sold the rights to Game Company Z that has made a game with that tat in it.
And you seem to have misunderstood that the vast majority of people chiming in on this issue are saying that, in as much as the law has permitted this case to go forward, the law has failed. Presuming to lecture people on the specifics of the law is not a productive response to that sentiment. If you had sought to use your knowledge either to explain why there are positive aspects to the law as it stands, or how the law is changing and evolving in respect to digital issues in the modern courtroom, or any number of other approaches, it might have been more constructive.
Because the article regards a lawsuit, it's easy to understand why structuring responses solely as regards the letter of the law would seem intuitively correct. Because the forum responses have largely not been about the specifics of the law, but about the sense that the legal claim seems egregious regardless of the question of its legality, that response comes across as tone-deaf. It's like interjecting about the strategies of Gettysburg into a discussion centering on the cultural rifts brought about by losses during the Civil War.
Ah, well. I'm sure my presuming to lecture you on tone is about as welcome as your presuming to lecture everyone else on law. At any rate, I hope that your knowledge can be more illuminating on another subject, without provoking ire from those you respond to, and that any response I might make in turn will be less frustrating to you in the future.
Good day, sir.
And you seem to have misunderstood that the vast majority of people chiming in on this issue are saying that, in as much as the law has permitted this case to go forward, the law has failed.
The vast majority here do not understand the law or how it works. As such, you are completely wrong.