I am VERY open to discuss this with you @logic @guiltyparties @hivewatchers
And again, I DON'T recommend what @missbella did, but wonder if she could argue it was a fan site, and in some courts (in certain countries) win
Posted via D.Buzz-> @themarkymark uses a celebrity's name
She didn't re-upload the video but posted a link to the original author's work . . it would make sense for people to downvote, and if she doesn't set rewards to @null + indicate it as a fan account, I can see why it gets blacklisted @hivewatchers
Posted via D.BuzzFeedback? @holovision
TheMarkyMark was a stage name, I didn’t even create it for that purpose was just a silly repeat name like dog dog. If you picked pink or even prince as an account name, you would be safe from any lawsuit unless you were pretending to be that person.
I use a celebrity as an avatar but that is a commissioned drawing and avatars are protected by fair use. No one is under the impression I am Mal Reynolds from Firefly or that I drew that and claiming it as my own (although it is a custom drawing in this case), nor is it being voted
On and collecting money like a post. At the same time I don’t think @apsu is a loaf of bread like his avatar.
I haven’t looked at the rest of the discussion just responding to your comparison using my username as an example.
Update, ok I looked back at what this is all about. It goes back to what I said before and another thing I say frequently.
No one of sound mind thinks I’m Mark Walberg (aka ThwMarkyMark) or Nathan Fillion/Mal Regnolds. I don’t pretend to be either or try to fool anyone that I am and it is pretty clear that I am not.
The second thing, in the case of posting someone else’s video, I have a general rule when I someone posts a content that is not theirs.
If it is not sourced, this is potentially plagiarism.
If the third part content is your post, this is generally rewards disagreement (if not plagiarism as well) but if you use third party content to add to your post (and it is sourced (I am generally ok with this).
Posting only someone else’s content in a post generally isn’t acceptable by itself. There is no reason someone here should get rewards for posting other people’s work.
If you can, please review this thread @themarkymark since @hivewatchers identified an account using someone elses name
I would like the wording & process of @hivewatchers to improve, and I think users should 1st be asked if they claim to be the author
Posted via D.Buzz
I will when I am on Pc. But speaking from experience, 99% of cases users are at fault. To wait for confirmation they are not would be extremely time consuming and impractical in 99% of cases. In many cases you never get a response, in most they lie.
I personally do some research and make an educated guess if I feel like something is owned by the author. In most cases it is clearly obvious.I have very very rarely been wrong.
If a mistake is made though, flags can be removed.
The problem is 99% of the time it is plagiarism not the original creator.
I can only speak of my experience, I am not Hive Watchers.
Ah okay, the actions of @hivewatchers in this case might be okay
But I am concerned w/the language they used, particularly in their automated comments labeling people scammers, spammers, ID theifs, etc.
Courts != Fair i.e. robber sues victim for injury during theft
Posted via D.Buzz
IMO the language of the automated comments should be changed to eliminate possible liability
Not only from cases where
But also from the falsely accused.. there are false accusations IMO
Posted via D.Buzz
That’s something to talk to Hive Watchers. I am just a stake holder and generally don’t leave comments.
Ah okay.. but..
The feature where everyone's MUTE list becomes a followable blacklist?
Posted via D.Buzz
I have been testing the feature, it is almost ready.