Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmuguy | Hacker News Reader

I don't know how many times I've come across articles like this where the subject is an image or a video or some other media and yet the article doesn't actually contain it. This one is like an extreme version of that where they have quite a few nice illustrations... but not the actual poster.

View on HN

It's mentioned in the article that the artist has sued people over unauthorized use in the past, so maybe that worried their lawyers. Though you'd think they'd have a reasonable fair use case here.

Fair use is a defense. But if someone sues you, you still have the expense associated with going to court. Even if you win, you'll probably still be out thousands of dollars.

In theory, would such such an article even qualify as "fair use" if it reproduced the original work in its entirety in a decent resolution?

That would be for a judge to decide. Certainly one of the things that makes reproducing photos/artwork tricky is that you're reproducing the complete work. Fair use is rarely completely straightforward.

I assumed they were subtly making fun of the editor and/or sponsors.

Article summary:

> Those other publications were unbelievably prudish for historically sexist reasons, and also due to hangups revolving around typical male insecurity. Fortunately, we’ve progressed beyond such things. Here it is in its full glory:

[CENSORED]

(Nice try. I don’t care how much you’ve bet in the office pool. No dick picks! — ed.)

To be fair, I do find it infuriating when the news is basically outraged that someone did something offensive in the media, and then keep displaying shots and samples of it so you know what they're talking about.

I remember a talk show host on Fox News going on and on about Janet Jackson's alleged wardrobe malfunction at the superbowl this way. I actually missed the incident during the superbowl, but boy did the people who were most outraged about it make sure it was shoved in my face.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com