this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
215 points (96.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
9873 readers
2512 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How is this not blatant copyright crime? I don't understand how these guys keep getting away with using copyrighted images and music with zero consequences.
I don't like it either, but it's probably fair-use provisions.
Fair use does not cover political messaging.
It would still be transformative use, no? Grant v. Trump maybe wouldn't be as comparable when it's slop-generated for example? But I'm not good at US laws.
If being transformative was the only test copyright would be pretty toothless, you could use any copyrighted characters you want as long as you told a new story.
Non-profit, educational, research, criticism, or news reporting; those are the categories that transformative use applies most to. Though for highly creative works (like an original character e.g. Franklin) even those categories are restricted.
The biggest test though is negative market factor. If the publisher can demonstrate it could damage their brand that is enough. Frankly this seems pretty obvious in this case, who wants to read about a fascist turtle?
They control the consequence-givers is how.