Where the heck am I?

1949: Street sweeper Joseph Pistolese, age 74, just keep sweeping until suddenly he looked up and realized he had no idea where he was.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle - July 27, 1949

After coming across the news clipping about Pistolese, I then noticed the birthday card below on sale at the supermarket. Since it reminded me of him, I had my wife snap a photo of it with her iPhone.

     Posted By: Alex - Mon Sep 28, 2015
     Category: Elderly and Seniors | 1940s

Coming soon to a brain near you!

Summa tyme ewe just'a gotta pick wan'a moovee to be, like'a, ewe favrite for the resta ewe life.
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 09/28/15 at 10:33 AM
"I then noticed the birthday card ON SALE at the supermarket" + "I had my wife snap a photo of it with her iPhone" Retailers must really love you.
Posted by F.U.D. on 09/28/15 at 12:44 PM
@F.U.D. -- Why would I buy it? I was looking for a get well card.
Posted by Alex on 09/28/15 at 03:14 PM
You took someones commercial property for personal use without paying for it. Might as well have shoplifted it.
Posted by F.U.D. on 09/29/15 at 02:51 AM
Fair use.
Posted by RobK on 09/29/15 at 01:41 PM
F.U.D. -- I'm definitely not a lawyer. All I can say is that it honestly never occurred to me that I might be committing a crime by taking a picture of a birthday card.
Posted by Alex on 09/29/15 at 02:03 PM
I´ll let you off if you have your wife use her iPone to take photos of all of your books (all the pages please) and send them to me. That way I can read them and not be bothered with paying for them.
Posted by F.U.D. on 09/29/15 at 02:54 PM
Or the company just got countless amounts of free advertising for one of their clever cards that many people may now go looking for to purchase for someone they know. Don't be such a F.U.D.dy duddy buddy. 😉
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 09/29/15 at 06:09 PM
Excuse me for thinking that stealing is wrong. I take it for granted from your comment that you download copyrighted music and films from the internet without paying.
Posted by F.U.D. on 09/30/15 at 02:14 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but I am an author, so I know a little more than most people about copyright infringement. I think this falls under fair use since you're reporting it, not presenting it in greeting card form, and not using it to promote the site.

I recommend in the future you check everything for the name: Ashleigh Brilliant. He really deserves his last name, but he tends to sue people who copy his work (130 lawsuits as of 1997 . Random House settled out of court for using one of his epigrams as the title of a book).
Posted by Phideaux on 09/30/15 at 03:21 AM
You do not know me so therefore your while you can assume anything you like it means nothing. Further more, you just accused me of a crime on a public forum which I believe is slander. Look up fair use as Phideaux says I believe it applies here. So put you high horse back in the barn. Moving on...
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 09/30/15 at 04:39 AM
I wish you would
Posted by F.U.D. on 09/30/15 at 04:50 AM
As this is a photograph there's that angle that could come into it but as there is no 'profit' being made off the image and there's no claim of ownership I think infringement would be a hard sell.

In short I'm only seeing a molehill here and not a mountain. And that reference to Brilliant vs Random House; that was settled with a $1,000 check and was never contested so RH paid the nuisance fee. I'm firmly in the belief that if corporate America would STOP paying these cases off and fight tooth & nail against EACH AND EVERY one they'd stop. Big dollar amounts are bandied about when the cost of defence is brought up the they (the corps) have in house lawyers that they're paying anyhow!
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 09/30/15 at 06:35 AM
@Expat47 -- I'm fairly sure any reasonable lawyer would tell you that if you intend to sell someone's copyrighted work, you better be prepared to pay up fast when they catch you.

I mentioned A. E. Brilliant because he's much more zealous about protecting his copyright than most authors, but I'd never consider anyone a nuisance for wanting all the protections the law allows.
Posted by Phideaux on 09/30/15 at 06:45 PM
Much ado about nothing.
Fair Use is not well known in many other countries.
The contextual use by Alex qualifies for fair use as described in the Copyright Act of 1976.
Posted by GFnKS on 10/02/15 at 10:38 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.