I was told that online images of public figures that LACK an imprint of "Photo by Xxx..., reused with permission" or similar, can be used as long as it's not to collect monies. In any case, I'm fairly certain the Dalai Lama really won't mind, especially if a photo of him and his cat brings joy by being shared.
&h=121&w=160&q=100" alt="Cat reaches for Dalai Lama " />
&h=121&w=160&q=100" alt="Cat reaches for Dalai Lama " />While the Dalai Lama won't mind, the artist may mind. All photos are copywritten and the only way to legally use someone's art is to check the licensing agreement they have made. You may have found the photo on a site that was using it illegally. To know if it's okay to use, you have to search for the artist using an image recognition site like tineye. I tried and could not find the artist. On this website, I use a combination of my own photos, photos I have licensed (paid for use), and some photos that have the agreement you mention, but they almost always require that we give credit to the artist.
I adore Weird Al! Everything he does is fabulous, but his best ever, imo, is a song called Word Crimes. You can watch it on you tube. I laughed so hard.
@Polarberry Oh yes! I use it in my lessons! Indoctrinating my students with Weird Al grammar ?
This morning I happened to hear part of an interview of Lindsay G. by Hugh Hewitt. They were discussing the Rs' success in flooding the courts with their conservative judges. Lindsay was practically giddy talking about how 1 out of 5 (I think he said) Fed judges have been appointed by T. Graham is pushing for many of the older judges (mid-50’s onward) to step down so the Reps can ram through their hand-picked, younger ones. He said they want to make sure the courts are controlled by conservative judges for generations to come. Graham is pushing for it to be done NOW (he emphasized the “now”), adding they can’t wait until November 1st – by then, it will be too late. I found that to be a curious statement. That told me that Graham knows damn well T. probably won’t be reelected, and may even have doubts about the Rs controlling the Senate in 2021.
@dhyanaji, I only caught part of the interview as well (not a Hewitt fan and I'm angry with LG) but I'm glad I listened. I do agree with your assessment. With everything that's going on, I sometimes forget about these judicial appointments. Scary stuff.
@deetoo someone called Hugh Hewitt an "ambulatory cream cheese sculpture", and now every time i see him, i laugh before i change the channel.
@deetoo I don't know what will happen to the courts over the next several years, but something will have to be done because otherwise they'll only set up continued civil unrest. These judges appointed during t's administration aren't conservative, or even right wing, they're like the modern GOP itself -- insurgent and revolutionary (not in a good way). They won't just decide cases and/or interpret the law, they will re-interpret laws into something that will be unrecognizable to many of us, especially the youth who just aren't having it anymore. So, what to do? What will happen? Well, if SCOTUS tips towards a more liberal majority (and we only need one departure on the conservative side for that to happen, and no losses on the liberal side) then the lower courts can pound sand because they'll eventually get overruled. However, a Biden administration can also expand the federal judiciary, and investigate judges who may have lied to congress during their confirmation hearings. Finally, if Biden gets elected and the dems hold the white house and some semblance of a majority in the Senate for 8-12 years, they can replace a lot of the Reagan/Bush 1 and 2 appointed judged, plus the Clinton ones too. It's all well and good to have 20% of the judiciary appointed by t, but if the other 80% are appointed by dems it could balance out. One last word -- a lot of these new judges are idealogues and not jurists. They might get bored or tired of not making enough money and just leave. Here's hoping!
@lynnventura I've wondered if a retroactive law might be passed that says, judges must meet certain qualifications. Some of these judges are not actually qualified, so could they be removed for lack of qualification? Then, some of them will undoubtedly violate their positions due to incompetence. There must be a judicial watch that moves to impeach immediately.
@seeker4 I think for the good of the U.S. something will have to be done. Otherwise we'll be ruled, in part and for a generation, by judges who will be at odds with the emerging majority. Imagine judges who don't believe in voting rights, rights of the LGBT community, or that racism exists or is a problem. A recipe for decades of civil unrest.
I've wondered if a retroactive law might be passed that says, judges must meet certain qualifications.
I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that might fall under the prohibition of ex post facto laws, maybe?