Cultcow Russell Greer / Mr. Green / @ just_some_dude_named_russell29 / A Safer Nevada PAC - Swift-Obsessed Sex Pest, Convicted of E-Stalking, "Eggshell Skull Plaintiff" Pro Se Litigant, Homeless, aspiring brothel owner

[Constellationzero]

Now I can only dream of a Laugh In style show starring all our favorite cows.

Imagine Henry Gibson reciting passages from Maradonia.

Imagine Gary Owens announcing Rusell Greer is about to take the stage, "that perfect 10, Peanuts playing piano stud," followed by Taylor Swift popping out of the wall to reject Russ' date proposal.

Gonna re-drop this here:

This is gender-flipped Russell Greer incarnate. And this show is P-A-C-K-E-D with Russisms. Phil Harris already comes off as supreme sex pest pedophile, but there's still loads of room for plights, and goddamn, this one has so many:

* Russell Greer tier "jokes" complete with Dora mugging for the camera and/or tardsplaining the jokes
* Dora telling E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y that she's Dora Hall from Prairieville--no1curr. Rich Little on suicide watch.
* A gun and/or arsenal pointed off camera at the back up dancers. DANCE, BITCHES.
* Oliver being the ONLY one holding the mic like a Dick Flute. I mean, he's dead, but was he gay?
* Frank Sinatra Jr. Phoning it in--or rather--dashing off a thoughtless note and mailing it in from Prairieville
* That Happy Kine and the Mirthmakers guy from Fernwood Tonight mugging and pulling the same shitty Russell Greer tier jokes.
* TV City is without a doubt, one of Leo Hulsman's sound stage properties in the Burbank area (he had a few for rent/real estate purposes)
* More tardsplained shit tier Russ jokes
* Dora covers completely inappropriate genres ALL (clap) THE (clap) TIME (clap, clap, clappity, clap) She sings "I Like it Like That."
* Can't sing. And I'll concede that the butternut squash demonstrates a more diverse range of monkey afflictions.

Sidebar stuff: Roosevelt Grier is the "smartest" man on the show. Must've said just enough to appease Hulsman and stayed the entire fuck away from this abortion. Good on him.
E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y looks like they are wondering if Hulsman's check will clear. Can you blame them?
If the interbutts was a thing in Nineteen tickety two, Dora Hall would probably be blubbering on about plights and spamming Reddit with Premore audio abortions while sicking Hulsman on Null.

I don't want to give Russell ideas, but... this would be what I imagine him doing more than a Laugh In knock off.

 

[Cnaiur urs Skiotha]

The Squirrel Girl thing bugs me too. I’m not a man and therefore can’t speak for men, but I would think that “cares about living things” would be a desirable trait? But then again, it’s Russ we’re talking about. He’d probably be the same with any woman’s pets because they’re something she loves and gives attention to that he thinks should be given to him instead.

Yeah the Squirrel Girl thing pissed me off too, I know Russ has done worse stuff but for some reason it was particularly awful to see him try to tell this girl that she should be less interesting, that she should give up a unique hobby that she loves because it makes her less hot supposedly. Just so gross how he wants a girl who’s both very attractive in the most conventional toothy blonde way, and she’s also gotta be bland as fuck to make a better trophy. First of all to a mentally healthy person seeing that someone has something wholesome that they’re passionate about should make them more attractive, not less. Second, Russ is nobody to her, why the fuck should she care what he thinks or change herself for him? So fucking creepy

 

[Hamsteroid]

the hotter the girl, the more of a collosal cunt and bully she is

This is true: We're all smoking hot 9s and 10s and bully innocent people to an hero on a daily basis.

 

[DrJonesHat]

This is true: We're all smoking hot 9s and 10s and bully innocent people to an hero on a daily basis.

I'm a smoking studly 10, and I bully all my coworkers so much I have to hire new people every week because they keep killing themselves.

 

[StinkySnack]

So, our legal eagle appears to be using at least one photo on his PAC website that is not public domain.

Donate | A Safer Nevada

Make a donation to our PAC.

www.asafernevada.org

A reverse image search reveals the photo of the girl comes from a Christian church website (of all places). I wonder how they would feel about their image being used to promote brothels? I wonder how the woman in the photo would feel about her image being used to convey a sex-worker?

SINGLES | brightmoorchurch

www.brightmoorchurch.org

Scroll to the bottom of that page. I guess he thinks copyright laws only pertain to his fruits.



EDIT: Some of the images from the church's site appear to be used on other websites as well. So I could be wrong.

 

[Cilleystring]

Second, Russ is nobody to her, why the fuck should she care what he thinks or change herself for him? So fucking creepy

He is nobody to her, but he is everything to him, and that's all that matters.

DISABLED LIVES
RUSS MATTERS

 

[Useful_Mistake]

So, our legal eagle appears to be using at least one photo on his PAC website that is not public domain.

Donate | A Safer Nevada

Make a donation to our PAC.

www.asafernevada.org

A reverse image search reveals the photo of the girl comes from a Christian church website (of all places). I wonder how they would feel about their image being used to promote brothels? I wonder how the woman in the photo would feel about her image being used to convey a sex-worker?

SINGLES | brightmoorchurch

www.brightmoorchurch.org

Scroll to the bottom of that page. I guess he thinks copyright laws only pertain to his fruits.



EDIT: Some of the images from the church's site appear to be used on other websites as well. So I could be wrong.

That is only true as long as there is implication that she supports her product. I think he's in the clear, although that differs state from state.

 

[Kosher Salt]

That is only true as long as there is implication that she supports her product. I think he's in the clear, although that differs state from state.

You're thinking of the use of name/likeness, but there's also the photo's copyright to consider. They're two completely separate legal issues.

 

[Russketeer]

I always thought the use of the picture of the Bunny Bar sign could be problematic but I'm not a law sperg. Could madame Suzette have him get rid of that?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

You're thinking of the use of name/likeness, but there's also the photo's copyright to consider. They're two completely separate legal issues.

You are allowed to copy an image (without a change), and still have it be fair use. (Hughes v. Benjamin, Swatch Grp.Memt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P., 756F.3d 73, 84 (2d Cir. 2014),
Baraban v. Time Warner, Inc., etc.).

 

[Kosher Salt]

You are allowed to copy an image (without a change), and still have it be fair use. (Hughes v. Benjamin, Swatch Grp.Memt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P., 756F.3d 73, 84 (2d Cir. 2014),
Baraban v. Time Warner, Inc., etc.).

Using a stock image / clip art without permission is not typically going to be fair use. The purpose of the use is pretty important and it pretty much fails all of the aspects of a fair use analysis (unless maybe you're an educational institution, which Slurpy is not).

If the purpose of the work was commenting, critiquing, or parodying the photo itself, copying it would be more likely to be fair use. But if you just need a "random smiling woman approves of my venture" stock photo, you're gonna need a loicense for that.

edit: was conflating the purpose/character of use factor with the nature of the work factor

 

[Useful_Mistake]

The nature of the use is pretty important and it pretty much fails all of the aspects of a fair use analysis (unless maybe you're an educational institution, which Slurpy is not).

The second facture is not very important, if the work is transformative (for example,Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569). Also, mere stealing of the work, won't necessarily make it unfair (Time Incorporated v. Bernard Geis Associates, 293 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 196) ("In that case the publisher claiming fair use had personally stolen film negatives from the offices of Time and then published graphic representations of the stolen photographic images. And the court found fair use despite these circumstances." -Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539). Although it can (Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539) Like I mentioned before, even a straight up copying of the work (usually only applied to images) can be transformative.

Using a stock image / clip art without permission is not typically going to be fair use.

It all depends on the context of usage.

If the nature of the work was commenting, critiquing, or parodying the photo itself, copying it would be more likely to be fair use.

You are talking about likelyhoods without anything like context. Copyright lawsuits in general are famously very hard to win, although this information is hardly of any use when talking with your lawyer on whatever or not you have a case. But, out of context, it sounds really bad.

Tldr: I think context is important(and therefore your analysis is flawed), and that Russ probably has a decent enough defense.

Edit: That's all assuming he really didn't ask for permission/get a license, etc, which we simply don't yet know.

 

[Kosher Salt]

@Useful_Mistake The context is that he's using it as a stock photograph. He's not using it for any purposes such as criticism (of the photo that he's copying), news reporting (the photo's newsworthy), teaching, or research. He's not using it for any purpose that could feasibly be considered fair use. He's just using it as a stock photograph. You cannot just use a stock photograph without a license.

This is especially true if it actually is a stock photograph. If anyone could take it and use it for free, that would directly damage its value as a stock photograph.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

@Useful_Mistake

Why didn't you just reply to my comment?

@Useful_Mistake The context is that he's using it as a stock photograph. He's not using it for any purposes such as criticism (of the photo that he's copying), news reporting (the photo's newsworthy), teaching, or research. He's not using it for any purpose that could feasibly be considered fair use. He's just using it as a stock photograph. You cannot just use a stock photograph without a license.

This is especially true if it actually is a stock photograph. If anyone could take it and use it for free, that would directly damage its value as a stock photograph.

I disagree with you for reasons I already stated. I recommend giving a look to the cases I mentioned. I think we have a different opinion on how factors work.

That being said, why are you so sure he did not ask for permission?

 

[Kosher Salt]

Why didn't you just reply to my comment?

I disagree with you for reasons I already stated. I recommend giving a look to the cases I mentioned. I think we have a different opinion on how factors work.

That being said, why are you so sure he did not ask for permission?

It was long, and I didn't feel like picking out the specific part about context, which was what I was replying to.

You're right about one thing. We don't know he didn't ask for permission. He may have licensed it.

 

[StinkySnack]

You're right about one thing. We don't know he didn't ask for permission. He may have licensed it.

If he had licensed it, he likely would have added "Licensed 2021 by RUSSELL GREER" to the bottom of the photo.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

If he had licensed it, he likely would have added "Licensed 2021 by RUSSELL GREER" to the bottom of the photo.

This is stupid enough that I can imagine him doing it

 

[AnOminous]

It's basically movie law that the hotter the girl, the more of a collosal cunt and bully she is. So it's clear Russ just assumes there are no women here.

He doesn't realize his thread has lots of women because he doesn't grasp the fact he is every woman's cringiest slurping nightmare.

 

[L. Ron Hubbard's Cat]

He doesn't realize his thread has lots of women because he doesn't grasp the fact he is every woman's cringiest slurping nightmare.

He also doesn't realize women have opinions. We just sit around looking hot and trying not to alienate good guys by having hobbies.

This is the lunatic who thinks women eschew dating apps in favor of becoming prostitutes to meet guys, after all.

 

[AnOminous]

Like I mentioned before, even a straight up copying of the work (usually only applied to images) can be transformative.

But it usually isn't. It's actually rather rare for copying the entirety of a work to be fair use.