Unfair use
It only took an umpteenth twist of her knickers, and *urv's much touted Xmas present to her followers, 'the MONEY SHOT pic' of S and the Llama Whisperer together in NYC, became a -now much promised - Twixmas perk:
The two above reasons provided by the troll herself are complete bollocks. They prove the absolute lack of consideration towards readers whose intelligence is probably equated to an average kindergarten level.
The real reason why *urv did not post that pic, even if that could have granted her a surge in clicks and instant ego gratification, is given away by *urv herself. Because as always, details are her Achilles heel:
So, if we are to believe the braggadoccio, her 'source' essentially stole a photograph from a private Instagram account and passed it on, agreeing to it being shared on a third-party blog. We can assume this was done without the account owner's written consent, because we are told the above 'source' was purged from that particular account's followers. And now, the posting has been delayed. Of course it has been. The 'source's' consent has zero legal weight, by the way.
After the stalking pics from El Pato Sucio, that I already have discussed, this is a further step into unauthorized sharing territory. Instagram's own terms of use are very clear, on this topic:
[Source: https://help.instagram.com/termsofuse]
In the above phrase 'anything' means exactly 'anything'. It is an all-encompassing wording, that extends the protective domain to all the other social media platforms (X, Tumblr, Facebook, Threads, Wordpress, Blogspot, and so on...). Sharing on your own blog a screenshot of a private picture, posted on a private Instagram account, without the account owner's permission, is a manifold misdemeanor. It is a blatant copyright breach, even if the users grant Instagram a license to use their content and enable the company to provide the proposed service (offering a social networking platform). But the end user remains the copyright's owner, with all rights attached and, more often than not, will seek to protect those rights.
It is also a blatant breach of privacy. A private account is meant to be and to remain private: its content is not for public consumption, even if we know Madam Llama Whisperer plays with privacy as she sees fit and seems to be the Queen of Innuendo (more on this, in a future post). Again, referring to Instagram's enforced policies:
[Source: https://help.instagram.com/517073653436611/?cms_id=517073653436611]
So embedding and sharing without the account owner's written consent is a breach of privacy, since this is a private account. It can't be more clear than this. Referring to the 'fair use doctrine' in this situation is plain bullshit and will never work in court, because the so-called 'fair use doctrine' is not a fixed legal rule, but rather a case by case set of appreciation criteria. In a nutshell, 'fair use' means using copyrighted content without the need for the lawful owner's consent, for educational and news reporting purposes, being understood that sharing only a part of that content is deemed reasonable. But *urv's blog is a gossip rag that brags about having inside information, with very little support. So there is nothing educational in it. This is not news reporting, either: PBS is news reporting, not P-redux, even if they both share a P.
What is at stake? Well, then. *urv's 'source' might have her Instagram account suspended or even terminated, for breach/invasion of privacy. If reported by Instagram or the account's owner, *urv can have her Tumblr account terminated (that would suppose a subpoena is served, though, as part of a larger investigation). Further financial compensation might be sought, etc.
Overall, this opens four different scenarii:
a) 'Source' has Madam Llama Whisperer's prior written consent to screenshot a private picture from her private Instagram account and goes ahead -> Source is a PR plant.
b) 'Source' is Madam Llama Whisperer herself, fucking with this fandom -> *urv is a PR plant and/or a useful idiot.
c) The NYC money shot photo does not exist and is being created as we speak -> no need for written consent for something that never happened, but *urv is a mythomaniac fuckwit.
d) Staged or not, the NYC money shot photo exists, was ripped/screenshot from Madam Llama's account without her consent and is shared on a third-party blog -> Source is a content thief and *urv is her accomplice. Both can face anytime rather strong legal rebuttal, for all of the above reasons. 'Nothing but love and respect'? Pff. Posting and pinning half an explanatory novel on the very day that you claimed you needed to enjoy like the rest of Christendom only shows nervousness.
All of these apply even if 'Source' and *urv are the same person, by the way.
So, which one is it? I am not even waiting, but might comment. This is beyond pathetic, to be honest.
PS: thank you for the tip. You know who you are.
