He would be able to sue them to the tunes of a LOT of money. Here's why:
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know everything about the law, but I am a working artist and I do understand some laws regarding intellectual property rights. So, you first have to understand this PRIMARY TRUTH, even upheld by the SUPREME COURT -- even if they have lost a lot of credibility lately.
Any art created by an artist is THEIR property UNLESS they give this right away specifically for their art in writing. You may be familiar with this if you've ever purchased images that have rights attached to them.
These social media companies are protected regarding liability over responsibility of content on their sites but not over having exclusive rights to the content put on their site. With that said, I haven't read their USER Agreements, but rest assured, I can't imagine ANY artist has agreed to placing content on their sites, and then giving permission to the site to use the content to disparage the artist, defame them, put words in their mouths, or ESPECIALLY as Lindell is claiming, to rework the artist's art to intentionally, willfully, negligently, and with malice communicate through that art any message that is NOT intended by the artist.
MASSIVE law suits are won just for companies using art that doesn't belong to them legally -- but a company taking an artist's work and then changing it to imply that the artist said something he did not would garner even bigger lawsuit awards!
Whether some of the processes that would have happened in this process are criminal, I don't know. I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not a criminal lawyer
He would be able to sue them to the tunes of a LOT of money. Here's why:
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know everything about the law, but I am a working artist and I do understand some laws regarding intellectual property rights. So, you first have to understand this PRIMARY TRUTH, even upheld by the SUPREME COURT -- even if they have lost a lot of credibility lately.
Any art created by an artist is THEIR property UNLESS they give this right away specifically for their art in writing. You may be familiar with this if you've ever purchased images that have rights attached to them.
These social media companies are protected regarding liability over responsibility of content on their sites but not over having exclusive rights to the content put on their site. With that said, I haven't read their USER Agreements, but rest assured, I can't imagine ANY artist has agreed to placing content on their sites, and then giving permission to the site to use the content to disparage the artist, defame them, put words in their mouths, or ESPECIALLY as Lindell is claiming, to rework the artist's art to intentionally, willfully, negligently, and with malice communicate through that art any message that is NOT intended by the artist.
MASSIVE law suits are won just for companies using art that doesn't belong to them legally -- but a company taking an artist's work and then changing it to imply that the artist said something he did not would garner even bigger lawsuit awards!
Whether some of the processes that would have happened in this process are criminal, I don't know. I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not a criminal lawyer