Inspiration:
I sense the need for photoshops… RT@barackobamaPhoto of the day: twitter.com/BarackObama/st…
— Foreign Policy Pres. (@AceofSpadesHQ) October 7, 2012
Emulation:
Imitation:
Moe lane
Inspiration:
I sense the need for photoshops… RT@barackobamaPhoto of the day: twitter.com/BarackObama/st…
— Foreign Policy Pres. (@AceofSpadesHQ) October 7, 2012
Emulation:
Imitation:
Moe lane
Comments are closed.
Why does the flag in the background not have the correct number of stars?
Because the Democrats don’t have a freaking clue?
https://twitter.com/moelane/status/255173270909890561
Moe, there’s weirdness going on with the hyperlinks, various error messages, and for a time the original twitterpic was missing here.
What this looks like to me is that some artist made a painting of a 48-star American flag, probably with the girl standing in front. Being a painting, the artist took liberties with the number of stripes. Being 48 stars, the picture was surely painted before 1959 (the year Alaska became a state).
This raises the question as to whether the Obama campaign violated copyright on the picture – and how much of the sign is photoshopped: the whole sign or the writing only (in which case, was written on on the original sign).
At the least, the campaign has made a shameful expropriation of someone’s labor without compensation. Characteristic for a campaign advocating collectivism and redistribution of property.
And I doubt they paid attention to the flag image in terms of counting the number of stars and the number of stripes.
Civil_Truth .. hardly the first, nor the most egregious example.
http://www.entlawdigest.com/2012/09/10/1777.htm
Shep Fairey is not doing time.
Mew