Over in the Quickies widget, I said, "The Fair Use doctrine does not mean images or written passages used without permission were donated, so 'Courtesy of' is a lie."
Cowardly flogger dishonestly truncates that to this:
"The Fair Use doctrine does not mean images or written passages used without permission." Connie Chastain"
She doesn't end with ellipses to indicate there was more. She attributes it to me exactly as she misportrayed it, with a period after "permission". This, of course, totally changes the meaning of the sentence I wrote. My point was that Fair Use doesn't give the passages used the status of DONATION.
Cowardly Anonymous Flogger -- Cowanon for short --sez the entire point of the Fair Use Doctrine is that images or passages are used without permission and are donated. Not true. Fair use allows images and passages to be reprinted without permission under certain conditions, for certain reasons, and with certain restrictions -- but it doesn't give the images and passages the status of donations or courtesies.
From Merriam Webster:
courtesy ofI have given no text or images to Cowanon. I have not donated them to her. I am not allowing them to be used. She has stolen them and the Fair Use doctrine simply protects her from the consequences of theft and copyright infringment. So her use of "Courtesy of" is a blatant and very characteristic lie.
If you say that something has been provided through the courtesy of or (by) courtesy of a person, organization, business, etc., you are politely saying that they paid for it, gave it, or let it be used.
~The flowers were provided through the courtesy of a local florist.
~This program is brought to you courtesy of our sponsors. [=it has been paid for by our sponsors]
This kind of moral bankruptcy is rampant in the ranks of heritage critics. I hope to show more of this kind of disgusting lack of integrity from other critics as time permits. But, I have an author services job to finish, and several more possibly coming in soon. It'll have to wait for a while.