Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...
In , "Braìnbuster"


"Sec. 412. - Registration as prerequisite to certain
remedies for infringement",

You seem to be getting confused between something being "legal" or
unenforceable.
The keywords here are "remedies" and "infringement".

Remedies: Actions taken to cure a situation.
Infringement: A law has been violated.
Put together: If the law is violated, only people who have registered their
work may be able to take certain action in a US court.

Which makes your argument:
It's ok to break the law as long as the victim may be
powerless to sue your ass over your illegal act.
Which is not much of a "pro-legal" argument.


That's it. NOW, Peter, which of those rights have been violated?


How about "intentional distortion, mutilation, or other
modification of that work".
Clearly, the image has been altered (to give the impression that he is the
person in the picture).
I wonder if the people in that image mind being linked with the person in
question - and his abusive posts on this group.

But, that's not the point - copying and public display of copyright material
is illegal. People who violate laws are criminals.
Unless you can show that registration is a requirement for copyright to
exist AND the image is not resistered, then your buddy is a criminal, and
you are happily defending illegal acts.