[pcthrowaway]

So how about all these slideshow presentations we see online (or videos of presentations, etc.) that use clips from movies, TV shows, memes, and so on? Are the copyrighted materials really necessary in those? I'd argue they're as necessary to a presentation as they are to a website, yet you never hear people on HN comment that the copyrighted material is out of place in those settings.

[dspillett]

They would probably come under some commonly accepted exception such as homage, humour, demonstration, reporting, and so on. The examples currently on this page the images in question are part of the page design so are functioning as part of a derived work.

Distinctions like this are rather fuzzy, but I think this sits the other side of the line most people would draw then the pages you mention.

(For reference, dear reader, in case the pages changes between me writing this and you reading it, the linked page contains stills from Back To The Future used as background images.)

[jakejake]

In some cases they probably are infringing too. But it seems worse in my opinion using copyrighted media as your main background for a promotional site. Putting a meme into a presentation slide, you may be right, it may also be legally infringement, but we kinda look the other way because it doesn't seem as promotional in nature.

[DanBC]

> yet you never hear people on HN comment that the copyrighted material is out of place in those settings.

Some parts of HN don't make that kind of meta style comment because it's off topic for HN. But here it's a risk for the site owner - DMCA could remove their site - and so people mention it.

There are people who could mention copyright at every applicable opportunity and I'm glad that they don't. (Although I would like a place for that kind of comment! Also, tpyos).