This is such a clever resume! Great job! Cheers phildub!!
An Amaz-ing Resume
71–80 of 119 posts
Re: An Amaz-ing Resume
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean the process where I'm logged in, add some items to my cart and when I click checkout get asked to login again, get to the 3rd screen and I'm told they don't ship to my country? Yeah, painless.
You can now filter for international shipping on search results.
That doesn't cover everything though. For example, last I tried Amazon did not ship any storage media to Austria, even if it says "international shipping". But they only give indication of this at the end of the ordering process.
Re: An Amaz-ing Resume
#73One concern is this, in the footer: > This website was made in Jan 2013 by Philippe Dubost for the sole purpose of a playful and creative job search. No copyright infrigement intended. "No copyright infringement intended" is not a thing. Also, right below that it then says: > © 2013, Philippe Dubost Seems a bit strange to me.
You wanna know why copyright infringement is a big deal? Two words: vicarious liability. If you hire someone who has no idea how copyright works, and in the course of their employment with you they go ahead and infringe someone's IP, you're liable .
Yeah, this is the biggest black mark on an otherwise well done resume. It's especially problematic if the OP is trying to qualify for a job in marketing and product management.
The caveat at the bottom should not use the hokey "not intended" phrase. It should say that the site is meant as parody and is not at all a representation of Amazon nor endorsed by Amazon.
Yes, that seems pedantic, but the law is pedantic.
Otherwise, very well done and I hope the OP gets a good job as a result.
Re: An Amaz-ing Resume
#74Great work ! Enjoy the fresh approach.
Re: An Amaz-ing Resume
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No copyright infringement intended". Isn't the act of copying Amazon's style intended copyright infringment?
Seems to be so. I've only seen similar disclaimers on (copied) Youtube music videos before. This might be the copyright version of "I am not a [racist|homophobe|...], but ...".
Those youtube disclaimers always make me laugh. "I don't own the copyright to this", so why are you posting it then?
Re: An Amaz-ing Resume
#76One concern is this, in the footer: > This website was made in Jan 2013 by Philippe Dubost for the sole purpose of a playful and creative job search. No copyright infrigement intended. "No copyright infringement intended" is not a thing. Also, right below that it then says: > © 2013, Philippe Dubost Seems a bit strange to me.
1. At least in the U.S., this is clearly fair use [1] [EDIT: for purposes of copyright law], first because the use is "transformative," and second because it will have zero impact on the market for authorized copies (or displays or performances) of (i) the original copyrighted work, namely the Amazon Web site; or (ii) licensed derivatives of the Amazon Web site. See the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell v. Acuff-R…
Just out of interest, how do fair use doctrines interact with the subsequent assertion of copyright over the page itself?
Re: An Amaz-ing Resume
#77Indeed Amaz-ing work here Philippe; I'm impressed. I don't understand all of this copyright negativity. Perhaps I'm just naive in these matters, but so what if Amazon shoots you a cease and desist - BONUS! How great would that be for a follow-up blog post?
Re: An Amaz-ing Resume
#78pretty cool. took me a second of trying to click around, and a look at the url, to realize it was fake.
somewhat disapointed; was much more impressed when i thought it was an actual amazon product listing..
Re: An Amaz-ing Resume
#79"16% of reviews have 1 stars" ...
I thought the rating distribution was brilliant. I want to work with people who make most people happy, but also piss a few people off. Those are the people willing to make difficult, unpopular, but important decisions when needed.
Re: An Amaz-ing Resume
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. At least in the U.S., this is clearly fair use [1] [EDIT: for purposes of copyright law], first because the use is "transformative," and second because it will have zero impact on the market for authorized copies (or displays or performances) of (i) the original copyrighted work, namely the Amazon Web site; or (ii) licensed derivatives of the Amazon Web site. See the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell v. Acuff-R…
Just out of interest, how do fair use doctrines interact with the subsequent assertion of copyright over the page itself?
> Just out of interest, how do fair use doctrines interact with the subsequent assertion of copyright over the page itself?
Addressing U.S. law only, and continuing the paragraph numbering of my comment above:
6. Dubost's fair use of Amazon's copyrighted work should not affect Amazon's copyright, even if Amazon didn't sue for infringement.
7. Dubost would have a copyright of his own, but only as to the "original" material that he contributed in his "fork" of Amazon's page; he would have no claim to copyright in Amazon's underlying work.