If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"USA Next" in $25M lawsuit for stealing photo
A right wing organization (remember "Swift Boat Vets for Truth") is being sued for using a photo, without permission, in a political ad to smear the AARP. This could get interesting. http://www.wiredstrategies.com/lawsuit/home.html rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
If the photo was taken at a wedding, it had "no meaningful
expectation of privacy" (to use the lawyer phrase) - especially when the two men knew that they were being photographed (and that it could end up emailed all over nowadays). Anyone can sue anyone if they have under $100 for a filing fee. Whether two men can win a lawsuit for a photo from their same-sex wedding ending up in an ad is a very different question. Even aside from the jury-marketability issues of them, the law on photos in places with no meaningful expectation of privacy is clear; just ask Jenna Bush. See all our stuff at a href="http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW"Internet Gun Show!/a |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote: If the photo was taken at a wedding, it had "no meaningful expectation of privacy" (to use the lawyer phrase) - especially when the two men knew that they were being photographed (and that it could end up emailed all over nowadays). Anyone can sue anyone if they have under $100 for a filing fee. Whether two men can win a lawsuit for a photo from their same-sex wedding ending up in an ad is a very different question. Even aside from the jury-marketability issues of them, the law on photos in places with no meaningful expectation of privacy is clear; just ask Jenna Bush. Which Liberal hit squad used pictures of Jenna Bush in an advertisement? As for the two men, two words: model release, two mo lack of. Lisa |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lisa wrote:
As for the two men, two words: model release, two mo lack of. Get real. CNN ran God knows how much video of gay couples getting "married" at San Francisco's city hall last year. Think it got model releases from any of them? Think Michael Moore got model releases from ANY of the people in "Fahrenheit 9/11?" If you were talking about some kind of theatrical production, you would have a viable case here. But this isn't. See all our stuff at a href="http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW"Internet Gun Show!/a |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On 10 Mar 2005 11:11:38 -0800, "
wrote: Lisa wrote: As for the two men, two words: model release, two mo lack of. Get real. CNN ran God knows how much video of gay couples getting "married" at San Francisco's city hall last year. Think it got model releases from any of them? Think Michael Moore got model releases from ANY of the people in "Fahrenheit 9/11?" If you were talking about some kind of theatrical production, you would have a viable case here. But this isn't. The media don't need model releases. Generally, you need them for commercial use only. Documentaries and the news are exempt. You think all the crim's and hobo's in 911/Cops have signed releases? I think an advert qualifies as commercial use, but we'll see what happens here. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
This happened in Oregon. The reason they are getting sue is not that they
used the two men in a picture, it's that they DID NOT take the picture themselves! A local newspaper, The Portland Tribune, took the photographs. The tribune has set in place policies for private parties to re-use any of their file photos for a fee. They will not allow use of such pictures for comercial use. The USA Next org. tried to get around this by just buying the rights as if they were not using it for commercial purposes. The Tribune refunded their money and asked them not to use. Then they used it anyways! So the dispute has nothing to do with model-releases or the privacy of people at a wedding or any of that bull****. It's about a newspaper which owns the rights to a photo suing a company that copied the image without permission, and which had in fact been denied permission to do so. -Paul H. "Owamanga" wrote in message ... On 10 Mar 2005 11:11:38 -0800, " wrote: Lisa wrote: As for the two men, two words: model release, two mo lack of. Get real. CNN ran God knows how much video of gay couples getting "married" at San Francisco's city hall last year. Think it got model releases from any of them? Think Michael Moore got model releases from ANY of the people in "Fahrenheit 9/11?" If you were talking about some kind of theatrical production, you would have a viable case here. But this isn't. The media don't need model releases. Generally, you need them for commercial use only. Documentaries and the news are exempt. You think all the crim's and hobo's in 911/Cops have signed releases? I think an advert qualifies as commercial use, but we'll see what happens here. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Oops.
I thought The Portland Tribune was suing USA next, which seemed completely logical to me as they had used somone's copyrighted photo without properly negotiating permission to do so. However, based on the link in the original post it appears it is the 2 men in the photo who are suing USA next. My apologies, go on with your releases/marriage/etc. debate. "hotchkisstrio" wrote in message ... This happened in Oregon. The reason they are getting sue is not that they used the two men in a picture, it's that they DID NOT take the picture themselves! A local newspaper, The Portland Tribune, took the photographs. The tribune has set in place policies for private parties to re-use any of their file photos for a fee. They will not allow use of such pictures for comercial use. The USA Next org. tried to get around this by just buying the rights as if they were not using it for commercial purposes. The Tribune refunded their money and asked them not to use. Then they used it anyways! So the dispute has nothing to do with model-releases or the privacy of people at a wedding or any of that bull****. It's about a newspaper which owns the rights to a photo suing a company that copied the image without permission, and which had in fact been denied permission to do so. -Paul H. "Owamanga" wrote in message ... On 10 Mar 2005 11:11:38 -0800, " wrote: Lisa wrote: As for the two men, two words: model release, two mo lack of. Get real. CNN ran God knows how much video of gay couples getting "married" at San Francisco's city hall last year. Think it got model releases from any of them? Think Michael Moore got model releases from ANY of the people in "Fahrenheit 9/11?" If you were talking about some kind of theatrical production, you would have a viable case here. But this isn't. The media don't need model releases. Generally, you need them for commercial use only. Documentaries and the news are exempt. You think all the crim's and hobo's in 911/Cops have signed releases? I think an advert qualifies as commercial use, but we'll see what happens here. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
How is it that gay marriage and soldiers are closely realted to Social
Security? Gotta love political smear campaigns ;-) "Crownfield" wrote in message ... wrote: If the photo was taken at a wedding, it had "no meaningful expectation of privacy" (to use the lawyer phrase) - especially when the two men knew that they were being photographed (and that it could end up emailed all over nowadays). but the use of such a photo in an advertisement, with no release is lawyer bait. Anyone can sue anyone if they have under $100 for a filing fee. Whether two men can win a lawsuit for a photo from their same-sex wedding ending up in an ad is a very different question. Even aside from the jury-marketability issues of them, the law on photos in places with no meaningful expectation of privacy is clear; just ask Jenna Bush. See all our stuff at a href="http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW"Internet Gun Show!/a |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Owamanga not-this-bit wrote:
The media don't need model releases. A stupidity, but the courts have the guns and we don't. Generally, you need them for commercial use only. Documentaries and the news are exempt. You think all the crim's and hobo's in 911/Cops have signed releases? Ohhhhhhh, you can be sure they obtain releases when they can. There are also other laws they have to watch out for ("bad light" libels, privacy invasion, juveniles, etc). A discussion (such as it is): http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=476151 "Photojournalism: Content and Technique" has a chapter on this sort of thing. I think an advert qualifies as commercial use, but we'll see what happens here. If it doesn't, then the system is even more ****ed than I imagined. http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html Basically, if the facts in the complaint are true, then someone is probably going to have their neck stepped on. Use of the image without permission (copyright holder can sue), use of the image without release (the identifiable imaged can sue), etc. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Adobe Photo - Moving Text? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 19 | December 11th 04 07:45 PM |
Photo Papers For Epson 2100 | John | Digital Photography | 5 | December 1st 04 10:09 PM |
photo enlargement | Livetocruise | Film & Labs | 2 | August 19th 04 01:45 PM |
3D Photo Browser 7.03 is now available. | Manuel Jouglet | Digital Photography | 2 | August 17th 04 06:20 PM |
Photo bagpack | Martin Djernæs | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | August 16th 04 01:39 AM |