"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

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

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

" 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

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

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

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

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

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

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.