"USA Next" in $25M lawsuit for stealing photo

Paul H. wrote:
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.

That still leaves the two newlyweds suing out in the cold! The
Portland Tribune may indeed then have a valid case - but the two
newlyweds just lack any legal right to sue over it. That concept is
very important in law - and is what the term "standing" is all about.

See all our stuff at a
href="http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW"Internet Gun Show!/a

" 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.


What you may not know is that for news, you don't need a model release.
For commercial purposes (read advertisement) you do. The photo was used
in an advertisement, a commercial use. Real is that they did need a
release, they don't appear to have one, and it's probably going to cost
them.

Lisa

hotchkisstrio wrote:

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.


Ah, it's even worse. They more or less stole the image. It will be
nice to see this shady outfit get exposed and have to pay.

Lisa

Lisa wrote:
What you may not know is that for news, you don't need a model
release.
For commercial purposes (read advertisement) you do. The photo was
used in an advertisement, a commercial use. Real is that they did
need a
release, they don't appear to have one, and it's probably going to
cost
them.

As a lawyer, I can tell you to dream on. Courts aren't going to buy
any argument that would give every guy in a photo of the World Trade
Center mess that ends up in an ad the right to sue - nor everyone in a
photo of the Rose Bowl that ends up in an ad (one did in the State Bar
magazine here) any right to sue.
In any case, the two same-sex newlyweds are in a miserable position
even if a judge didn't kick their case out of court. They are about as
"unmarketable" to a jury as any plaintiffs you can imagine. And jury
marketability counts for a hell of a lot more than legal theory.

See all our stuff at a
href="http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW"Internet Gun Show!/a

On 10 Mar 2005 21:34:09 -0800, "
wrote:


As a lawyer, I can tell you to dream on.


I'll bet you're a pretty good one too, if you're
selling gun parts and redneck bumber stickers
on eBay.

Bet your clients love that waving confederate
flag on the "Alamance Independent" home page.

"Occupied Confederate Territory". Holocaust
denial. "Outing Liberals." Good times in Dixie!

http://www.alamanceind.com/

is the rag I'm referring to, which features
a prominent link to your "gun show" on eBay.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On 10 Mar 2005 21:34:09 -0800, "
wrote:


As a lawyer, I can tell you to dream on.


It seems the plaintiffs are winning the early rounds, esquire.
A federal judge has issued a restraining order against "USA Next."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4856601,00.html

And let's not forget that this isn't just some "advertisement."
It was a clearly homophobic pitch for a clearly partisan right wing
agenda affecting every working American citizen.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe bustin wrote:

I'll bet you're a pretty good one too, if you're
selling gun parts and redneck bumber stickers
on eBay.

He doesn't seem to be selling anything that is proscribed by federal
law. His thumb nail pictures suck though.

Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.

John A. Stovall wrote:

It's call Freedom. Apparently a concept you don't understand.


So you're equating homophobia and Holocaust
denial with freedom?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

wrote:

rafe bustin wrote:


I'll bet you're a pretty good one too, if you're
selling gun parts and redneck bumber stickers
on eBay.


He doesn't seem to be selling anything that is proscribed by federal
law. His thumb nail pictures suck though.


I didn't say it was illegal. I just
think it's an odd hobby for a lawyer.

Some of the ****e on the Alamance Ind.
website pushes the envelope of hate, I'd say.

A lawyer still claiming to live in
"Occupied Confederate territory?." Please.

A passionate defense of Ernst Zundel?
That's beyond the pale, IMO.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Also don't forget that USA Next did not take the photo. They stole it from
the Portland Tribune Newspaper which may also decide to sue over copyrights.


"rafe bustin" wrote in message
news
On 10 Mar 2005 21:34:09 -0800, "
wrote:


As a lawyer, I can tell you to dream on.


It seems the plaintiffs are winning the early rounds, esquire.
A federal judge has issued a restraining order against "USA Next."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4856601,00.html

And let's not forget that this isn't just some "advertisement."
It was a clearly homophobic pitch for a clearly partisan right wing
agenda affecting every working American citizen.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com