Search results

If you're the only one hearing the dog whistle, that means you're the dog.

Fantastic. That's real "Golden Hour" light.

Nah. For totalitarian control, it's Blueski all the way, comrade.

I wonder whether it is more likely to spoil the deal on the cub, because a four-figure lien is much larger percentage of the value of the aircraft, and the prospect of spending that much on legal services to quiet title is more daunting compared to the value and total investment in the King Air...

I hope that story ended in jail time for said idiot. Is that what precipitated him becoming "ex"?

Would you care to elaborate? Thanks.

Ooooo-kay. Speaking of "whoosh"...

Somehow your assessment of my position went from Rule 11 violation and disbarment hearings to 'He's got a point, but a tough case on damages', but you didn't move an inch?

A reasonable question. Does this mean you're retracting one or both "woosh"? ;)

A District Court in Ill. dismissed as to Getty, based on the particular text of the Illinois statute. The court declined to decide whether the downstream use was or was not a commercial or editorial use. It also refused to transfer any such liability of from the downstream user to Getty. In...

From your lips to God's ears...

I suppose the reason is, once again, because you said so.

But selling news stories isn't?

The paparazzi industry is reporting on the facts of the matter that occured -- "Paris Hilton appeared at this club last night wearing this dress, and here's a picture!" Or "Here's a picture of Paris Hilton out clubbing last week". That's what makes them editorial. By contrast, none of the...

Well, video game makers should make you CEO. They're clearly squandering hundreds of millions of dollars in license fees in order to acquire the right to use images of sports players to sell their video games. The fathead market alone would be huge.

Do you mean to tell me that the AP thinks they haven't done anything wrong and don't owe their subjects compensation? I suppose that settles it, then. :rolleyes: That text is from the AP's license to its customers. It is not law or regulation. Besides, just because the AP (or you) choose to...

Expectation of privacy is a fourth amendment consideration; not a first amendment consideration. If I took your picture in a public place, then used that image to sell millions of dollars of my product, and didn't compensate you for it, I think you'd be upset.

Fine. Against all the reasons I listed that the image use is NOT editorial in nature, what makes you believe that it is?

I disagree. The first use of the image was editorial. Thereafter, the image was licensed by AP -- for a fee -- to unrelated arms-length third parties, who then used the image for their own unrelated purposes. Taking just the most recent example, the picture is not used to illustrate a story...

If I were to take a picture of you as you walked down a public thoroughfare, would you contend that you have no right to limit my commercial use of the image because I myself took it?