Well you know how Bush loves hypocrisy. Like bitching about "activist judges" and then continuously trying to appoint a judge (and finally succeeding) his won attorney general has called an "activist judge" on several occassions and actually worked with the conving conservative whore.
And we all love Republican's love of ethics. Like how Clinton gets head and it involves an impeachment and Senate trial. But god forbid someone even mention the shit Tom DeLay does. Or Bill Frist's violation of medical ethics with his famous diagnosis via heavily edited video tapes.
Yes. It is a document used generally in a commercial relationship between a a photographer/videographer and the subject of their work.
They affirm the age of the subject and affirms the copyright ownership of the photographer/videographer. In cases where it is a consignment work, the copyright is transferred.
True because Yahoo is private property which trumps.
But it does not set up an obligation to expedite her claim esspecially since it is doubtful she offered any legal evidence (police reports, notarized statements, etc.) to make them move faster.
If I were in Yahoo's place and I just received an e-mail complaint about a profile and nothing more other than e-mails, I would just shrug it off and put it through the normal process anjd it gets dealt with when it gets dealt with. However if I get a complaint with a notarized statement ad/or a police report, it would be taken care of ASAP because if it turns out I am in the wrong to take action, my ass is covered by that documentation because at that point the complainer would be guilty of perjury and/or filing a false police report.
Yahoo is all about protecting its ass and its members. That's why a Michigan family had to get a court order to gain access to their deceased son's data stored on Yahoo. In this case if all they got was e-mail complaints and nothing else, then they would be wiser to err on the side of the user who created the profile.
My whole thng is that a lot of the comments I have been seeing are about how evil the boyfriend one and that this woman was a victim and so forth, and to some extent she is. But she has no logical reason to be humuliated because photos of her naked got out on the net. Legal experts all around will tell you the best way to avoid such situations is to never put yourself in the position in the first place.
"The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission."
Main Entry: 1commercial Pronunciation: k&-'m&r-sh&l Function: adjective 1 a (1) : occupied with or engaged in commerce or work intended for commerce (2) : of or relating to commerce (3) : characteristic of commerce (4) : suitable, adequate, or prepared for commerce b (1) : being of an average or inferior quality (2) : producing artistic work of low standards for quick market success 2 a : viewed with regard to profit b : designed for a large market 3 : emphasizing skills and subjects useful in business 4 : supported by advertisers
It is perfectly legal for someone to photograph up a woman's dress and post it and even charge money for it. The fact the women are fully clothed and in public protect the voyuer in this case.
And even though some states laws have changed since the report, she posed, she consented.
Those are specific laws designed to protect the images of people who use their image for their livelihood such as N'Sync suing a company that made unauthorized merchandise of them.
Those put controls on people using the likness of other people specificly for making profit without their knowledge and/or consent.
This situation is more akin to posting a photo you took at a family reunion on an online photo gallery and one stuffy relative depicted did not like it.
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."
That is now, it was not always so. The clause you highlighted is probably in response to an out-of-court settlement AFHV reached with an individual depicted in a tape that was not only broadcasted but apparently packed in a compilation that was being sold as well.
The "victim" and his buddies went out and got drunk and while the "victim" was passed out his buddy did something that embarassed the guy and such. He claimed that the video damaged his reputation, yadda-yadda-yadda and ABC paid him off to shut him up. That policy is them covering their asses.
They have broadcasted videos without those consent forms and those videos have won. One I remember from the early days of the show (before it became all babies and groin injuries and the videos were actually funny) was of an old woman sitting on a bench and a tame squirrel coming up and and climbing all over her and "kissing" her. The video won and the father of the family specifically mentioned that they had no idea who the woman was and they would like to locate her and give her some of the prize money.
Whole different animal. If the state's harassment laws allow for prosecution of harassment by proxy, then he can get nailed. If not he might get out. She could try suing the boyfriend in civil court, but on what grounds I cannot say for sure.
Does not matter. The rights belong to the photographer.
That is why people who film complete strangers and win on shows like America's Funniest Home Videos cannot be sued for the prize money by those strangers. It has been tried probably, but I have been unable to find any case where the videographer has not prevailed.
The text would depend on how the state's marassment/stalking laws are written. If they are written well then it will cover harassment by proxy which this is a case of. If they are strictly written in entity-to-entity language, he may be able to beat any criminal charges.
And actually, any state laws prohibiting publication would probably be trumped by the fact federal copyright law allowed for them to be distributed in any way the owner sees fit. Several attempts have been made to get federal laws passed that would cover that stuff such as "up skirt" cam sites and so forth, but none are on the books yet.
And even if for the sake of argument we McDonald's was incideous with its coffee in that lawsuit, the woman was still extremely stupid to put the cup between her legs.
My favorites are the ones who sue because McDonald's, etc. made them obese. As if they ate the food there 3x/day for years and suddently went from a 28" waist to a 54" once. You would think after they hit no bigger than 34" they'd notice something was wrong with their weight and adjust their diet and exercise.
Cases like those would illustrate exactly why I should not be a judge because I would laugh in the face of these litigants for about 10-15 minutes before dismissing the case with extreme predjudice.
My robbery analogy holds because the crime in and of itself is moot, it is the element of personal responsibility. Same with leaving your car doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition. Sure the guy who steals it is still a criminal but you're still an idiot for leaving the car in the condition.
And this is not sexual assault or even near it. She was a willing participant in that photo shoot. If we followed your line of thought, a porn actress could feasibly claim the same if, after signing the documents and getting paid, the company releases the video and she is suddenly embarassed by it.
Exactly. She does not own the copyright unless she can produce a document stating that the photographer transferred the rights to her. Therefore, unless the images in and of themselves violated state/federal laws, Yahoo can leave them where they are until the owner decides to remove them at his/her leisure.
Slashdot Mirror
Saves me the trouble of doing it.
And tell me, just how does oral sex tie into real estate?
Well you know how Bush loves hypocrisy. Like bitching about "activist judges" and then continuously trying to appoint a judge (and finally succeeding) his won attorney general has called an "activist judge" on several occassions and actually worked with the conving conservative whore.
And we all love Republican's love of ethics. Like how Clinton gets head and it involves an impeachment and Senate trial. But god forbid someone even mention the shit Tom DeLay does. Or Bill Frist's violation of medical ethics with his famous diagnosis via heavily edited video tapes.
Yes. It is a document used generally in a commercial relationship between a a photographer/videographer and the subject of their work.
They affirm the age of the subject and affirms the copyright ownership of the photographer/videographer. In cases where it is a consignment work, the copyright is transferred.
True because Yahoo is private property which trumps.
But it does not set up an obligation to expedite her claim esspecially since it is doubtful she offered any legal evidence (police reports, notarized statements, etc.) to make them move faster.
If I were in Yahoo's place and I just received an e-mail complaint about a profile and nothing more other than e-mails, I would just shrug it off and put it through the normal process anjd it gets dealt with when it gets dealt with. However if I get a complaint with a notarized statement ad/or a police report, it would be taken care of ASAP because if it turns out I am in the wrong to take action, my ass is covered by that documentation because at that point the complainer would be guilty of perjury and/or filing a false police report.
Yahoo is all about protecting its ass and its members. That's why a Michigan family had to get a court order to gain access to their deceased son's data stored on Yahoo. In this case if all they got was e-mail complaints and nothing else, then they would be wiser to err on the side of the user who created the profile.
My whole thng is that a lot of the comments I have been seeing are about how evil the boyfriend one and that this woman was a victim and so forth, and to some extent she is. But she has no logical reason to be humuliated because photos of her naked got out on the net. Legal experts all around will tell you the best way to avoid such situations is to never put yourself in the position in the first place.
Perilous != illegal
Take a visit to upskirt.com
You'll note in regards to model release it says it is "advisable". It did not say "required".
s able i red
In case you need a refresher...
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=advi
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=requ
"The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission."
e rc ial)
(http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html)
Main Entry: 1commercial
Pronunciation: k&-'m&r-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 a (1) : occupied with or engaged in commerce or work intended for commerce (2) : of or relating to commerce (3) : characteristic of commerce (4) : suitable, adequate, or prepared for commerce b (1) : being of an average or inferior quality (2) : producing artistic work of low standards for quick market success
2 a : viewed with regard to profit b : designed for a large market
3 : emphasizing skills and subjects useful in business
4 : supported by advertisers
(http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?comm
Hmmm... I didn't know Yahoo employed omnipresent Betazoids.
Go look up copyright law in regards to consignment works.
CyberCrime on TechTV covered this issue and legally there are no legal remedies yet. Their story was on voyeur cams and such like people taking pictures up a dress. (http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/25256/Vo yeurism_Spreads_Outside_the_Dressing_Room_pg2.html )
It is perfectly legal for someone to photograph up a woman's dress and post it and even charge money for it. The fact the women are fully clothed and in public protect the voyuer in this case.
And even though some states laws have changed since the report, she posed, she consented.
Those are specific laws designed to protect the images of people who use their image for their livelihood such as N'Sync suing a company that made unauthorized merchandise of them.
Those put controls on people using the likness of other people specificly for making profit without their knowledge and/or consent.
This situation is more akin to posting a photo you took at a family reunion on an online photo gallery and one stuffy relative depicted did not like it.
"WHO CAN CLAIM COPYRIGHT
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc
Sorry babe, but he does have a legal right to publish them.
That is now, it was not always so. The clause you highlighted is probably in response to an out-of-court settlement AFHV reached with an individual depicted in a tape that was not only broadcasted but apparently packed in a compilation that was being sold as well.
The "victim" and his buddies went out and got drunk and while the "victim" was passed out his buddy did something that embarassed the guy and such. He claimed that the video damaged his reputation, yadda-yadda-yadda and ABC paid him off to shut him up. That policy is them covering their asses.
They have broadcasted videos without those consent forms and those videos have won. One I remember from the early days of the show (before it became all babies and groin injuries and the videos were actually funny) was of an old woman sitting on a bench and a tame squirrel coming up and and climbing all over her and "kissing" her. The video won and the father of the family specifically mentioned that they had no idea who the woman was and they would like to locate her and give her some of the prize money.
Whole different animal. If the state's harassment laws allow for prosecution of harassment by proxy, then he can get nailed. If not he might get out. She could try suing the boyfriend in civil court, but on what grounds I cannot say for sure.
And what proof does she have other than her word that she did not post that stuff?
Model releases are only needed for commercial ventures and even then they're probably just a safety net.
Yahoo is under no obligation to remove the photos if they were uploaded legally which they were.
She deserve $3 Million about as much has Tom DeLay deserves an ethics award.
Does not matter. The rights belong to the photographer.
That is why people who film complete strangers and win on shows like America's Funniest Home Videos cannot be sued for the prize money by those strangers. It has been tried probably, but I have been unable to find any case where the videographer has not prevailed.
The text would depend on how the state's marassment/stalking laws are written. If they are written well then it will cover harassment by proxy which this is a case of. If they are strictly written in entity-to-entity language, he may be able to beat any criminal charges.
And actually, any state laws prohibiting publication would probably be trumped by the fact federal copyright law allowed for them to be distributed in any way the owner sees fit. Several attempts have been made to get federal laws passed that would cover that stuff such as "up skirt" cam sites and so forth, but none are on the books yet.
And even if for the sake of argument we McDonald's was incideous with its coffee in that lawsuit, the woman was still extremely stupid to put the cup between her legs.
My favorites are the ones who sue because McDonald's, etc. made them obese. As if they ate the food there 3x/day for years and suddently went from a 28" waist to a 54" once. You would think after they hit no bigger than 34" they'd notice something was wrong with their weight and adjust their diet and exercise.
Cases like those would illustrate exactly why I should not be a judge because I would laugh in the face of these litigants for about 10-15 minutes before dismissing the case with extreme predjudice.
By appearing in a posed position in those photos, she signaled her consent just as porn cast members do when they sign a waiver.
But he was well within his rights to release those photos. Not even the DMCA could have helped her get them down.
The photographer/videographer owns the rights to the photos.
My robbery analogy holds because the crime in and of itself is moot, it is the element of personal responsibility. Same with leaving your car doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition. Sure the guy who steals it is still a criminal but you're still an idiot for leaving the car in the condition.
And this is not sexual assault or even near it. She was a willing participant in that photo shoot. If we followed your line of thought, a porn actress could feasibly claim the same if, after signing the documents and getting paid, the company releases the video and she is suddenly embarassed by it.
Exactly. She does not own the copyright unless she can produce a document stating that the photographer transferred the rights to her. Therefore, unless the images in and of themselves violated state/federal laws, Yahoo can leave them where they are until the owner decides to remove them at his/her leisure.
Because if he was the photographer, he owns the copyright to the photos. Therefore he was well within his legal rights to post them.