Posted on 09/13/2013 11:19:26 PM PDT by Windflier
Edited on 09/14/2013 6:38:24 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Getty sued our small business. I think we just wound up not paying them.
We used this pic for years on our site, then all of a sudden get our first letter stating we owe them this amount of money for using their pic as of blah blah blah.
No warning to stop, except with payment demand. We were using that pic way before they purchased it.
That, I believe is the scheme.
Mega dittos to that!
I’ve seen that picture all over the internet, but they go after Sarah. God I hate liberals!
And they hate us right back, Jag, which is why they go after our very finest with bloody tooth and claw. But I'm sick of these petty games. It's time we got this over with, one way or another.
We ignore the fact that lawyers,mostly far left communist/socialist types run the govt., create monstrosities like obamacare and then protect zero from impeachment while we pickup the tab. It’s sick and the very least we can do is to point out who is who.
Since Congress is for sale copyright is now issued in perpetuity unlike the founders intended.
It would be nice if the people actually had representatives in DC.
Garth Brooks apparently has the letter "G" copyrighted according to Glenn Beck, who also used the letter "G" as his logo and had to change it, because Brooks fought it out in court every time someone used it.
Their FB page is a good place to let them know what you think of their behavior...
https://www.facebook.com/northjerseycom
The picture is public domain. Hundreds of thousands of stories have ran that picture. Even a liberal judge will laugh it out of court.
And how exactly do you know that others aren’t being slapped with Federal lawsuits? When it comes to upholding the law, I don’t do “outrage”. If thats the law, then she should comply. Why is this even an issue?
What are you so worked up about? Sarah posted an image on her personal Facebook page that millions of others before her have posted. The copyright owner asked her to take it down (by way of a federal freaking lawsuit) and she complied.
I'm sure she posted it without giving a second thought to the fact that it might actually be the legal property of someone. After all, it's an iconic image from 9/11 that's been seen millions of times on the internet. Were she or her assistants supposed to know in advance that the image wasn't in the public domain?
I'm sure they were as surprised as anyone to find out that it isn't.
As far as this being an "issue", it's not. It's simply news of interest to this community because Palin is much admired and respected here.
It was in the newspaper, for crying out loud. What's the matter with those people, anyway!
They are purging their FB page of all criticism, sniveling cowards.
Photo still posted here...
I am not sure if it was ever posted on the actual SarahPac website. I think it might have been her FB page and linked to by her twitter account. The SarahPac watermark was in one corner, but that has been on a lot of her messages lately. There was no real solicitation of funds from this message. She may have to pay for usage but damages? How were they damaged? Pretty much a liberal hit-job they filed a lawsuit in two days then ran to the press.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.