Posted on 03/27/2016 10:48:23 AM PDT by abigkahuna
Melania has rights as to how the photo is used. The Photographer also has rights as he took the picture. Whether you agree or not...there is a certain artistic talent involved in taking a photo. I will let Antoine know about your concerns of his intellect. He’s got an office in NY write him an email if you wish.
>> Melania has rights as to how the photo is used <<
Of course. I know all about “model releases” and such. But to invoke “privacy” in this case is ludicrous.
I don’t think its a privacy issue per se. My reading is that the contract/rights outlined particular uses of the photo in question. For example it could be used by say another entity to show Melania in her modeling days, etc...but not used in an advertising environment. Since I do not know the particulars of the contract I can only speculate. But that is what I think Verglas (the photographer) was getting at in his statement saying that only GQ UK had the rights to us the photo/s.
If the use of the photo violated the agreements, then its an issue. If the photo was taken off the net, then it is a violation. If Melania had gone around and campaigned for Donald in a serious way...she would be fair game in my opinion. If she sticks to giving speeches at Ladies Rose Societies, etc...no big deal imo.
Heidi Cruz on the other hand has fundraising in her name...says We are running Together...etc. Speeches beyond the ladies society....She then can be fair game.
While Melania Trump did pose for the picture, it shouldn’t have been used in a political hit ad. If Cruz’s name was left off of it then it might have been more effective for the Cruz Campaign. Though it being used in Utah when it didn’t need to be used means it was done by Liz Maier maliciously. How she got the photo (other than the net) is what all the speculation is about here.
TRumps retweet of Heidi/Melania pic was uncalled for imho. But everyone went there and now we are here.
I firmly believe that the NE piece was inspired by the Rick Wilson and Rubio people to knock Cruz down before Super Tuesday. They were anticipating it with glee on twitter before it was deleted. NE took a long time in vetting the story so it came out when it did. It is as simple as that. It no longer served Rubio and will not hurt Trump, no matter how much Ted protests.
It's not like they were private and hacked from a phone or stolen in a burglary.
If anyone doesn't think "The Witch" wasn't going to use them in the general if Trump is the nominee then they don't know the clintons.
Better they come out now and be old news by Nov.
To follow up on this, I read a small comment earlier today from the photographer who owns the photograph of Melania Trump.
He pointed out that the photo is UK copyrighted, not USA - and he was surprised no one contacted him to get his permission. So while he was very pleased his pic was getting all sorts of attention, he was not happy it was used without his permission.
So, if this comment is legitimately from the true photo owner—GQ had no legal right to authorize its use.
(and as an aside, GQ was snarky in their initial mention of Trump — AND -— they downplayed, probably on purpose—just what the real details were about how the photo was used.)
So, my point remains.
And, the ONLY reason you have ZERO evidence is that Cruz is smarter than everyone else. Well, of course. Isn’t that what all retarded conspiracy theories are based on?
Oh, I love you Trumpkins. The only reason there is no evidence is that the man is so diabolical.
Let’s just boil down how asinine you Trumpkins sound.
Pretend I’m a retarded Trumpkin for a sec....
We support Trump, although he blatantly lies incessantly, because that is honesty. His opponent is evil incarnate because there is ZERO evidence that he has ever lied to anybody.
Now that is sheer brilliance. I applaud your efforts and am quite impressed by that convoluted thinking.
GQ is in both jurisdictions, US and UK, and will still be held liable if indeed they authorized a prohibited use.
There are people in the command structure of the organization that shall be held accountable.
It doesn't matter. It's a copyright issue. If the official rights to use the pictures were not obtained then they were using the picture without the authorization of the copyright holder. If it's you or me that don't matter I would guess. But a political campaign is something else.
Yes I’m aware of that, thanks. My point was, the photog was not notified and according to him, he should have been the one to authorize its use.
GQ does mention BritishGQ in their initial comments-but they never admit giving permission. If ppl are contacting GQ, they should probably be asking BritishGQ whether anyone asked them.
I doubt anyone got permission to use the photo from anyone at GQ, because they’d know it wasn’t up to them.
Right, the photos were on the internet but legally no one can use them for commercial/political purposes without paying a fee. There might have been restrictions on how the image/s are used, etc... So there are a lot of issues here.
Now if an individual pulls a picture from the internet to create a meme, although technically illegal, no one is going to press the matter as its a big hassle, but if say Life Magazine wanted to use the Melania image from GQ without permission, there is a problem. Same for a political entity.
With that understanding the issue becomes who secured the rights. Did Liz Maier and her anti trump pac secure the rights, or did the cruz campaign secure the rights? Or did anyone secure the rights. The legal issues depend on those three questions being answered. I think you have an understanding now.
Vanbasten, I think you are missing the issues here. There are three questions regarding the pictures.
1) Were any rights secured. If Liz Maier used the picture without securing the rights she is in legal hot water.
2) If Liz Maier secured the rights Did GQ have stipulations on how and how not the picture can be used and were those stipulations violated. The photographer Verglas believes there was a violation here how his photo was used.
2) Did the Cruz campaign secure the rights to the photo and if so, how did they legally pass along their rights to Liz Maier.
I think those are the three issues here. If the photo was of a coffee cup, and not Melania, the issues would still be the same.
Do you remember when artists would get upset that their song was being played by Trump at his rally. Trump paid for those rights so the artist had nothing to stand on...Same situation with Rush Limbaugh using the Crissy Hynde song. Its a matter of artists rights.
Now if the Cruz campaign secured the rights of the picture, they could face legal challenge for pass along the pic to an unauthorized entity for use. The challenges would be both by the feds as well as the photographer and GQ.
Vanbasten, I think you are missing the issues here. There are three questions regarding the pictures.
1) Were any rights secured. If Liz Maier used the picture without securing the rights she is in legal hot water.
2) If Liz Maier secured the rights Did GQ have stipulations on how and how not the picture can be used and were those stipulations violated. The photographer Verglas believes there was a violation here how his photo was used.
2) Did the Cruz campaign secure the rights to the photo and if so, how did they legally pass along their rights to Liz Maier.
I think those are the three issues here. If the photo was of a coffee cup, and not Melania, the issues would still be the same.
Do you remember when artists would get upset that their song was being played by Trump at his rally. Trump paid for those rights so the artist had nothing to stand on...Same situation with Rush Limbaugh using the Crissy Hynde song. Its a matter of artists rights.
Now if the Cruz campaign secured the rights of the picture, they could face legal challenge for pass along the pic to an unauthorized entity for use. The challenges would be both by the feds as well as the photographer and GQ.
Vanbasten, I think you are missing the issues here. There are three questions regarding the pictures.
1) Were any rights secured. If Liz Maier used the picture without securing the rights she is in legal hot water.
2) If Liz Maier secured the rights Did GQ have stipulations on how and how not the picture can be used and were those stipulations violated. The photographer Verglas believes there was a violation here how his photo was used.
2) Did the Cruz campaign secure the rights to the photo and if so, how did they legally pass along their rights to Liz Maier.
I think those are the three issues here. If the photo was of a coffee cup, and not Melania, the issues would still be the same.
Do you remember when artists would get upset that their song was being played by Trump at his rally. Trump paid for those rights so the artist had nothing to stand on...Same situation with Rush Limbaugh using the Crissy Hynde song. Its a matter of artists rights.
Now if the Cruz campaign secured the rights of the picture, they could face legal challenge for pass along the pic to an unauthorized entity for use. The challenges would be both by the feds as well as the photographer and GQ.
He only has to prove it if he’s 800% sure or less. But he already told you, he’s 1000% sure.
>> We support Trump, although he blatantly lies incessantly, because that is honesty. His opponent is evil incarnate because there is ZERO evidence that he has ever lied to anybody <<
Well stated! Brilliant! Even the late Robert Welch, known far and wide for his contention that Eisenhower was a fellow traveler with the Soviets, could not have put it better!
>> Melania has rights as to how the photo is used <<
Probably so. But the exact rights she might have would depend on the precise language of the model release she (or her agent) should have signed.
Moreover, those rights might also depend on the jurisdiction(s) involved. For example, since the photo was used originally by the British edition of GQ, perhaps the model release and/or associated contracts might state that all disputes involving the photo and related documents would be settled under the laws of the United Kingdom.
That being said, the use of a copyrighted item in a political environment could raise First Amendment issues and federal election law issues that potentially transcend the ordinary precedents and statutory provisions of contract law and copyright law.
Therefore, if Melania or the photographer were to sue Liz Mair for unauthorized use of the photo, I could see the courts coming down on either side — due to the jurisdictional, political and First Amendment questions that might eventuate.
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.