[RKV]

Who in the Army wants a great journalist like Michael Yon out of the theatre? This guy is a terrific asset to the US and why does the Army think it can screw a blogger like him with impunity?

[weegee]

Hard for me to say where the ownership is. I don't know anything (outside of this article) about this case.

Was he there on his own dime (or that of an agency outside of the government)?

Are all of his photos property of the government or does he get to retain ownership of those photos he "doesn't share"?

I ask this because work for the government carries no copyright. There are very famous photos by famous photographers that belong to the Library of Congress (some under WPA programs). Same with NASA images.

I don't want to see the photographer done wrong. I just have no understanding on what the release said.

[windcliff]

ping

[Publius6961]

In his letter, Klein argues that an injury to Yon's copyright is the same as an injury to his leg or his camera.

Another incompetent lawyer hiding in the military.

Clearly, to us mere mortals, the nature and purpose of the release is crystal clear.
And does not include intellectual property.

This loser must be kicked out of the military and banned from government work forever!
If stupidity is not a jail-time crime, it should be.

[Petronski]

In his letter, Klein argues that an injury to Yon's copyright is the same as an injury to his leg or his camera.

That's silly.

[tallhappy]

"The claimant asserts he was injured by the distribution of his copyrighted works to the news media. This release absolves the Army of any liability for that injury."

The Army needs to fire this IP lawyer, Klein, as his word games won't stand up in court and are ludicrous. What a waste of taxpayer money to pay this buffoon.

[RKV]

Please do also check out http://www.punditreview.com/2006/02/02/bloggers-unite-to-support-michael-yon/
and http://business.bostonherald.com/technologyNews/view.bg?articleid=123749&format=text

[olrtex]

Maybe their are special common law or statutory rules for governments, but language like "release the (military) of any liability from and hold them harmless for any injuries I may suffer or any equipment that may be damaged as a result of my covering combat" should not be interpreted to cover damage from intentional misconduct, or even negligence for that matter. If a unit commander ordered a soldier to shoot Yon in the leg just for fun, surely the government could not escape liability because of this "release."

[BurbankKarl]

I am sure he signed his rights away by becoming embedded....and if he put the photo on his blog, how can he expect to for it to remain his property. Once you publish it to the internet, it is gone.

Now, if he released a tiny image, with the words NOT FOR PUBLICATION like all the photos you see on AFP or AP wire.....that is another story. Sometimes you see NOT FOR PUBLICATION BY THE LOS ANGELES TIMES on the photowire, because the photographer has been jerked by them before.

[Lady Jag]

The fact is, he can't win.

The question is, why does the gov want to do this?

This is what I did to the photo: