You Shall Not Question Emperor Obamuius Maximus and get away with it.
Pick Your Target, Freeze It, Polarize It, (and keep suing them, much like the IRS targeting the Tea Party)
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]
Sarah Palin and her political action committee have been named in a copyright infringement lawsuit over the use of an iconic 9/11 photo.
The newspaper publisher North Jersey Media Group Inc. is suing the former Alaska governor for posting a copy of the image on Palin’s SarahPAC website and her personal Facebook page without permission.
The photo depicts three New York City firefighters hoisting an American flag among the rubble at the World Trade Center after the 2001 attacks.
So then if I click a picture of you doing something, I can market and sell that image as much as I want potentially making millions of dollars and you, the subject of the image can do nothing about it?
I understand the principle of photo ownership and copyright, but I think there should be a fair use standard applied to photos or video footage that are newsworthy, which I consider this photo to have become.
Just did the same. Let the bastard try suing me. That’ll be like getting blood from a stone.
She pur her logo in the photo. (see lower right corner) That is a no no for any possible fair use claim.
Fair enough.
Maybe I wasn’t clear: your point seems fair enough.
They should have known better.
Didn't see that the first time, had to go back and look -- you're right.
That certainly does put her/her people in a bad position trying to claim "fair use."
You're right, Rodney. The media is our biggest foe.
Our task is to defeat the media.
We need to come up with ways to do it.
I have always believed that we could beat them at their own game. I'm sure there are many media types with many "problems." Like drug, alcohol, sex addictions.
Like marital, financial, gambling, ... problems.
Bring these things out to the public. Take pictures of them. Post them online, etc.
Maybe get some Private Investigators to help.
How many people also “shared” it? I am pretty sure I shared it!! Idiots!
This photo is managed by Getty. The answer is yes. Getty is notorious and relentless. They will sue for the use of a square centimeter cut and pasted from a 1 meter square picture, rotated, re colored, and flipped backwards. . . Their software WILL find it on the web and you WILL receive a demand letter for a license for an amount over $1000 for your illegal use of their image threatening a lawsuit if you don't pay! They put their copyrighted images on FREE image sites, include them in free website templates, wait until unsuspecting people have used them for a while, the drop on them like a ton of bricks!
I have a file full of demand letters from Getty to my company demanding payment for the use of just such a fractional image. . . That WE had nothing to do with! A website designer made a sample website, put our office name on it so he could show us what he could do for us. . . As a DEMO website. Purely on spec! We did not ask him to do it! He came in and said "I want to show you something. . ." Asked to use our computer and linked to a website that had a nice looking design... with a background scene he'd cut from a larger picture HE was licensed to use from Getty. We told him, "Sorry, not interested. We have a web designer."
It was up less than a week, but Getty's crawler found that website, found their fractional image, and for over three years they've been DEMANDING that we pay them $1695.00 for the use of that stupid photo, which according to them we were using promoting our business!!!! They do not care that we did not use it. They don't care that they licensed the web guy to use it. They don't care that we did not solicit it, or that it was not posted by us. They ignore our attorney's cease and desist letters to them. They keep sending the demand letters and making the demanding calls.
Getty (and Corbis too) also go around slapping their own copyrights on public domain photographs held at the Library of Congress. Their attack hacks threaten anyone who unknowingly use the photos, and I’ve had to point out to them repeatedly that the provenance is actually NARA-Still Picture Branch and not Getty, at which point their lawyers suddenly shut up.
No it wasn't. SarahPAC is a non-profit, and the image is so iconic and widespread now that Fair Use certainly applies, especially since it was used to commemorate 9/11 and not to solicit funds or advertise for a particular candidate.
It's certainly a political attack, and nothing else.
PAIN? Ha, ha!
> Getty (and Corbis too) also go around slapping their own copyrights on public domain photographs held at the Library of Congress. Their attack hacks threaten anyone who unknowingly use the photos, and I’ve had to point out to them repeatedly that the provenance is actually NARA-Still Picture Branch and not Getty, at which point their lawyers suddenly shut up
It doesn’t bother me one bit when guys like this end up having to close doors because of their own sleaze tactics. Of couse they always start up again under another name but it costs ‘em to do so.
Then they better sue the millions on facebook who also used the same photo on 9/11.
NEVER happen; they're Union Members, and on the same side as the anti-Sarah dorks.....
You Shall Not Question Emperor Obamuius Maximus and get away with it.
Pick Your Target, Freeze It, Polarize It, (and keep suing them, much like the IRS targeting the Tea Party)
100% correct.
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.