Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: af_vet_1981

It damn sure was not GQ, they held no rights. Conde Nast does, except “those” photos were made public domain earlier this year.

Any BS you read about anyone buying the rights from GQ are simple BS.


132 posted on 03/27/2016 8:13:05 PM PDT by X-spurt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]


To: X-spurt

[[It damn sure was not GQ, they held no rights. Conde Nast does, except “those” photos were made public domain earlier this year.

Any BS you read about anyone buying the rights from GQ are simple BS.]]

Bears repeating because the GQ fella making the statement that they were purchased is lying if this is true- Condi Nast said noone had a right to use they photos- because he alone holds the rights to them and gave noone permission to use them- GQ has been i nthe business a long time and would have known NOT to use or issue the photos to someone else without the express permission of Condi- GQ isn’t i n the business of copywrite infringement- they aren’t stupid, and woudl risk being sued out of existence by illegally selling something they had no right to sell


137 posted on 03/27/2016 9:40:50 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]

To: X-spurt
It damn sure was not GQ, they held no rights. Conde Nast does, except “those” photos were made public domain earlier this year.

Any BS you read about anyone buying the rights from GQ are simple BS.

Are you an attorney ?

151 posted on 03/28/2016 5:14:07 AM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson