Posted on 06/16/2019 5:25:54 PM PDT by aimhigh
[[[republicans should cease on this.]]]
No, the should keep going.
(grin)
Yeah one ruling and they are Maoist in cowboys hat. Grow up,
One set of rules for peons, a different set for our ‘Betters’.
Good for you, and good for the professor!
I recently asked my 19 year-old daughter if she wanted me to “Xerox” a form she had filled out. She gavd me a puzzled look and then I realized she never heard the term before. I guess she doesn’t know what a “ditto” is, either. (That’s what my grammar school teachers called a mimeograph).
Which judges are University of Houston alum?
It’s a nice picture and a generic shot of the city.
I would have been more sympathetic of it was of the campus or something, but this is a disgusting over-reach. They need to pay him for their thievery.
Within days, the University of Houston removed the photo from its website and later offered to pay $2,500, according to court documents. When Olive threatened legal action, the university said it was immune from federal copyright lawsuits under the common law principle of sovereign immunity.
The university clearly knew what they did was wrong.
Sovereign immunity?
The government can do anything it wants without consequences?
Agreed.
*** It might be Texas, but this is still wrong. Sovereign Immunity of a state should NOT extend to blatant and extralegal theft from individuals.***
Texas uses this more than you might guess, especially in cases where there is fault in an injury case where a defect causes serious injuries
Take it to the Texas Supreme Court.
This is BS.
*** This is wrong. Texas is now communist China! ***
The State of Texas has done this forever. A poorly constructed building portico collapsed on someone I know, and severed his spinal cord. The State claimed immunity from the suit. You could not sue w/o their permission which they would not give. This was back in the early 70’s.
I’ve had students ask me “Who was Ibid and why did he write so much?”
This Photographer screwed himself. He should have employed an IP attorney right from the start, and he should have taken this to Federal court. He had it properly registered with a US Copyright according to the filings, so why did he waste his time and money in State court?
That’s crooked!.......well that’s ok - it’s government.
Strange that the U didn’t pay, and strange that there is so little case law on the subject.
Hope this guy can afford to appeal.
One day someone will. Copyright is property.
Copyright infringement does not apply here. They were not selling the photo either in whole or as part of another work. They were using it for promotional purposes. They were not depriving of royalties other than the one time use.
This is just wrong. Another brick in the wall. The State reigns Supreme.
This needs to go to the Supreme Court.
Does this mean they can show steal movies and show them? Does this mean they can put on a play and they don’t have to pay royalty. This is SO wrong on so many levels.
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.