Advertisement: Do more with photos, movies and music on your Mac. Upgrade to the new iLife ’11 for just $49 at the Apple Online Store.
“Aspiring model Rebecca Battino’s career got off to a strange start when sexy self-portraits she took as a 16-year-old popped up in an online iTunes application called ‘eXtreme Cam Girls,'” Boniello reports. “Unbeknownst to her, the images soon spread like a virus to dozens of flesh sites across the Web, making her an international sex sensation.”
Boniello reports, “Battino, now 19, took the pictures of herself in the mirror with a digital camera. The steamy shots were swiped from her computer, Battino claims in a $1 million Manhattan federal-court lawsuit that accuses Apple and app-maker Samba Studios of copyright infringement.”
“The application has since been removed from the iTunes store, but Battino is fuming that she hasn’t gotten any credit — or cash — for the shots,” Boniello reports. “‘I was just upset that I’m not being paid for my pictures,’ she told The Post. ‘I’m not embarrassed.'”
Read more in the full article here.
one word: Gold Digger… good luck suing Apple!
one word: Gold Digger… good luck suing Apple!
What a loser.
What a loser.
And I thought tees’ place is in school, not in front of mirrors, camera in hand…
how times change!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
And I thought tees’ place is in school, not in front of mirrors, camera in hand…
how times change!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
She qualifies as a genuine Apple tart!
She qualifies as a genuine Apple tart!
Kids these days. You would think they would of learned from the girls who tried to sue Joe Francis founder of Girls Gone Wild and lost every time.
Kids these days. You would think they would of learned from the girls who tried to sue Joe Francis founder of Girls Gone Wild and lost every time.
And people wonder why the App store rules are as strict as they are, especially concerning adult content… This is why. So Apple doesn’t get randomly sued by every girl dumb enough to take sexy photos of herself and allow it to be put on the interwebs.
And people wonder why the App store rules are as strict as they are, especially concerning adult content… This is why. So Apple doesn’t get randomly sued by every girl dumb enough to take sexy photos of herself and allow it to be put on the interwebs.
Nothing will happen to Apple. I’d be surprised if a girl gets any money at all. If I take a picture of my body in a mirror, and someone uses it in an app, I wouldn’t expect money.
Nothing will happen to Apple. I’d be surprised if a girl gets any money at all. If I take a picture of my body in a mirror, and someone uses it in an app, I wouldn’t expect money.
I think Apple should be claiming 30% of any of her future earnings as she directly gained her career through the app store
I think Apple should be claiming 30% of any of her future earnings as she directly gained her career through the app store
@KSH,
If I took a picture of my body in a mirror, and someone used it in an app, I wouldn’t expect money…hell I would be happy…unless of course they used it in a Horror movie…the great white whale eats New York or something.
@KSH,
If I took a picture of my body in a mirror, and someone used it in an app, I wouldn’t expect money…hell I would be happy…unless of course they used it in a Horror movie…the great white whale eats New York or something.
“While Ms. Battino is remaining tight-lipped over how the pics made the jump from her personal iPhoto library into eXtreme Cam Girls, she’s more than happy to express her anger over not getting compensated for the shots.”
“While Ms. Battino is remaining tight-lipped over how the pics made the jump from her personal iPhoto library into eXtreme Cam Girls, she’s more than happy to express her anger over not getting compensated for the shots.”
she looks good to me
she looks good to me
I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to make Snooki look classy. I guess I was wrong.
I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to make Snooki look classy. I guess I was wrong.
Adolescents do stupid things. I did. You used to be able move on and leave those stupid actions behind you as you matured. Not anymore. It’s not bad enough that others may capture your stupidity on video or pics. The lack of sense extends to enshrining yourself in the Idiots Hall of Fame. For all those here that regularly boo-hoo Parental Controls, all I can say is wait until you raise teen kids, especially girls. Parents want to simply get their kids through this period of life healthy and whole, with limited drama and angst. I feel for this girl, but can only advise her that laying low is probably the best action. Suing Apple only goes to show that she has a bit more maturing to do. Suing the publisher that is using the pic for commercial purposes without a release is fine.
Adolescents do stupid things. I did. You used to be able move on and leave those stupid actions behind you as you matured. Not anymore. It’s not bad enough that others may capture your stupidity on video or pics. The lack of sense extends to enshrining yourself in the Idiots Hall of Fame. For all those here that regularly boo-hoo Parental Controls, all I can say is wait until you raise teen kids, especially girls. Parents want to simply get their kids through this period of life healthy and whole, with limited drama and angst. I feel for this girl, but can only advise her that laying low is probably the best action. Suing Apple only goes to show that she has a bit more maturing to do. Suing the publisher that is using the pic for commercial purposes without a release is fine.
She can take it up the ace!
She can take it up the ace!
Yo Fred: Sharon Mevsimler, the woman pictured in your (ineptly applied) link, died in July. Real funny, huh? Stay classy, douchebag.
Yo Fred: Sharon Mevsimler, the woman pictured in your (ineptly applied) link, died in July. Real funny, huh? Stay classy, douchebag.
If someone ran over her with their car would she launch a suit against the auto maker? Oh, yeah, I guess she would.
If someone ran over her with their car would she launch a suit against the auto maker? Oh, yeah, I guess she would.
From above:
” . . . would of learned . . .”
You meant ” . . . would HAVE learned . . .” This “of” thing (instead of “have”) comes from LISTENING, but not READING, a most lamentable state of affairs in this country, to be sure.
My apologies for this uncontrolled eruption, one and all, but sloppy writing comes from sloppy thinking, which comes from sloppy language arts education, sloppy proofreading, etc., etc., etc. The circle must be broken somewhere.
From above:
” . . . would of learned . . .”
You meant ” . . . would HAVE learned . . .” This “of” thing (instead of “have”) comes from LISTENING, but not READING, a most lamentable state of affairs in this country, to be sure.
My apologies for this uncontrolled eruption, one and all, but sloppy writing comes from sloppy thinking, which comes from sloppy language arts education, sloppy proofreading, etc., etc., etc. The circle must be broken somewhere.
She died? I wonder why?
She died? I wonder why?
I agree with all the reasonable post above me.
And with 2 teenage girls that have just turned 18 myself, “I have no more hair to prove it & Car Insurance Cost to rival that”.
Anyway, She has a cold chance in Hell of getting a dime from Apple at all, Now from the Content Application Developer that may be a different story.
“And to all the Fathers out their with teenage Daughters not past 18 yet- ” I Pray for You- With My Deepest and Sincerest Heartfelt Meaning”
Good Luck Brothers.
I agree with all the reasonable post above me.
And with 2 teenage girls that have just turned 18 myself, “I have no more hair to prove it & Car Insurance Cost to rival that”.
Anyway, She has a cold chance in Hell of getting a dime from Apple at all, Now from the Content Application Developer that may be a different story.
“And to all the Fathers out their with teenage Daughters not past 18 yet- ” I Pray for You- With My Deepest and Sincerest Heartfelt Meaning”
Good Luck Brothers.
Wow. You don’t automatically get paid for your pics.
Unless, of course, she signed a contract, which she clearly did not.
However, if these pictures are sexual in nature, and she was under age when she took them, it could be considered kiddie porn, even if it’s just softcore.
I’d stay the hell away from it personally.
Wow. You don’t automatically get paid for your pics.
Unless, of course, she signed a contract, which she clearly did not.
However, if these pictures are sexual in nature, and she was under age when she took them, it could be considered kiddie porn, even if it’s just softcore.
I’d stay the hell away from it personally.
I can’t see how Apple is in any way liable.
But if the app-creator used the picture without her permission, he would be liable. And if the picture is like I suspect, her in the mirror holding a camera, there’s no doubt that she’s both the photographer and the model and thus holds all the rights to the image.
(Still, I doubt that the developer of that kind of app is worth the kind of money she’s looking for.)
——RM
I can’t see how Apple is in any way liable.
But if the app-creator used the picture without her permission, he would be liable. And if the picture is like I suspect, her in the mirror holding a camera, there’s no doubt that she’s both the photographer and the model and thus holds all the rights to the image.
(Still, I doubt that the developer of that kind of app is worth the kind of money she’s looking for.)
——RM
Uh, to all you copyright experts above… whatever value judgements make you feel better by aiming them at this girl, the fact remains – you own copyright to any image you take the moment you take it. If she took images of her *cat* and they were used without her permission, she is entitled to damages. Since they are pictures of her, it only makes the case easier to prove.
No, oh Confused one, you don’t automatically get paid for your pics. However, any old company in the world isn’t entitled to use them for commercial purposes unless they, in fact, PAY YOU. Or you reach some other kind of agreement.
The fact that this girl has become a model further solidifies her case, as she is now in the business of selling her image, a kind of ‘intellectual property’ to which she is the sole right holder.
She’ll get paid, all right.
Uh, to all you copyright experts above… whatever value judgements make you feel better by aiming them at this girl, the fact remains – you own copyright to any image you take the moment you take it. If she took images of her *cat* and they were used without her permission, she is entitled to damages. Since they are pictures of her, it only makes the case easier to prove.
No, oh Confused one, you don’t automatically get paid for your pics. However, any old company in the world isn’t entitled to use them for commercial purposes unless they, in fact, PAY YOU. Or you reach some other kind of agreement.
The fact that this girl has become a model further solidifies her case, as she is now in the business of selling her image, a kind of ‘intellectual property’ to which she is the sole right holder.
She’ll get paid, all right.
@ Michael Perry
“So Apple doesn’t get randomly sued by every girl dumb enough to take sexy photos of herself…”
Wow… do you know *any* teenage girls? It seems pretty clear from the story that her pictures were ‘swiped’. Does this make her dumb? Or are all girls just dumb?
@ Michael Perry
“So Apple doesn’t get randomly sued by every girl dumb enough to take sexy photos of herself…”
Wow… do you know *any* teenage girls? It seems pretty clear from the story that her pictures were ‘swiped’. Does this make her dumb? Or are all girls just dumb?
I seriously doubt the pictures were “swiped” from her computer. It seems more likely the brainiac wasn’t at all careful with where she sexted her pictures, they went viral without copyright notice (thereby forfeiting her right to make copyright claims), the app maker got hold of them with no copyright watermarks, and used them.
So now she wants money after the fact. Gobs of money. A hundred-thousand times more money than such photos would ever get her if she actually wanted to charge for the “rare” art form of stripping off one’s clothes when trying to break into modeling.
Waaa.
I seriously doubt the pictures were “swiped” from her computer. It seems more likely the brainiac wasn’t at all careful with where she sexted her pictures, they went viral without copyright notice (thereby forfeiting her right to make copyright claims), the app maker got hold of them with no copyright watermarks, and used them.
So now she wants money after the fact. Gobs of money. A hundred-thousand times more money than such photos would ever get her if she actually wanted to charge for the “rare” art form of stripping off one’s clothes when trying to break into modeling.
Waaa.
@ Greg L
Yes, we know this, because girls are dumb.
“(thereby forfeiting her right to make copyright claims)”
No, actually not at all. A picture you take can go viral all over the world, but THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT PUBLIC DOMAIN. No company is then entitled to use that image for a commercial purpose without you releasing the image to them. PERIOD.
No one can use any photo they find laying around without a rights release and not expect to get sued. And it’s attitudes like yours that have made it just about goddamned impossible to make a living as a photographer any more.
@ Greg L
Yes, we know this, because girls are dumb.
“(thereby forfeiting her right to make copyright claims)”
No, actually not at all. A picture you take can go viral all over the world, but THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT PUBLIC DOMAIN. No company is then entitled to use that image for a commercial purpose without you releasing the image to them. PERIOD.
No one can use any photo they find laying around without a rights release and not expect to get sued. And it’s attitudes like yours that have made it just about goddamned impossible to make a living as a photographer any more.
Bitch!…
I’m the ONE AND ONLY Apple Tart Girl around here!
Bitch!…
I’m the ONE AND ONLY Apple Tart Girl around here!
Let me rephrase my name!…
The Fake Ellen Fleiss…
Wouldn’t want to get sued pretending to post for a real life character!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
Let me rephrase my name!…
The Fake Ellen Fleiss…
Wouldn’t want to get sued pretending to post for a real life character!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
Sue the app maker, not Apple. Besides, stop posting skanky pics of yourself online.
Sue the app maker, not Apple. Besides, stop posting skanky pics of yourself online.
“Battino claims in a $1 million Manhattan federal-court lawsuit that accuses Apple and app-maker Samba Studios of copyright infringement.”
It makes sense to name both parties in the suit, thereby covering all the bases. She’s actually handing this pretty much exactly the way she should.
“Battino claims in a $1 million Manhattan federal-court lawsuit that accuses Apple and app-maker Samba Studios of copyright infringement.”
It makes sense to name both parties in the suit, thereby covering all the bases. She’s actually handing this pretty much exactly the way she should.
Well, at least she is honest. She wants a big helping of cashiola salad. No, she’s not sorry for producing jail bait pics, she just wants a share of the dough. Refreshingly upfront in a time when others would paint themselves as victims.
Well, at least she is honest. She wants a big helping of cashiola salad. No, she’s not sorry for producing jail bait pics, she just wants a share of the dough. Refreshingly upfront in a time when others would paint themselves as victims.
ChrissyOne’s Ego is hard at work today again we see.
NO ROOM FOR OTHER’s THOUGHTS.
Every One Else Is Wrong – ChrissyOne has the only Correct Answer.
ChrissyOne’s Ego is hard at work today again we see.
NO ROOM FOR OTHER’s THOUGHTS.
Every One Else Is Wrong – ChrissyOne has the only Correct Answer.
@ He We Go Again
Yes, I’m jumping all over your god-given right to call some girl you don’t know a dumb skank.
Sue me.
But first, genius, take a second and turn your brain on. What I’m saying applies to all photographers. Not just girls that make the porn you love.
And I know this may surprise you, but I didn’t make those rules. As a photographer, however, I will defend them.
Keps your Other Thoughts coming. And I’ll do the same.
@ He We Go Again
Yes, I’m jumping all over your god-given right to call some girl you don’t know a dumb skank.
Sue me.
But first, genius, take a second and turn your brain on. What I’m saying applies to all photographers. Not just girls that make the porn you love.
And I know this may surprise you, but I didn’t make those rules. As a photographer, however, I will defend them.
Keps your Other Thoughts coming. And I’ll do the same.
Now let’s look at this ‘skank’ claim. From the article….
“A shot of Battino in a plunging-down-to-there black swimsuit…”
So, she was wearing a swimsuit. Something she might wear at a public beach. Completely legally. And for taking a picture of herself in this, she’s a ‘skank’. Ah yes, that makes perfect sense. And since she’s so ‘dumb’, she doesn’t deserve any copyright protection, because that’s reserved for smart guys and ugly women.
You guys should be proud of how far you’ve evolved.
Now let’s look at this ‘skank’ claim. From the article….
“A shot of Battino in a plunging-down-to-there black swimsuit…”
So, she was wearing a swimsuit. Something she might wear at a public beach. Completely legally. And for taking a picture of herself in this, she’s a ‘skank’. Ah yes, that makes perfect sense. And since she’s so ‘dumb’, she doesn’t deserve any copyright protection, because that’s reserved for smart guys and ugly women.
You guys should be proud of how far you’ve evolved.
If she’s a internet sensation now, she should just capitalize on it now like what Paris Hilton did.
Get a manager and start posing for products, naked now that she’s 19 teen.
She’ll get rich that way, not by suing.
If she’s a internet sensation now, she should just capitalize on it now like what Paris Hilton did.
Get a manager and start posing for products, naked now that she’s 19 teen.
She’ll get rich that way, not by suing.
“She’ll get rich that way, not by suing.”
If she didn’t sue, we wouldn’t be talking about her.
“She’ll get rich that way, not by suing.”
If she didn’t sue, we wouldn’t be talking about her.
I know of a famous internet porn star that got her start when she was 19.
She retired when she got about 26, she’s 36 now and has a cool quarter million still in the bank, owns a condo and is still receiving income from her websites.
She still works, but not in the trade. But that $250,000 sure gives a lot of cushion for these rough economic times.
Her trade name is Jordan Capri, knew her for about 4 years.
No kidding.
I know of a famous internet porn star that got her start when she was 19.
She retired when she got about 26, she’s 36 now and has a cool quarter million still in the bank, owns a condo and is still receiving income from her websites.
She still works, but not in the trade. But that $250,000 sure gives a lot of cushion for these rough economic times.
Her trade name is Jordan Capri, knew her for about 4 years.
No kidding.
“If she didn’t sue, we wouldn’t be talking about her.”
If she’s marketing herself, she’s not going about it the right way.
All she’s doing is scaring websites into pulling her images, making her into a nobody, then she will either lose the suit or win with a lot less than what she is asking for.
A lawyer talked her into this. A lawyer with a eye on Apple’s billions.
If she wanted to make money, she should have hired a marketing manager.
dumb chick move.
“If she didn’t sue, we wouldn’t be talking about her.”
If she’s marketing herself, she’s not going about it the right way.
All she’s doing is scaring websites into pulling her images, making her into a nobody, then she will either lose the suit or win with a lot less than what she is asking for.
A lawyer talked her into this. A lawyer with a eye on Apple’s billions.
If she wanted to make money, she should have hired a marketing manager.
dumb chick move.
Get this girl a patent attorney. She will get a faster settlement!
Get this girl a patent attorney. She will get a faster settlement!
“If she took images of her *cat* and they were used without her permission, she is entitled to damages.” —ChrissyOne
Damages? Do you make a habit of quoting “the law” without using your brain?
“If she took images of her *cat* and they were used without her permission, she is entitled to damages.” —ChrissyOne
Damages? Do you make a habit of quoting “the law” without using your brain?
Q. What if a copyrighted work is used without permission?
A. The unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is called an infringement. The Copyright Act provides stiff penalties for infringing copyrighted works. Under appropriate circumstances, penalties can include monetary damages, all profits earned by the infringer from the unauthorized use of the copyrighted work and attorneyís fees. A court can also order the destruction of all infringing copies.
Q. What if a copyrighted work is used without permission?
A. The unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is called an infringement. The Copyright Act provides stiff penalties for infringing copyrighted works. Under appropriate circumstances, penalties can include monetary damages, all profits earned by the infringer from the unauthorized use of the copyrighted work and attorneyís fees. A court can also order the destruction of all infringing copies.
http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html
Is there anything else you need help with?
http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html
Is there anything else you need help with?
She is hot.. pic of her face here:
http://goo.gl/Pcwm
She is hot.. pic of her face here:
http://goo.gl/Pcwm
@ChrissyOne:
Are you a real person or a netbot? I think I hear an echo in here.
@ChrissyOne:
Are you a real person or a netbot? I think I hear an echo in here.
@ alansky
Are you a real person or a netbot? I think I hear an echo in here.
@ alansky
Are you a real person or a netbot? I think I hear an echo in here.
She is clutching at straws if she thinks Apple is responsible for her infamy. Isn’t an ex-boyfriend more likely to be the one who uploaded the photos to the internet?
She is clutching at straws if she thinks Apple is responsible for her infamy. Isn’t an ex-boyfriend more likely to be the one who uploaded the photos to the internet?
Screw you very much MDN. You know where you can take your crappy ad infested website run from your parents basement.
You Appel Fanboys
Screw you very much MDN. You know where you can take your crappy ad infested website run from your parents basement.
You Appel Fanboys
@ChrissyOne:
I rest my case.
@ChrissyOne:
I rest my case.
What, that you can post stupid crap? Hey, me too!
What, that you can post stupid crap? Hey, me too!
@ C1
In the recent past I was taking a few pictures at a public event. It was like a science fair where the kids’ parents had to sign a release for them to participate; the release included a “publicity photo” disclaimer. After we posted the photos on the web, an angry parent (who apparently didn’t read the form before signing it) sent us a very unfriendly, emotional, rude “take down” order. The lawyers said the signed permission didn’t matter. We took the shots down.
As stupid as RB may sound, she does own the copyright; the company can’t use her images without permission. And she was a minor when they were taken — making this a much more stringent requirement for requiring permissions.
@ C1
In the recent past I was taking a few pictures at a public event. It was like a science fair where the kids’ parents had to sign a release for them to participate; the release included a “publicity photo” disclaimer. After we posted the photos on the web, an angry parent (who apparently didn’t read the form before signing it) sent us a very unfriendly, emotional, rude “take down” order. The lawyers said the signed permission didn’t matter. We took the shots down.
As stupid as RB may sound, she does own the copyright; the company can’t use her images without permission. And she was a minor when they were taken — making this a much more stringent requirement for requiring permissions.
@ Hm…
All very correct. And in your case, of course, no money was at stake.
So then, Battino has a three-fold case:
1. She was the photographer, and as a content creator, she has automatic copyright to her image. No entity may use her image for commercial purposes without her release of rights.
2. She was the model, and as such, must be released in order for the image to be sold for commercial purposes.
3. She was a minor, granting her extra protection under child exploitation laws.
Unless the software developer can produce *both* evidence of a contractual release of rights of her creative work, *and* a model release, *AND* the signature of a parent or guardian, I’m afraid Battino wins her case.
Apple could be found responsible depending on their developer agreement, just as a book publisher could be found responsible for plagiarism in one of their writer’s works, depending, I guess, on how they’re contractually protected and indemnified.
@ Hm…
All very correct. And in your case, of course, no money was at stake.
So then, Battino has a three-fold case:
1. She was the photographer, and as a content creator, she has automatic copyright to her image. No entity may use her image for commercial purposes without her release of rights.
2. She was the model, and as such, must be released in order for the image to be sold for commercial purposes.
3. She was a minor, granting her extra protection under child exploitation laws.
Unless the software developer can produce *both* evidence of a contractual release of rights of her creative work, *and* a model release, *AND* the signature of a parent or guardian, I’m afraid Battino wins her case.
Apple could be found responsible depending on their developer agreement, just as a book publisher could be found responsible for plagiarism in one of their writer’s works, depending, I guess, on how they’re contractually protected and indemnified.
she’s getting thousands of dollars in free publicity from this app. Apple should be attaching her future wages as unpaid royalties!
she’s getting thousands of dollars in free publicity from this app. Apple should be attaching her future wages as unpaid royalties!
Bet she wont think its funny when she gets arrested now. She has admitted to creation of child pornography. And yes she wouldn’t be the first underage self pic taker to be charged as such.
Bet she wont think its funny when she gets arrested now. She has admitted to creation of child pornography. And yes she wouldn’t be the first underage self pic taker to be charged as such.
@ChrissyOne:
This exchange started because of your mindless defense of a trumped-up “injury” claim. So yes, it’s already quite clear that you are capable of taking leave of your senses and posting stupid crap.
Is it worthwhile to respond to stupid crap with more crap? Probably not, but I couldn’t resist. I must say, the intensity of your defense of this gold-digging bimbo doesn’t make you look like the brightest bulb on the block.
@ChrissyOne:
This exchange started because of your mindless defense of a trumped-up “injury” claim. So yes, it’s already quite clear that you are capable of taking leave of your senses and posting stupid crap.
Is it worthwhile to respond to stupid crap with more crap? Probably not, but I couldn’t resist. I must say, the intensity of your defense of this gold-digging bimbo doesn’t make you look like the brightest bulb on the block.
TRRosen — WHAT?!?
She hasn’t “admitted” to anything. Furthermore, simple nudity, even of a minor, is not classified as “child pornography”. And if she’s in a bathing suit in the pictures, well . . . your claims are too stupid to waste any more effort on.
TRRosen — WHAT?!?
She hasn’t “admitted” to anything. Furthermore, simple nudity, even of a minor, is not classified as “child pornography”. And if she’s in a bathing suit in the pictures, well . . . your claims are too stupid to waste any more effort on.
alansky — Don’t cry about it just because ChrissyOne pwned you throughout this thread. The fact is that she is correct — copyright is conveyed INSTANTLY upon creation and DOES NOT require a copyright notice. There’s no more compelling argument that you hold copyright in something than the example of PICTURES OF YOU TAKEN BY YOU!!!
If someone used pictures of me and didn’t have my permission (and also didn’t exercise due diligence in clearing the photo rights) then that’s tough sh-t for them.
ChrissyOne is correct.
alansky — Don’t cry about it just because ChrissyOne pwned you throughout this thread. The fact is that she is correct — copyright is conveyed INSTANTLY upon creation and DOES NOT require a copyright notice. There’s no more compelling argument that you hold copyright in something than the example of PICTURES OF YOU TAKEN BY YOU!!!
If someone used pictures of me and didn’t have my permission (and also didn’t exercise due diligence in clearing the photo rights) then that’s tough sh-t for them.
ChrissyOne is correct.
@Capatain Camera:
There is an echo in here! ChrissyOne is correct in your humble and not very well-informed opinion. Everybody’s a legal expert today! Neither you nor ChrissyOne see the absurdity of your parrot-like position, quoting chapter and verse of regulations that make absolutely no sense even if they exist. This is called “not seeing the forest for the trees.” You should try using your brain for something other than a garbage can. Thinking for yourself is very refreshing!
@Capatain Camera:
There is an echo in here! ChrissyOne is correct in your humble and not very well-informed opinion. Everybody’s a legal expert today! Neither you nor ChrissyOne see the absurdity of your parrot-like position, quoting chapter and verse of regulations that make absolutely no sense even if they exist. This is called “not seeing the forest for the trees.” You should try using your brain for something other than a garbage can. Thinking for yourself is very refreshing!
I work in the field, pal. I’ve fought cases with my patent attorney (who handles all manner of intellectual property law) against Viacom and others.
“Even if they exist”? Wow. Talk about humble. AND “not very well-informed”.
Bottom line: You characterize the woman as looking for a payday, but the fact is she is entitled to compensation if her image was used without permission. That’s actually, you know . . . THE LAW.
By the way, nice ad hominem attack in your last two sentences. Must be a liberal.
I work in the field, pal. I’ve fought cases with my patent attorney (who handles all manner of intellectual property law) against Viacom and others.
“Even if they exist”? Wow. Talk about humble. AND “not very well-informed”.
Bottom line: You characterize the woman as looking for a payday, but the fact is she is entitled to compensation if her image was used without permission. That’s actually, you know . . . THE LAW.
By the way, nice ad hominem attack in your last two sentences. Must be a liberal.
@Captain America:
Oh, I forgot: It must be right if it’s “the law”. What a laugh! Sorry, but I have no patience with people who simply regurgitate what they’ve been taught. If you view that an “attack”, so be it. I’d rather be a “liberal” than a robot.
@Captain America:
Oh, I forgot: It must be right if it’s “the law”. What a laugh! Sorry, but I have no patience with people who simply regurgitate what they’ve been taught. If you view that an “attack”, so be it. I’d rather be a “liberal” than a robot.
T – H – E L – A – W !
It’s right AND it’s the law. To be compensated for something you created. A fundamental tenet of western civilization. And a primary component of capitalism.
“ad hominem” means personal attack. You can look it up. That’s what you did. You made the discussion personal, which is what people tend to do when their position is without factual merit and they’ve got nothing else to fall back on.
If you don’t like the law, then change it. But it always seems to be people who don’t create anything (or those who spend a lot of time stealing other peoples’ creations) who think the core concept of copyright is “stupid” or “outdated”.
As one example, I bet you Apple might disagree.
T – H – E L – A – W !
It’s right AND it’s the law. To be compensated for something you created. A fundamental tenet of western civilization. And a primary component of capitalism.
“ad hominem” means personal attack. You can look it up. That’s what you did. You made the discussion personal, which is what people tend to do when their position is without factual merit and they’ve got nothing else to fall back on.
If you don’t like the law, then change it. But it always seems to be people who don’t create anything (or those who spend a lot of time stealing other peoples’ creations) who think the core concept of copyright is “stupid” or “outdated”.
As one example, I bet you Apple might disagree.
@Captain America:
Are we frothing at the mouth yet? Take your meds and STFU.
@Captain America:
Are we frothing at the mouth yet? Take your meds and STFU.
There’s not a biggest problem to find the comparison essay writing service, just because there are lots of them online. However, good students should opt for a professional one to purchase high quality term paper essays.
There’s not a biggest problem to find the comparison essay writing service, just because there are lots of them online. However, good students should opt for a professional one to purchase high quality term paper essays.
Hehehehe … alansky gettin’ b*tchslapped all up in dis’ hizzy !
Hehehehe … alansky gettin’ b*tchslapped all up in dis’ hizzy !