"USA Next" in $25M lawsuit for stealing photo

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A right wing organization (remember "Swift Boat
Vets for Truth" ) is being sued for using a photo,
without permission, in a political ad to smear
the AARP. This could get interesting.

http://www.wiredstrategies.com/lawsuit/home.html



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

hotchkisstrio wrote:
>
> This happened in Oregon. The reason they are getting sue is not that they
> used the two men in a picture, it's that they DID NOT take the picture
> themselves! A local newspaper, The Portland Tribune, took the photographs.
> The tribune has set in place policies for private parties to re-use any of
> their file photos for a fee. They will not allow use of such pictures for
> comercial use.
>
> The USA Next org. tried to get around this by just buying the rights as if
> they were not using it for commercial purposes. The Tribune refunded their
> money and asked them not to use. Then they used it anyways!
>
> So the dispute has nothing to do with model-releases or the privacy of
> people at a wedding or any of that bullshit.
>
> It's about a newspaper which owns the rights to a photo suing a company that
> copied the image without permission, and which had in fact been denied
> permission to do so.
>

Ah, it's even worse. They more or less stole the image. It will be
nice to see this shady outfit get exposed and have to pay.

Lisa

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Also don't forget that USA Next did not take the photo. They stole it from
the Portland Tribune Newspaper which may also decide to sue over copyrights.


"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
newshc331phhi44bbsht9k1oeqv2jvqgv1js1@4ax.com...
> On 10 Mar 2005 21:34:09 -0800, "editor@netpath.net"
> <editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>
> > As a lawyer, I can tell you to dream on.
>
>
> It seems the plaintiffs are winning the early rounds, esquire.
> A federal judge has issued a restraining order against "USA Next."
>
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4856601,00.html>
>
> And let's not forget that this isn't just some "advertisement."
> It was a clearly homophobic pitch for a clearly partisan right wing
> agenda affecting every working American citizen.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matthew.DelVecchio@CapitalOneAuto.com wrote:
> actually, yes. you dont have to like it or agree with it... but freedom
> of speech is freedom of speech. this was decided by the courts long
> ago, man.


I actually see some merit in the current
German code. Specific forms of hate speech
(mostly, pro-nazi) are illegal.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

[rafe]
>>A passionate defense of Ernst Zundel?
>>That's beyond the pale, IMO.
>
[clutch]
> Where did that come from? You still dissing the lawyer with stuff on
> ebay?


The "Alamance Independent" website, to which our
gun seller/lawyer comrade is linked. Given his/her
email address, one might logically suppose he/she
is editor of the site. It took only the most
rudimentary net searching to find this link.

What does "occupied Confederate territory" mean
to you? To me, it says "redneck."


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafeb wrote:

> What does "occupied Confederate territory" mean
> to you? To me, it says "redneck."
>
>

There are people who are educated and upper class (old money), who use
the phrase too.

Bob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rafe quoted me:
>> As a lawyer, I can tell you to dream on.

and replied:
>I'll bet you're a pretty good one too,

I was - until the collections business (which I specialized in)
collapsed with much of the regional job market in the late 1990s.

> if you're selling gun parts and redneck bumber stickers
>on eBay.

I make far more profit - with far less hassle - running an
Internet-based gun show operation than I ever did as a lawyer. That's
the reality of the glutted lawyer job market of today.
If I had it to do all over again, I'd have done the show circuit
from the start - and never gone to law school. MOST lawyers who
graduated when I did (1985) are doing marginally, grossly underemployed
in fields not requiring a law license, or both.
But I did pass the bar the first time - unlike this state's longtime
just-retired governor!

See all our stuff at <a
href="http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW">Internet Gun Show!</a>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <sEoYd.23789$6g7.8814@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
bob <not@not.not> wrote:
>rafeb wrote:
>
>> What does "occupied Confederate territory" mean
>> to you? To me, it says "redneck."
>>
>>
>
>There are people who are educated and upper class (old money), who use
>the phrase too.

The US doesn't have any old money - it's not been around long enough. :-P

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:11:58 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:55:33 -0500, rafeb <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Matthew.DelVecchio@CapitalOneAuto.com wrote:
>>> actually, yes. you dont have to like it or agree with it... but freedom
>>> of speech is freedom of speech. this was decided by the courts long
>>> ago, man.
>>
>>
>>I actually see some merit in the current
>>German code. Specific forms of hate speech
>>(mostly, pro-nazi) are illegal.
>
>And as long as the limits match your preferences, you'll continue to
>like them.
>But what happens when you don't like the limits someone decides are
>needed?


That's a very legitimate question.

AFAIK, the German code isn't all that
controversial -- and it's very specific
about what's limited.

The 1st Amendment in the US isn't absolute
either, but it does protect any and all
forms of political speech. Unfortunately,
it also protects nazis, klansmen, homophobes,
pedophiles, and so on.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 12 Mar 2005 14:25:31 -0800, "editor@netpath.net"
<editor@netpath.net> wrote:

>Rafe wrote:
>>The 1st Amendment in the US isn't absolute
>>either, but it does protect any and all
>>forms of political speech. Unfortunately,
>>it also protects nazis, klansmen, homophobes,
>>pedophiles, and so on.
>
> What the hell kind of speech do you think needs protected?
>"Popular" speech that most Americans love?
> The Founders didn't protect free speech so that it would only
>protect what 99% of adult Americans agree with.

IIRC there was a conversation between a judge and Larry Flynt (Hustler
Magazine) that went something like:
Judge: "The First Ammendment wasn't enacted for the likes of you!"
Flynt: "On the contrary, the First Ammendment was enacted for just the
likes of me!"
And Flynt was right.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:45:03 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray
Fischer) wrote:

>rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>A right wing organization (remember "Swift Boat
>>Vets for Truth" ) is being sued for using a photo,
>>without permission, in a political ad to smear
>>the AARP.
>
>Did you expect them to be ethical or honest?

Why is Kerry's discharge dated in Carter's presidency?
>
>> This could get interesting.
>>
>>http://www.wiredstrategies.com/lawsuit/home.html

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:


> The point is those people are not rednecks.


So is Trent Lott a redneck? In my book, yes.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com