Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I see nothing wrong with a young lady in a bikini, people just don't realize, it's now out there for the world, including creepy middle aged people, to do with whatever they want..
Yes and no. Yes, it is not copyright infringement but your reason is somewhat out of place. First, the copyright is with the photographer not the subject unless transferred. If I take a photograph of you, and you upload it to Facebook I don't lose my copyright. You cannot take someone elses property and deny them of ownership based on what you do.
The reason it isn't a violation is because of the fair use doctrine.
There's actually quite a bit of disagreement on that which I suspect case law will decide in coming years. My point is that is her only leg to stand on.
She has no leg to stand on. First, her lawyers look pretty incompetent. They want money for the school calling her an Alcoholic **** when they actually don't say the school said that. They more or less infer that based on a cartoon that the girl isn't in. Why would you keep repeating the phrase "Alcoholic ****" about your client when no one said that? Seems like it's planting the wrong idea.
The school system is attacking it on immunity grounds. This is over a month old but seems paused at the moment.
Fair use. Nothing creepy about it. Trying to use as an example. Should have blurred the face in my opinion but did not have to.
Can't claim privacy or such when you publish it publically. The only action would be copyright and that will likely lose on a fair use educational basis.
They are going for the big one: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Sure it's a kitchen sink for lawsuits but no way this gets even close to that bar.
In order to get that, an ordinary would be "shock the conscience" at looking at someone showing them a photo of a pretty girl.
Wonder if this is on contingency. I think someone smelled an easy civil rights settlement but smelled wrong.
I think that's what lawsuit will determine though, right? The question of if this photo was in the arena of fair use or not.
Nope. Not an issue. They are not touching ownership of the photo at all.
They are suing for misappropriation, negligence, slander, libel, hurt feelings, invasion of privacy, 4th amendment violations (search and seizure). Wait. WTH? They're in trouble for not having a search warrant?
While I see nothing wrong with a young lady in a bikini, people just don't realize, it's now out there for the world, including creepy middle aged people, to do with whatever they want..
yes, she wouldn't have a claim against facebook if they used it, but this is someone who took her photo, without permission and used it to suggest that she was a **** or *****, in a presentation.
wrong . she does have a leg to stand on because of the message that the school administrator/presentation had used it for (by insinuating that she was a **** or *****)
Creating a NEGATIVE view of her because of her photo, the administrator used the photo not as fair use (Fair use would be to actually COMMENT on the photo itself, not what he thinks the photo represents).
wrong . she does have a leg to stand on because of the message that the school administrator/presentation had used it for (by insinuating that she was a **** or *****)
Creating a NEGATIVE view of her because of her photo, the administrator used the photo not as fair use (Fair use would be to actually COMMENT on the photo itself, not what he thinks the photo represents).
Can you be specific on what they are guilty of? And if you'd like why wouldn't the school system have immunity?
EDIT: What I mean is they can't be guilty of what you said which is a description. They have to be guilty of a specific charge under law and not just "they were bad".
I'm totally confused since there is nothing wrong with a pic of a17 year old in a bikini (really, there isn't. Even Annette Funicello thought so) but something creepy about a middle aged administrator of her school district seeking out pictures of 17 year old girls in bikinis and using them as entertainment. It's not like she had a "sex tape" that she posted on facebook thinking nobody would see it but, opps.....
One of these things is not like the other.
"and using them as entertainment." I guess you didn't read the article.
just sounds like some girl on the make to me, it's a complete joke really
And that's why they are suing. Because you think that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
