My magazine is headquartered in Rosenberg, near Houston. Would we hire a graduate of the Bauer school of mgt, which stole the picture? Hell no. Not the ethics I'd want them to have been taught.
DeanS wrote:
Something is seriously wrong with this. I tried reading all 34 pages, but gave up and skipped to the end - to learn that Olive got screwed. Two probs here for me: the guy got screwed, and it should not take 34 pages of gibberish to perform the act.
What's the problem Dean? Never heard of foreplay?
if the state had just paid the poor guy what the legal defense cost them, he probably would have been happy.
robertjerl wrote:
Actually he wrote that as coming from a villain who is plotting how to take over the country and become a tyrant.
In his speech about how to accomplish that he said:
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Thank you for correcting that common misconception, and common dig at lawyers.
Dalek
Loc: Detroit, Miami, Goffstown
I have a photo of the Alamo, is that legal?
I need Perry Mason to read this and let me know what it states. I read and have no idea...fell asleep around page 27. I think it means that a copyright means nothing in Texas? Is this correct?
Vienna74
Loc: Bountiful, Utah now Panama
I agree with others that this case is a narrow result that in no way means "the death of photography copyrights." The problem this plaintiff faced was governmental immunity, which meant he could not sue for the loss of his copyright fee for the university's use of his photograph. Instead, his lawyers argued it was a 5th Amendment "taking," similar to the condemnation of land without payment of just compensation. However, he did not lose his copyright. It was not taken. He lost a fee. Against any other non-governmental violator of his copyright he could still sue for damages.
rjaywallace wrote:
Respectfully, I donât see how this narrow decision portends âthe death of (all) photography copyrightsâ. Plaintiff filed a claim in a particular manner when he might have chosen other courses. Based on the nature of the claim, the Appeals court denied the claim, which at its most under the law would have only amounted to Plaintiffâs loss of a limited copyright fee(s). The Appeals court noted that the Plaintiff never at any time lost his right and/or ability to continue to pursue other copyright protections with regard to the subject photograph or other photographs. Generally speaking, nobody took all of Plaintiffâs rights away from him.
Respectfully, I donât see how this narrow decision... (
show quote)
I somewhat agree with your analysis, I did not finish reading the decision but I read enough to understand that one of primary issues the court considered is the state's immunity from tort, this decision does not extend out to the general public or commercial infringement.
LEGALDR wrote:
I just noted a case which many of the hoggers may be interested in. It is out of the Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District. I have attached the courts opinion.
This is a very specific case and ruling (I actually read the document) and the court simply found that what the government did, did not constitute a "taking." It is only about a government entity and if the property was "a taking" by the government entity and the court ruled it was not a "taking," (i.e., along the lines of taking private property by eminent domain). The court clearly stated it did not endorse what occurred. The owner of the property should have tried some other approach to compensation or justice. Your headline is inflammatory and incorrect.
I have ALWAYS thought that once you published a picture the rights and ownership was gone.
Narrow applicability but shows Texas needs to change its laws to not authorize stealing from its citizens.
donrent wrote:
I have ALWAYS thought that once you published a picture the rights and ownership was gone.
Then you've ALWAYS been wrong.
rook2c4 wrote:
Skip over the reference sections in the document, and it's not that hard to understand. I'm not sure what you mean by legal gibberish - overall, the text is rather simple and straight forward.
While decipherable, this evokes the old adage, âIf you canât bedazzle them with brilliance, bedaffle them with bullsât!â
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.