Didn't answer my question or tell me anything i didn't already know but thank you :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 5:26 PM Subject: Re: Fat Brat sues
> American and Canadian law are both based on British law, though they have > diverged, obviously. > > Dana > > William Wheatley writes: > > > Is everything copyrighted even when you don't put an explicit copyright on > > it? Is anything you shoot implied copyright? > > And does your implied copyright get waived when you GIVE the material to > > someone else without any words about it. > > > > All this is moot since we're talking about American law when its Looney law > > but still fun to debate it lol > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kevin Graeme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:29 PM > > Subject: RE: Fat Brat sues > > > > > > > It's covered under copyright law. If I made that photo, I have the > > > exclusive right to determine how it's used until the copyright runs out. > > > If I don't want it shown to anyone, I can sue anyone who does show it. > > > Even printed photos in, say, a magazine are covered. It would be just as > > > illegal for someone to scan that photo and post it to a web page without > > > my permission. Same with a video. > > > > > > IANAL > > > > > > -Kevin > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:39 PM > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > Subject: Re: Fat Brat sues > > > > > > > > > > > > it would seem so. My business law class only covered > > > > commercial law in the US, but take a look at the lawyer > > > > interview; that seems to be what he is saying. > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > William Wheatley writes: > > > > > > > > > So if i leave a photo in canada somewhere and several > > > > months later a > > > > > friend finds it and to play a joke on me puts it on the web > > > > thats an > > > > > invasion of my privacy? > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 6:54 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: Fat Brat sues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that might be the more mature way to go. But so the kid isn't > > > > > > mature. He > > > > > is > > > > > > what, 14? And he wasn't looking to be famous, especially not for > > > > > > this. People who have not put themselves in the public eye have a > > > > > > right to be left alone. That is an even stronger principle in > > > > > > Canadian law than it is here. The precendent involves a > > > > picture of a > > > > > > girl sitting on the steps of > > > > > a > > > > > > school looking pretty and reading a book. And *that* was > > > > ruled to be > > > > > > an invasion of her privacy which could not be distributed without > > > > > > her permission. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > William Wheatley writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > And on top of that HE made the tape, they didn't record it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If hes so freaking embarassed by it why did he make the > > > > tape?? I > > > > > > > mean > > > > > laugh > > > > > > > i tup you got internet famous > > > > > > > you might get a part in a movie lighten up lol > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > From: "Haggerty, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:37 PM > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Fat Brat sues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, I got to disagree with you on this one. I think the > > > > > > > > actions of those kids was intended to publicly humiliate this > > > > > > > > kid and that they > > > > > had > > > > > > > > no right to put that up without his permission. If the kid is > > > > > > > > traumatized as a result, he should have the right to > > > > sue. This > > > > > > > > should > > > > > be > > > > > > > > regardless of the fact they made money off the action, the > > > > > > > > question is whether or not they hurt this person in some > > > > > > > > meaningful way. My take > > > > > on > > > > > > > > it is, yes, they did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: William Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:30 PM > > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Fat Brat sues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure file a criminal complaint. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if they MADE money off it sue, or sue to get it > > > > removed but > > > > > > > > this emotional distress crap has gotten way out of > > > > hand. People > > > > > > > > can't deal with life so they have to get money to get > > > > comfort. > > > > > > > > The problem is > > > > > even > > > > > > > > spreading to canada now :) Oh boy that can be the american > > > > > > > > legacy a bunch of whiney people who gotta sue for everything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
