Gay couple sue USANext for anti-AARP slime

[Berzerker]

actually, I don't think the level of taxation in this country has much to do with how democratic we are.

Thats nice, but it is a fact that taxes have greatly increased as we became more democratic. And what does your unsupported assertion have to do with your claim that we would have no taxes if everything was decided democratically?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Thats nice, but it is a fact that taxes have greatly increased as we became more democratic. And what does your unsupported assertion have to do with your claim that we would have no taxes if everything was decided democratically?

false cause...

what caused our taxation to rise was the evolution of the federal government

our level of taxation has actually gone down since the end of WW2

so your opinion is not accurate...

my opinion is based upon poll data that I've seen that suggests tax cuts are more popular...

your opinion is based upon some nutty libertarian ideological nonsense...

[Berzerker]

false cause...

what caused our taxation to rise was the evolution of the federal government

our level of taxation has actually gone down since the end of WW2

Citing tax rates during a major war is illogical. What were the rates before the war compared to peacetime since the war as democracy increased? And this "evolution" of government doesn't occur in a vacuum, it occurs in a democracy.

Claiming democracy = no taxes in the face of a democracy with high taxes is

my opinion is based upon poll data that I've seen that suggests tax cuts are more popular...

your opinion is based upon some nutty libertarian ideological nonsense...

Are no taxes that popular? You keep changing your argument, you said we would have no taxes if they were decided democratically. Now you're saying taxes would be lower than they are now. And where did I even mention libertarianism? We're discussing your assertion that we would have no taxes if taxes were decided democratically.

[DinoDoc]

This thread certainly went on an unexpected jack.

[Berzerker]

do we win an award

[Imran Siddiqui]

And use of the couple's image is grounds for libel, as it used them against their will as "spokesmen" for a campaign which was both slanderous and repugnant to them. Having their photo published in the Tribune doesn't give people the right to use the photo as they see fit.

Yep. Saying the couple has no standing is an absolutely absurd argument and I'd imagine a lawyer making that standing claim would be laughed out of court. Even though their picture was in the newspaper doesn't mean that picture can be used by any political group for whatever reason they see fit.

DD wants to claim Rule 11 sanctions for any case he doesn't like. He seems to ignore that the claim needs to be frivolous (like the one time he claimed there should have been Rule 11 sanctions on a case where the plaintiff WON!! ). The case obvious has some merit and Rule 11 would be wholely improper.

[Tuberski]

Ummm, what's rule 11?

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sanctions against filing frivilous lawsuits. It was explained in page 1 (or some early post if you use a different post per page limit).

[Tuberski]

Ah, didn't catch it.

When the paper used the image they had to get permission.

The paper has the right to use the image as they see fit.

No one else does without permission of the people in the picture.

Right?

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well the paper doesn't have the right to use the image in ANY way they see fit. They can libel the people in the picture at a later date as well by portraying them in a bad light.

But aside from that, it's correct.

[Buck Birdseed]

So if an advertising company decided to use a picture of, say, Catherine Zeta Jones that they'd bought off some agency to advertise hemorrhoid cream without her permission, she couldn't bring them to court?

[Tuberski]

Where did you get that idea?

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Maybe he was just reading DD's posts?

[Mr. Harley]

BB - it depends if Catherine Zeta-Jones signed away all her rights, which you can bet she did not. That has been a problem for some celebrities, they posed as models early in their career and retained no rights over the images. It occurred to Vanessa Williams when she won the Miss America pageant.

USANext is in clear violation of the Newspaper's copyright, and is liable for whatever it was worth. However, depending on the use of the gay couple's photo, the kind of release they signed, etc. they may have a case with substantially more damages. For example, if it was printed on the wedding announcements page, they may very well indeed have a highly lucrative libel suit against USANext.

In the US unlike many other countries, individuals in the public view, i.e. activists, politicians, actors/actresses, etc. are covered by a much lower standard of libel/slander, i.e. you must show deliberate maliciousness, which is a very difficult. It is highly unlikely USANext can claim the couple are public figures, though be rest assured they will try. They have to or they will get nailed.

Those that keep running right up to the knife edge of the law on libel and slander are not going to get any sympathy from the courts, play with fire and you get burned. USANext would have been up on libel charges in many Western European countries on their previous campaigns, and frankly I wish we had laws like the Europeans here in the US. I will not shed one tear if they get horribly burned.

[Buck Birdseed]

Celebrity shots that the celebrity in question hasn't given permission to be taken are regularly published here. As far as I know no celebrity can stop a papparazi shot of themselves in a public place appearing in a newspaper (unless it's libellous in context). However I'd be highly surprised if this meant that the shots could also be used freely in an advertising context...

A few years ago we had a (very minor) case in Sweden in which a woman's house appeared in an advertisement for outdoor paint. She was upset because she'd used high-quality traditional painting techniques that she contested couldn't be even vaguely reproduced by the cheap acrylic that was displayed in the ad. Now, she'd sold the rights to the picture wholly to an agency, with the specific intent of allowing it to appear in advertising... Does that mean her claim would have had no legal merit if it had appeared in the United States?