tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post7137278493214307358..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-19727494191979769772008-04-30T11:20:00.000-05:002008-04-30T11:20:00.000-05:00So, I have to think that S&S also threatened to sue Google maps for the use of images of these schools in their 'street view' maps.<BR/><BR/>But, if S&S is only threatening a lawsuit because they got rich at the same taxpayer trough that Schellinger would keep running with plenty of slop... would they have to indicate the expense as a donation or a donation in kind for Schellinger's campaign?jabberdoodlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12773449819475280421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-44371832871761866612008-04-30T10:17:00.000-05:002008-04-30T10:17:00.000-05:00I hope you don't mind, but I "lifted" your post to use on http://progressivessouthbend.org I credited the post, furnished a general link to your blog and suggested folks check you out.<BR/><BR/>If yolu do object, email me at donvila@aol.com and I'll remove it.<BR/><BR/>In either case, thanks.<BR/><BR/>Don WheelerDonvilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08690633305929048255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-55934120977005042632008-04-30T08:19:00.000-05:002008-04-30T08:19:00.000-05:00Yeah, if they lifted pictures from elsewhere and did not get (or buy) permission from the owner of the photographs or copyright holder for where those photographs are used, then absolutely I think that would be infringement.Sean Shepardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04784017076656340302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-21192244520669484242008-04-30T07:19:00.000-05:002008-04-30T07:19:00.000-05:00I would think, even with my limited copyright experience, that this is infringement. The plaintiffs, while looking foolish, would probably win, and the ads would be taken off the air. There might be additional penalties as well.Sardonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09614057543947120116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-74865152473983816912008-04-30T05:29:00.000-05:002008-04-30T05:29:00.000-05:00Sean has it, I think. Someone just lifted an image (or three) from the web for JLT's ad.<BR/><BR/>When it is for non-personal use, it's absolutely copyright infringement.varangianguardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12571595354792261993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-69595808988515497592008-04-29T23:22:00.000-05:002008-04-29T23:22:00.000-05:00I doubt anyone is paying royalties for every picture, calendar, tv ad, movie [etc] to every architect who designed a building in, oh let's say the New York skyline for a good example).<BR/><BR/>Assuming they took their own photos, I see no problem.Sean Shepardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04784017076656340302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-24099676467928316582008-04-29T23:02:00.000-05:002008-04-29T23:02:00.000-05:00I have to agree AI, I think that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It's shear stupidity from a political standpoint. And it's almost as equally stupid from a legal standpoint. The architects who design the building do not own its image. That's ridiculous. I hope that attorney was paid a lot because it's a pretty ridiculous claim. If I was Jill Long, I think I'd beg them to sue me. I might even be inclined to pay the filing fee to help it along. Morons.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08899023066910200507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-23043305049287481072008-04-29T20:45:00.000-05:002008-04-29T20:45:00.000-05:00Looks like the next 6 days are going to be chock full of blog-fodder.<BR/><BR/>This is becoming the craziest campaign cycle ever.Bart Lieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01294734264133374462noreply@blogger.com