DISQUS

Dave of the Jungle · 7 months ago

Is the world being taken over by goons from the 1930s?

lynchie · 7 months ago

Dave: it already has been taken over. Look at the last 8 years under Bush. Thugs, cheats and liars are the norm.

dad · 7 months ago

i don't think ap is really interested in people's rights

just profit's

A different anonymous · 7 months ago

Smells like Rupert Murdoch pulling strings behind the scenes.

Helen Rainier · 7 months ago

Very interesting -- this would, indeed, be the height of hypocrisy if Clinton were to sue AP for using his image to imply he supports their cause and they didn't get his permission. Just went to AP and checked their "Contact Us" link. Was going to send them an e-mail, but, funny, they have all kinds of e-mail addies to "contact them for permission" to use their photos, etc., but none (other than snail mail) for other issues of concern.

Alex Freeman · 7 months ago

You're absolutely right - burn!

Roger Bixley · 7 months ago

IANAL, but as far as I remember, politicians, as public officials, do not have a right to publicity.

Malibu Barbie · 7 months ago

Nope - public figures have no right to privacy but they have greater right to publicity because their image and implied endorsement is worth money. Use of a famous likeness is actionable when used to sell a product unrelated to the public figure.

Helen Rainier · 7 months ago

What is the legal basis for this? Would you be able to provide a specific cite? I'd appreciate it.

Roger Bixley · 7 months ago

What product is being sold on the page in question?

biggerbox · 7 months ago

It would be as ironic as them threatening to sue people for embedding videos they had posted on YouTube, where the user agreement specifically says that videos are intended to be shared, and, when AP posted them, choosing not to turn off the code that allows people to embed them in their websites.

Oh, wait. They did that.

It's pretty clear the AP is really upset about this issue, but it's not at all clear to me that they understand what the issue is, actually. For an organization that is all about disseminating information, they seem to have not paid attention to the last few decades of law and policy about disseminating information.

debbsmith · 7 months ago

The people who pay the costs and do the work to create articles and take photos deserve to protect those properties and benefit from their use by others. Too many people think everything they read and see on-line is magically created out of thin air and should be free, free, free to steal, I mean, er, use as they see fit. How would you like it if your neighbor decided your front yard belongs to them because hey, it's out there in public where anyone can see it.

Waltt · 7 months ago

I still don't think that the news should be covered by intellectual property protection. I learned a lot from this episode of The Joan Kenley Show: The Media: What’s True, What’s Not It had a couple guests (Normon Solomon from the Institute of Public Accuracy, and Peter B. Collins the broadcaster) on talking about the media and how highly paid media journalists are now compared to how they used to be. The show mentioned Sam Zell, a capitalist uninterested in the news – who borrowed $11-15 billion to become the owner of the Tribune company, which owns the L.A. Times, which has like a 40% profit margin… it makes me angry to understand how little of what I hear is true – and how it’s really just motivated by money. When I hear these stories of the AP it makes me sad to see firsthand how money shapes our information.