Whoa! According to Pittsburgh media source TribLive News StoopidHousewives is being sued for copyright infringement for publishing pictures from some RHONJ premiere parties.
Published: Thursday, January 10, 2013, 7:02 p.m. By Brian Bowling A New Jersey newspaper publisher claims a Pittsburgh woman‘s blog violated its copyright by republishing photos of three premier parties for the “Real Housewives of New Jersey.”North Jersey Media Group Inc., which owns The Record and the Herald News, originally sued stoopidhousewives.com in the Southern District of New York. The case was moved to Pittsburgh on Thursday because the blogger, Marjorie Adams, lives here. Adams‘ attorney, Anthony Brooks, declined comment. His motion to move the lawsuit says that Adams maintains the site as a hobby.
Apparently, the pictures were posted online back in April of 2012 and were of the RHONJ attending three different premiere parties for the kick-off of season four. I found a few of the photos (I think) and they are your basic media photos that we all use. This case seems very odd to me. As bloggers we all try to credit photos whenever the origin is known. I have only had one instance when someone asked me to remove a photo (which I had properly credited) and I removed it right away. I wonder if the fact that stoopidhousewives uses a layover tag on all of their photos was part of the issue? Who lives in Pittsburgh and wants to make a trip to the local courthouse?
UPDATE: I found the link to the correct newspaper. The pictures are very clearly watermarked and labeled with “buy this photo.” That’s not to say that they were at the time they were used on stoopidhousewives but they are now. However, the pictures are quite easy to download with no sort of block to saving. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a newspaper list their pictures for sale before. Wow.
I did a brief once over of Stoopidhousewives and saw no statement about the lawsuit. There may have been one since April when the lawsuit was first filed, but I’m not really interested in looking back that far. Let me know if y’all have seen anything. Meanwhile, I’m going to be extra careful to be sure I credit all my photos! I hope things get resolved amicably between the two parties.
Despite the VAST CONSPIRACY THEORIES: The lawsuit is about copyright infringement brought by the News Media Outlet that owns the photos. Bravo nor any RHONJ are involved in anyway in the lawsuit. It is not a storyline. It’s a legal issue between a blogger and the owner of photos. It has taken the media outlet this long to get the case going because of the change in court jurisdiction. Nothing to do with RHONJ at all other than that was the topic of the blog that the copyrighted material was used in.
Wow- that’s a shame for STOOPIDHWs. I have posted there before and they are all hilarious. Sometimes crediting is not enough IF the original photos say “NO REPRODUCTION WITHOUT PERMISSION.” But this seems so dicey b/c there is fair use doctrine. I think something is missing from story. I sincerely doubt you will find anything on her website as her atttorney would have told her to dummy up. I’ll see if I can find anything in Piitttsuburgh court altho I am not from PA and don’t know their courts. Or any remnants in NY.
Bingo, if you find something please email me at tamaratattles@gmail.com rather than posting your findings in comments. Thanks.
I don’t want to reveal anything that STOOPID” doesn’t want known. I can tell u this the plaintiff is going for jury trial. Bastard.
Doesn’t Abby Lee Miller have her studio in Pittsburgh? Maybe one of the Dance Moms will look up the skinny? Sorry I couldn’t resist…..I just couldn’t.
Your totally correct, I post there also. She hasn’t said anything about this and I think too that her lawyer told her to dummy up and not even approach this topic. What I think is that this has nothing to do with the photo’s (that is a long time to say oh yea you put a few pics from a premier party back in April of 2012, I want to sue you). I think that stoopid and maybe some of the commentors on the blog have been hitting to close to many truths about some of the RHW (especially the NJ crew) and this is a way to get at her.
The lawsuit is copyright infringement brought by the News Media Outlet that owns the photos. Bravo nor any RHONJ are involved in anyway in the lawsuit. It is not a storyline. It’s a legal issue between a blogger and the owner of photos. It has taken the media outlet this long to get the case going because of the change in court jurisdiction. Nothing to do with RHONJ at all other than that was the topic of the blog that the copyrighted material was used in.
I think some people overestimate the importance of blogs to most Bravo folks.
It has everything to do with her sh*tty conduct, Buck. You get what you give.
I have not seen or heard anything about that. Interesting. I don’t know what the big deal is everyone shares pictures it is sad eveyone has to worry about who gets credit all the time. I realize people want to get paid but it is just assinine already. We all or at least me just share news or a scoop for fun and to let other fans know what’s going on and it is hard work keeping up a blog. I love reading and following yours Tamara and others and appreciate your time and efforts. Just a way to take a break from real life for a while
The issue is copyright infringement. But while the subject matter is federal, it is better for a defendant b/c punitive damages are not typically awarded. Frankly, lawsuits like these are not money makers for plaintiffs or attys.
Unfortunately @kathyf48 ‘everyone does it’ is not a legal excuse. For example, if I were a songwriter, and you downloaded my mp3 to share with your friends, I could sue you for loss of fees. Since I suck as a songwriter, I could prolly only prove maybe loss of say 1000 buys. So you would be limited to my loss of $91 in royalties. Do u understand? I’m not so good at explaining and thank GOD I am NOT a songwriter!
You may recall kids downloading songs from kazaa et al and all of a sudden their parents were getting slapped with a $500k lawsuit. I recall a woman in NY who was a poor single mother but the record companies showed no mercy. She was not even aware her 10yo had downloaded the songs. One case and may even be same case email account was hacked. Nonetheless, that person was held liable.
I will chime in and say that it is imperative that you have permission to use photos. Just giving credit is not enough in most cases. Generally (and this is just me – not legal advice or fact) you should only use photos from the TV network sites, twitter (if they aren’t watermarked or professional shots) or from a photo agency you have a contract with. If you do have a contract with them, you still have to credit them in almost all cases.
May I politely correct you a bit. TV network sites are NOT up for grabs nor are twitter.
Anything that is copyrighted technically requires permission unless you can prove” fair use”
Any copyrighted work must include credit and source info. And it is best to use thumbnails if ‘stealing’ pix.
The fair use doctrine has not been uniformally defined by the courts altho typically they have 3-4 tests. Each prong will determine fair use or not.
Of course public domain is open for grabs.
I mean TV network media press sites – we have logins for those and can use them with credit.
So all the pics SH posts directly from the HW shows aren’t allowed to be on her blog??? IK she doesn’t have a contract with Bravo. She does post a lot of pics with her SH trademark across them, even though they aren’t hers.
Let me clarify that I’m speaking of “general you”, not aimed at one person or site! LOL
Seems to me that SH is not a person who would respond professionally to any comment or request. If she were a more stable and reasonable person I would guess that this could have been handled privately by simply removing the photos. I can picture her responding to such a request with “fuck off,” and they responded to that by filing.
Cosign! I’ve been respectful of TTs opinion of said Marjorie whoever, because she said she likes her site or is friends. Personally, I think she’s rude and can’t write a coherent thought to save her life. I guess if you’re in her head you can follow along, but I always feel deceived when I hit a headline for what appears or claims to be scoop. She’s very rude to anyone with a different opinion and I can see her going off on anyone asking her to adjust to rules.
I was banned for writing a comment which was not aligned with her opinion. SH was nasty so only comments as nasty as hers were allowed.
I don’t know Marjorie but have always found her to be hilarious. She would have first received a ‘cease and desist’ letter requesting she remove the photos. I don’t believe she is stoopid and would ignore. This letter would not have been an ‘opinion’ for which she could agree or disagree, KWIM? You’re either pregnant or you are not.
but the above IS my opinion!
Bingo, I’d prefer that you didn’t present things that could be considered “legal advice” interpretations of the law here. I think the less said the better on this one. This is a post I am going to have to monitor closely and your comments are frequent and make me have to make judgement calls I would rather not have to make.
I’m sure I said that wrong but you know what I mean.
I do. What is ur email addy again?
SH always writes….No1 tells me what to do. I do what I want to do etc…Seems like over the past year, her head has got so big, she doesn’t really care what she says, whether it be lies or not & she allows her followers to post all kinds of degrading things about the ppl SH writes about. Its not a discussion like here, its down right hatred..they even make fun of stars appearances & yes, I can give examples.
I can think of other bloggers I need to be sued can think of a couple other bloggers that should be sued. One is AllAbout..you fill in the rest. That whole site is a rip off it’s a copy and paste of the whole internet .
Classic Example:
Ana from RHOM gave a statement to iRealHousewives, it clearly said ; this is verbatim, “copying and pasting experts are okay but not the whole entire article . What does allaboutnothing blog do? Copies and pastes the whole thing.
They think by just craving the person is okay, um, no it’s not . the purpose of linking somebody is to drive more traffic from their site . That’s how everybody find each other sites . 1 of these days she’s going to p*** off the wrong person and BAM.
None of her exclusives are quoted,her entire site is copy and paste from all around the web. I don’t know how many times waters have asked her to stop doing it and she just won’t stop. Karma is gonna get her!
Sadly there are several blogs with very similiar names. I don’t read them and can’t keep them straight. I will say I have heard about this issue a lot but that this is probably not a good place to discuss it. I try to avoid all the interblog drama as much as possible, ask for others to respect my work and try to keep blinders on when they don’t.
I do understand the frustration of working on a blog where you write your own material and then having sites use that material for their ads. I imagine there would be lawsuits about that as well. But until there is, let’s keep the blog drama off this site as much as possible.
Well @Faux Roxy if what you say is true and I have no reason to doubt you, you are right. One day someone will be pissed off. And she better have disclaimer on the website that posters’ opinions are their own blah blah. Or a bunch of peeps could go down with her.
A paragraph properly credited and sourced falls under fair use, so is no problem. Whole articles are a real problem.
I can think of other bloggers I need to be sued can think of a couple other bloggers that should be sued. One is AllAbout..you fill in the rest. That whole site is a rip off it’s a copy and paste of the whole internet .
Classic Example:
Ana from RHOM gave a statement to iRealHousewives, it clearly said ; this is verbatim, “copying and pasting experts are okay but not the whole entire article . What does allaboutnothing blog do? Copies and pastes the whole thing.
They think by just craving the person is okay, um, no it’s not . the purpose of linking somebody is to drive more traffic from their site . That’s how everybody find each other sites . 1 of these days she’s going to p*** off the wrong person and BAM.
None of her exclusives are quoted,her entire site is copy and paste from all around the web. I don’t know how many times waters have asked her to stop doing it and she just won’t stop. Karma is gonna get her!
Correction. It was Ana’s husband that gave the statement. Obviously the first two sentences are typo’s. I meant to say, I can think of a couple other bloggers that should be sued .
What is up with my iPhone. Crediting not craving.
Your update, do you think the Blogger is wrong or the paper suing her?
I see a small watermark at the bottom. that’s it.
Put your eyeglasses on, Roxy. There is a huge watermark and BUY THIS PHOTO in bold red font under each picture.
Roxy, I know nothing about this case except for the small article I referenced here. I would not presume to make a declaration of guilt or innocence without knowledge of the facts of the case.
Here Here
Strange. Maybe they were leaked to her? Fair use wouldn’t be applicable then. And if they were for sale, publishing them for free, even for commentary, would practically illuminate the copywriters ability to sell them. Then there is no “fair use”.
leak or no leak is not a defense & irrelevant to fair use doctrine. But I agree with TT the personal subject matter should not be discussed on this blog for obvious reasons and some not so obvious reasons.
I don’t think you understood my comment.
I will ask that we refrain from comments about other blogs that would start a blog war. That would not be good for my kinder, gentler, 2013!
I don’t suppose that anyone has thought that there is more to this than meets the eye?? Being sued over the New Jersey housewive’s pictures?? C’mon, get real. Who the hell would ever want to BUY pictures of those skanks? Sounds to me like retribution for making fun of them and their outrageous antics. Anyone up for some black water?
By the way, I have posted on her site and have never had any problem, but maybe she doesn’t suffer fools and that’s the reason she didn’t post your crybaby bulls**t on her blog.
Good day,
Sharkbait
Now I remember
I was banned because i did not agree with her releasing the rehab facility the Hilton sister went to. I simply asked her if she felt releasing such info would affect the Hilton sister’s rehab? To me SH just wanted to show how clever she was by working out the location through the photo Kyle posted on twitter.
So sucked in SH
apologies TT it got personal
This brings to mind a more general subject I have often wondered about. What effect is the Internet having on our economy? Where you used to have to buy a magazine, newspaper or watch a television show with commercials, you now can get info from Internet for free. Also ppl are reporting news from their phones now as it happens.
I have no personal feelings on this particular blogger, but if the newspaper incurred expenses to get photos, I guess they have a right to them exclusively.
Why do u think obama is trying to gain control of internet and we are fighting him every step of the way?
The internet has a HUGE impact on brick and mortar sales as well as no sales tax. CA morons voted for internet sales to be taxed. Brick & mortars are thrilled but consumers are beyond pissed off!! I speak personally on that too!
I t does effect sales. People don’t buy papers, magazines, etc. like they use to. The United States Post Office – mailing letters, when you can e-mail and text. Paying bills over the internet. It has been talked about before and some have suggested that some type of charge by transaction be imposed. The mobile phone environment has changed some of its rules so that now unlimited data access is really limited. If you go over the limit, then you are charged additional fees. Hopefully, we will never get to the point where everything you do on the internet has a cost. The music industry has suffered a lot with the the illegal downloading.
I have to tell you i HATE the USPS and have told them that personally. They continually screw up my mail, their website is inaccurate and then they don’t have a clue how the mail works. For example, with FEDX 3day or (something similar) FEDX sends to PO and then your local PO delivers. Well MY local PO has NO clue. And mine also can make a line out of 1 person. I think I’ll file complaint which then requires a Congressional inquiry. They lie and (which I have said to their faces) and want taxpayer funded increases?? Forget it!! Let them go bankrupt or be privatized.
THEN maybe they’ll have to WORK for their salary.
Really? SMH
Yes TT really. I don’t know what SMH means tho. Could you pls explain?
Let’s put it another way. Please do not use this comment section to rant about the government, the postal system and or your data plan. Just stop.
TT- alrighty then. Would you like me to leave your blog as well.?
my mother worked for the post office for over 25 years and i know how the mail moves and really if you thought about it and considered how many pieces of mail a small post office fo a town of 10,000 moves per day you would be stunned. try and consider how many people and machines your one bill goes through to go from say new york city to lets say a small town in the mid west. it’s amazing we get any mail at all. sorry tt, but this person annoyed me
To address your point, it should be consumer choice, which is what capitalism is all about. When you limit choices, you limit innovation plus it drives the cost of goods and services up.
Thankfully my data plan is unlimited. The only thing they do which all do as well as cable cos, is reduce your bandwidth that slows you down. I do object to that, especially with cable. I don’t mind fone so much. Maybe I’ll get tivo so i don’t have to deal with cable which mine sucks for tv and internet. Were you aware that ALL broadcasts were always digital by broadcast co whether cable or network. Cable cos would then change signal to analog and then charge you to get digital??? To me, that is underhanded, but it has been the game since inception with all of them.
Oh for fuck sakes. How did we get from Housewives to rants about the government and politics?
You have inspired me to buy shares in aluminum foil.
There’s something very fishy about this lawsuit. What’s even more bizarre is StoopidHW’s has a disclaimer on their site promising to take legal action against anyone found using any part of their materials without permission first. And now, someone’s suing them?!? Verry fishy…
You think this is a story line?
Tamara,
the link you posted above, it has a small one on the right hand corner. if you go to the check out, it has a big one. at least on my end it does.
To the person who commented to me, I will just say this and be done with it out of respect of the Blogger here. All you have to do is go to the blogs to see for yourselves.
on to the topic, I have seen several sites use that photo. How funny it gapoen
it happens to be the Manzo’s.
I think if you go after one, go after them all. These other sites are blogspot blogs.
I am sorry. I am having a hard time adjusting to my iPhone.
There were pictures from three separate parties. I just linked to one. It wasn’t the just the Manzos in the pictures, it was pretty much all the cast at various camps for their various premiere parties. No real housewives or Bravo are involved in the lawsuit as far as I can see. It is copyright case between the photographer, the media outlet and the blogger.
Its not a “storyline” for whoever asked as none of the housewives had any involvement in the lawsuit.
Never mind TT, I found it and if u have a looksy in ur email, bingo will be waiting. or maybe u made bingo go to spam. LOLOL
Seriously? I thought Facebook and Instagram owned every picture ever posted in the blogosphere;))
And here I thought Facebook owned the rights to every picture posted in the blogosphere;)
Sorry about double commenting, they kept printing me to sign in and my comment disappeared.
Like your ‘Rules for the New Year.’ Good luck!
All the best for 2013.
Thanks, A longtime reader.
I used to comment on her site quite often I don’t much anymore
Me too but I quit going there altogether. If god forbid u have a differing,logical opinion the psychos come out and go crazy on you!
Thanks for sharing this with me Tamara, this is an important issue for every blogger. I just got off the phone with a TVFB legal team the crux of this is:
1. you can not watermark or otherwise tag pictures in such a way to make it appear as if you own said pictures.
2. just because images are on the web available by search engine does not mean you have the right to use them
3. photos clearly marked with Buy now or some such language are not to ever be used unless you paid for the images. This includes Getty and a host of other sites.
4. Photos provided by the PR folks of studios or networks are ok to use with proper photo crediting. In fact most have this information embedded in their meta-data of their photos, so it’s not necessary to give a photo by/credit line, but its advisable to do so.
5. Fair Use is very had to substantiate. Let’s say a photographer gave me permission to use a photo, then someone comes along and takes it from my site, then someone takes it from their site and now the snowball is rolling, it’s on 100 sites. Is that fair use? Nope, because only the initial site had permission to use the photo.
This also applies to electronic media (I hate the term blogger, some of us are more than bloggers.), journalists who don’t have access to the studio or networks press site. Not only do I have access to NBC/Bravo’s press site, I have also cultivated a relationship with an inside PR person, if I grab a photo from the press site that’s not available on the networks public site “you” can not use that photo.
It’s important to know as electronic media professionals how a particular site gained access and permission to material used on the site. I have a feeling as electronic media sites like ours grow, we’re going to see more of these types of situations.
Wow, there is so much wisdom/information to be found on this blog.
#5 Pretty much summed it up for me
Thanks Ed. I knew you would give us the skinny. I do disagree with the Press site stuff. I think that anything available to the press falls under fair use and that even if it didnt the network would never sue a blogger for providing free press with press approved pictures.
I have had sites very early on put their logo over my (very faint) watermark.
I do think it is unusal for a media outlet (as opposed to say getty or some photography site) to sue a relatively small blogger. I would think a simple letter would suffice. I would think that unless the blogger refused to comply the pictures would simply be removed and replaced with other photos. I have no idea what the site in question does in terms of traffic, but I can’t imagine it to be enough to be of any major consequence to anyone.
I agree there has to be more the story that we’re not hearing.
I think it is MOSTLY a simple case of refusal to comply with a cease and desist. Although rumor has it the defendant is letting her comments go with a VAST CONSPIRACY THEORY that some RHONJ are suing her. There is one plantiff in the suit and it is the owner of the pictures. I assume that the pictures were bastardized to defame the people in the pictures as many are on that site and that is likely the reason for the serious response by the owner of the photos. It was not simply copyright but the use of the photos for in a derivative manner than insulted the parties in the picture. Sort of an insult to injury thing.
Imagine being a photographer granted exclusive photos and then having them photoshopped to negatively impact the people in the photo. That could certainly damage the photog and cause him/her/them (there were multiple photogs under that media outlet) future damages. If they lost the rights to future events…. could be an issue.
I have seen cases where the person paying for the lawsuit is not the named plaintiff (b/c they don’t want to be i.d.’d) — though have no idea if that is the case here. Sounds weird though b/c I agree that there must have been a cease & desist letter. Plus, I doubt plaintiff can actually collect from blogger even if they prove damages. Under copyright infringement statute, if you can prove intentional infringement, you get $150K per “work” infringed. Hollow victory, though, if you can’t collect.
heh. I want to bet you things you would never agree too. So let’s just say I disagree. Copyright infringement clearly happened based on what I have read. We shall see. I will say that um…defendant is lawyered up. Perhaps with people with er…intimate..knowledge.
I assume that the pictures were bastardized to defame the people in the pictures as many are on that site and that is likely the reason for the serious response by the owner of the photos. It was not simply copyright but the use of the photos for in a derivative manner than insulted the parties in the picture. Sort of an insult to injury thing.
So, are you saying someone who was shown in the pictures got upset because SH altered the photo in some way to make them look bad. They then went to the photographer and complained, causing photographer to start a copyright lawsuit. This in my opinion would suggest one of the Rhonj housewives is behind the lawsuit!
i can assure you that my post was the first the RHONJ had heard of it
SH was probably asked to take the images down first and of of course she responded “please don’t ask, search the site first because you will find all answers because vie already posted on everything you want to know!!!” So they became exasperated with her rudeness and decided to take action.
With regards to SH’s disclaimer about her going after anyone who infringed oh her “copyright”, mere intimidation
Holy sheeeet, talk about turnaround. Stoopid has always attacked and made a huge deal about her copyright (in particular Taylor Armstrong timeline) infringement. How interesting (I am in such shock, can’t think of the best word, lol) that she become a victim of what she accuses others of. As a human being, I do feel for her now being officially outed and losing her anonymity and given how much we readers love blogs I don’t wish anyone financial harm because they entertain us. Now I gotta go back and finish reading, I just had to say something and hoooooollllyyyy shit!!!!!!
Tamara girlfriend you damn sure know how to give us TEA, booyah!!
I do not. Marjorie Adams is nasty and deserves all of this.
I would think if you post pics on the internet that they would become public domain.
Stephen that is actually incorrect, copy write still applies
That’s correct. However, I know from experience that media outlets have a tendency to use copyrighted material without asking permission first so it’s not webloggers only.
i do read the SH site sometimes and used to really enjoy it, but i must say that site has now become my least favorite blog to follow for housewive “news” and gossip.
I hope they shut that website down
Sorry Tamara about my comment on the other post-you can delete it if you like. What ED said is true and I have permission as well from NBCUniMedia village. If you want to sign-up there, I would be happy to be your reference.
When SH was putting those crazy watermarks all-over photos that were NOT hers to use, well-that drove me NUTS! Personally, that’s why I think the owner of the images went after her so strongly, what you said about just taking something off if asked is the usual way it is done.
When it comes-to “borrowing”-stealing images that are not properly credited and used, people do not understand that it is the same thing as content-stealing/plagiarism.
I don’t know why that is so hard for some people to understand. The deceased blogger was another one who consistently used other people’s property long after she was told what was what.
THAT blogger blamed JZ for all of her blogging problems when in reality most of the problems with IHJZ involved the very same problem. (content theft).
There is also a difference when people have ads on their site. No ads and a blogger will not get in trouble usually, but SH has ads and sometimes takes them off but then puts them back up again, so that is definitely a “commercial”-site.
pfft things are moving so fast I can’t even keep up with what you said on another post.
I’d love to sign up there when it is not so hectic here. Email me at tamaratattles@gmail.com if it’s not too much trouble!
I am trying to get Richard Wakile to understand that the trolls are being led to believe the HWs are behind the lawsuit. They are not. They are however rather happy about the suit against someone who has been hammering them for years, I would assume. The fact he just found out about it tonight, through me (though he doesn’t know it) should tell you they were unaware.
But thanks for your kind offer. I am excited.
HouseWifeHater is correct, once you place ads or barter an ad space for service or publicity or receive product to be used as give-aways on your site you are no longer a hobby site, you’re a for profit site.
Welcome to trying to get people to understand. Stark the queen of taking pics from others and watermarking them with her Twitter handle thinks pics posted on Twitter belong to Twitter and she has the right to add her watermark. Twitter TOS (twitter.com/tos), clearly states in paragraph 5 that you own everything you place on Twitter including your tweets.
Hopefully this lawsuit makes everyone more aware.
I understand. I never stole any photos that I know of other then to send to a friend in e-mail or my son if it was a story about a celeb they liked. If you repost a story on facebook or Twitter I assume that is okay because you are just reposting.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR your post was moderated because you invoked a crazy name in it. Why do you even acknowlege. If you are going to be my boyfriend…./sigh
Also, I am going to argue with you again. It’s not about being a business or being a hobby in this case, it’s about whether she profits from her site. I forsee her problem being that she claims to blame an intern when things go wrong. I always assumed that was a joke, but she played it up lot to make things look like a business. It’s not so much about wanting to be a for profit site, but whether she actually was. On my own struggles with Google Ads, I saw her there arguing about a variety of things. Google has screwed over nearly every site that was solely or mostly about RHOeverywhere. Its a weird anamoly. And very frustrating. If she can prove she has not profited… And she likely can UNTIL she went to WordAds.. that could be relevant. I admit to mostly posting this because I like arguing with you.
On further reading. entire post was deleted.
I try over and over to explain I do not want to defend other sites or discredit them. Do not come here with other people’s reinterpretation of my story which clearly you have not fully read and try to talk about some dude who wishes he had a vagina. Please and thank you.
TT
Yeah, as some have said, there is a difference in using someone’s likeness for profit versus editorially. Which would matter if the housewives tried to sue someone. As public figures their likenesses can be used ” editorially” but not “promotionally”. With a blog, there is sort of a fine line. But when it comes to the photographer’s intellectual property, these specific photos, I don’t think anyone has the right to use them except whoever has purchased or been granted license for usage. The news outlet has most likely purchased exclusive rights. Not sure if I’m being redundant or not. Hard to figure out some of these posts.
Also, my local paper, a Gannett pub, does offer viewers/readers the opportunity to purchase certain photos on their site.
Where the fucking hell have you been? WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN US?
Um, I mean, welcome back.
I thought you were moderating my comments!
why the hell would I moderate your comments? Oh well i spammed a couple words you like to use, but not because of you… jesus.
No, actually I made a post. It said that it was waiting for moderation. At that point, I knew I probably posted something you had flagged (most likely beginning in rac and ending in ist) and realized I was probably commenting a bit too much, so I backed off.
A wise woman once said, “Dying does not make you interesting.”
Exactly my thought.
I used to read SH avidly, however, it became apparent that unless you upheld the childish opinion of any housewife and had such a distain for the one’s the SH reporter also had you was in good company. However, once you showed an opinion or indifference, espcially to the rediculous cartoons and ‘colouring in’s’ of hw faces then you was soon ousted. I did this recently, soon blocked. To be honest, I will not miss a one sided biased opinion that appearts to be around 3 days late at very best in HW news, yet cartoons are posted morning noon and night. If I wanted to read a cartoon, I’d have bought a copy of Spiderman. Thankfully there are enough sites these days that produce news not plain gossip and one sided opinions.