tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post6162842032280559681..comments2024-03-22T08:01:16.236-04:00Comments on Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log: Myths and legends of copyrightUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-91934562343850758992008-12-12T18:37:00.000-05:002008-12-12T18:37:00.000-05:00Sounds like an independent contractor to me. You'...Sounds like an independent contractor to me. You're not paying their taxes, after all. I also doubt it will help the situation described here; paying someone for intimate photos starts to get into heavily regulated territory for other reasons. I wouldn't want to have to keep age records of the models available for government inspection, for example.RThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00850241338827117087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-91441307994094540312008-12-12T17:37:00.000-05:002008-12-12T17:37:00.000-05:00Right, I sort of got off-topic, the tort claims wo...Right, I sort of got off-topic, the tort claims won't work against the hosting company. However, re: the hosting company, even if you don't have copyright claims, you can sometimes get a voluntary takedown if you point out a terms of service violation -- I've had luck with that once or twice. That seems to be what is going on with the GoDaddy situation reported in the article.<BR/><BR/>Re: WFH, it's not a strong argument, but a couple of the factors for employee status are satisfied -- e.g., your equipment. I'm definitely going to wonder about this the next time I hand my camera to a tourist. Maybe I'll pay them a dollar, and give specific directions about how to take the picture, and form a subjective belief that they are a temporary employee.Bruce Boydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02247768315353108904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-17811349976423172002008-12-12T15:39:00.000-05:002008-12-12T15:39:00.000-05:00None of that except copyright is going to get you ...None of that except copyright is going to get you a guaranteed response from the ISP, though, given 230. You'll have to ID the poster, possibly by filing a case against John Doe and then working your way through the host site and possibly others, though presumably it's often relatively easy to ID the original source of the photos.<BR/><BR/>And I really, really doubt that giving your SO your camera counts as WFH: there's no employment relationship, and no signed writing, and photos don't fall within the class of works for which one could sign a writing anyway. Joint authorship would be your best shot (so to speak), and in theory I will accept it could be done, but I am unaware of any decided case awarding joint author status to the subject of a photo. I'm willing to accept that the subject should sometimes be a joint author, but given the current doctrine it will be an uphill climbRThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00850241338827117087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-64511629212875016382008-12-12T12:50:00.000-05:002008-12-12T12:50:00.000-05:00Well, the trick for one of these things is just to...Well, the trick for one of these things is just to throw everything at the wall that is not Rule-11 sanctionable. So I would add IIED, intrusion upon seclusion, and publication of true private facts, and maybe even false light (on the theory that the photo being posted there gives the false impression that the subject agreed to it). Heck, throw in prima facie tort if you've got it.<BR/><BR/>Re: copyright and ownership of the camera, I agree it's probably just confused, but maybe the idea is that you could make a work-for-hire argument, although that's sort of tricky if you're not paying for it -- but it doesn't seem crazy offhand that there might be non-compensated employment situations, despite what the D.D.C. recently said about Title VII. E.g., when you have a stranger take your photo in front of the Eiffel Tower. Then there's joint authorship, but I'm not sure where the copyrightable contribution is going to come from. Maybe the pose.Bruce Boydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02247768315353108904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-24884381761066846352008-12-11T18:59:00.000-05:002008-12-11T18:59:00.000-05:00If it's not being used for a commercial purpose, t...If it's not being used for a commercial purpose, then the subject may have no rights in it, so no need for a release form.RThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00850241338827117087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-75986912816364467802008-12-11T18:48:00.000-05:002008-12-11T18:48:00.000-05:00I would think a lack of model-release would be a b...I would think a lack of model-release would be a better way to accomplish the end at hand, not a copyright claim. Not that I know much about model releases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-54555914114542215462008-12-10T18:49:00.000-05:002008-12-10T18:49:00.000-05:00Wow. Interesting read thanks for that. Some guy I ...Wow. Interesting read thanks for that. <BR/><BR/>Some guy I went to HS with posted pics of his Ex-Gf on one of those sites. She never got them taken down though. <BR/><BR/>He wound up getting a little street justice lol.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11964155394848991432noreply@blogger.com