Search for: "People v. Photo" Results 2201 - 2220 of 3,816
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Apr 2014, 4:57 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Can make sense in individual cases even with good fair use defenses, but Rothman is concerned that courts incorporate these risk averse customs into their legal analysis—example from Ringgold v. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 3:04 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Up to $8000 per work—the statute says up to $150,000, but a jury has awarded that in Capitol Records v. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 12:03 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Ill.), or if a photo credit on the back of a record album is sufficiently connected to the cover photo to count as CMI (Levyfilm v. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 5:18 am by Andrew Flusche
The Virginia Court of Appeals just decided Whitehurst v. [read post]
23 Mar 2014, 4:42 am
Or any other library, museum, exhibition space, etc, that displays the familiar "No photos (please)" sign? [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 9:17 am by Venkat Balasubramani
The statute is aimed at (1) people who surreptitiously take photos of others and (2) those who distribute the photos knowing that they were taken without consent. [read post]
18 Mar 2014, 9:57 am by Carolyn E. Wright
Follow Photo Attorney on Twitter for quick updates on the law for photographers! [read post]
15 Mar 2014, 5:57 am
That page includes this parenthetical:(It’s worth noting that many people view the photo as little more than the documentation of a very public sexual assault, and not something to be celebrated.)The words "little more" imply Life's concession that the kiss was a sexual assault. [read post]