Search for: "District Photo Inc" Results 301 - 320 of 1,516
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Oct 2013, 8:10 am
{nomultithumb} All photos: Jennifer Brown [read post]
22 Apr 2013, 8:07 am by Sheldon Toplitt
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)Story County (Iowa) District Court Judge Dale Ruigh last week ruled in Beef Products Inc. et al. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2013, 10:02 pm
As reported by The Mainichi Daily News: A woman [in Fukuoka] is suing search-engine giant Google Inc., saying her psychological condition worsened after discovering that a search for her address brought up a photo of her underwear hanging out on her veranda. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 7:19 am
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/billward/90797914/sizes/m/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/mytravelphotos/9504368352/sizes/m/ [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 11:32 am by Marina Petrova
GateHouse Media, Inc., a publisher of local newspapers is suing That's Great News, LLC (TGN) in Illinois federal district court, claiming breach of contract and copyright infringement. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 12:55 pm by Eugene Volokh
Likewise, a federal district court in Illinois disagreed with the holding in the James Brown case, and held that the sale of images for stock photograph purposes didn’t infringe the right of publicity. [read post]
12 May 2010, 12:02 pm by Jessica
Convictions by John Kroger: A Prosecutor’s Battles Against Mafia Killers, Drug Kingpins, and Enron Thieves photo: Felixco, Inc. [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 6:00 pm
Sunoco, Inc., No. 07-cv-2235 (August 17, 2009), involved some of these issues. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 4:34 pm by Jim Walker
  Photo credit: By Mllturro - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0. [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 9:00 am by LTA-Editor
A district court jury imposed damages of $75,000 per infringed work, and the 2nd Circuit affirmed the decision on appeal. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 12:29 am by Steve Baird
So, he sent me the photo to the left. [read post]
25 Jul 2006, 7:44 pm
Because Almeida was pursuing a claim against Amazon.com for information (the photo) provided by a third party, the district court held that Amazon.com could not be the "publisher or speaker" of that information, and therefore not liable. [read post]