Forum Moderators: not2easy
A number of the photos were obtained from a photography studio. Her attorney is claiming they used the photos without permission.
I read several legal blogs last night and they all seem to think her attorney may be correct and may have a solid legal position against the news organizations. This could be interesting to watch.
FarmBoy
Syzygy
How did they get the pics from the studio?
Good question. That wasn't in any of the articles I read.
The AP was asked for comment and the response was a bit cheesy. If the studio owned the copyright and gave permission to the AP, I think the AP would have pointed that out.
FarmBoy
I'm not sure how this fits, but I'm thinking along the line of:-
Someone mistreated in police custody.
News organisation has security camera footage.
News organisation can show footage without first asking permission of the police.
Someone mistreated in police custody.
News organisation has security camera footage.
News organisation can show footage without first asking permission of the police.
Footage obtained by a police security camera can be obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request - just like a police report, arrest report, etc. The photos in question weren't owned or taken by a government body.
Or if you mean a private security camera that happened to capture the police mistreatment, the news organization doesn't need the permission of the police to show the footage, but they do need the permission of the owner of the images taken by the security camera.
FarmBoy
Recently a blogger thought he spotted another altered image and posted it on his blog along with his commentary. The AP's lawyer sent him a cease and desist letter.
Now the shoe appears to be on the other foot as far as the AP is concerned.
FarmBoy
