Monday, December 18, 2006

Law, Photography, And Britney

Any story linking the three above elements demands a post: 'Perez Hilton takes their best shots'

(h/t Cybele at Metroblogging LA)

BTW: the blogger in question says this about the lawsuit:

"If the law says I am wrong, if a jury of my peers says they think my actions are wrong, then I will listen to them. But I don't think they will. Especially if they see that the person who is suing me admitted she is suing me because I am arrogant. A judge would dismiss that."
Actually, no, I don't think a judge would. Because in this case, the arrogance in question stems from his attitude toward a company's repeated request for compliance. In fact, I'm guessing arrogance causes many, many lawsuits. In remedies, I'm pretty sure arrogance D = punitive damages for P, no?


doughnut70 said...

As someone who both has a blog and is a lawyer, I was wondering what you thought about the case overall. It sounds to me like it will have incredible impact however it is decided, but I am not a lawyer.

cd said...

Uh-oh - misplaced modifier alert! You neither have a blog nor are a lawyer, right? ;) Sorry, I've been reading Eats, Shoots & Leaves.

On point: I haven't read any documents from the case, nor any coverage aside from the LAT article linked in this post.

In the long run, I like to think we (bloggers) are only hurting ourselves and the world generally by trying to expand news and satire protections to theft, as Perez is here. I don't really read the site, but according to the article, he's quite capable to credit the sources for some of his photos, but not all.

Credit them all.

With attribution, most useage should be judge fair. Without it, well, why go through the expense of litigation and risk some nasty legal precedent for the right to post photos that are already morally ambiguous?

I'm leaning toward the photogs based on my current knowledge of the facts and law - which are each admittedly limited.