Comments on: AP Threatens Blogger for Unauthorized Reproduction of Photos . . . Then Reproduces Photos Without Authorization

By: largebill

largebill — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:01:57 +0000

“UPDATE x2: Mark Steyn on the possibility of a Dupre lawsuit: “It’s not often you get a case where there’s someone in the room with a higher hourly rate than the lawyers.” Good one.”

It is a sliding scale. As lawyers age and gain experience their hourly rate is likely to increase. However, as Dupre ages and continues to gain experience her hourly rate will head in the opposite direction. In fact, this month is likely her high water mark. The intense interest in her will wane rather quickly. She better capitalize on her 15 minutes because the news cycle will shift to another stupid story in no time.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:29:50 +0000

Though not a lawyer, I have worked in the entertainment industry as a peon, a producer and several jobs in between. Ms. Dupré has an absolute slam dunk of a case. AP will settle and will do so for a nice sum (I’m sure AP knew this when they swiped the photos and have already allocated the money to make the payoff. They’ll make all the standard “fair use” arguments, but only as a point of negotiation.)

Of course the real payout for Ms. Dupré will be accepting an offer from one of the big three men’s magazines.

By: Scott Jacobs

Scott Jacobs — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:02:19 +0000

rather, dedicated court-appointed lawyer. My bad.

By: Scott Jacobs

Scott Jacobs — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:01:55 +0000

Now THAT is a dedicated public-aid lawyer.

Good on him!

By: Brian L.

Brian L. — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:46:48 +0000

Update: Looks like the sharks are starting to smell the blood in the water. The counsel for Ms. Dupré has just put the entire media on copyright notice—Will subpoenas be following shortly? If I may quote Glenn without violating his trademark: HEH™. Respectfully, Brian Ledbetter "Snapped Shot"

By: Brian L.

Brian L. — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:27:57 +0000

Patterico,

You’re *not* going to believe this, but it would seem that there were actually wire services that behaved “responsibly” here. It gets better—Wait until you read their explanation (my followup) as to why they didn’t run the photos!

I like the smell of schadenfreude in the morning.

Respectfully,
Brian/snapped shot

By: Justin Levine

Justin Levine — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:34:01 +0000

Don’t even get me started on this topic…

By: geek

geek — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:04:42 +0000

The comments made here about Dupre’s “public figure” status are missing the point. AP can defend as legitimate its editorial use of the likeness of a public figure; however, the question here is related to authorship of the images.

By being newsworthy, Dupre loses a degree of what most of us consider the right to privacy. However, she emphatically does not lose the rights associated with her copyright on specific images. Those rights — public display, distribution, duplication, and creation of derivative works — cannot be usurped by a news agency just because it wanted to use her likeness for editorial reasons.

Whether she’s chosen to publish the photos herself or not, whether she’s made them freely available or not, whether AP has made any money from their use or not… all that is irrelevant except in how it may be used to estimate her monetary damages from the copyright infringement. She still retains those rights to those images. If AP photographers didn’t take the photos and AP didn’t pay the copyright holder for its use of them, then AP is wrong in a big, bad, actionable way. No matter how unsavory a character she may be.

Bottom line — Just because she’s a hooker, doesn’t let AP off the hook.

By: Rick Thompson

Rick Thompson — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:02:21 +0000

“Mark Steyn on the possibility of a Dupre lawsuit: “It’s not often you get a case where there’s someone in the room with a higher hourly rate than the lawyers.”
======

True – but nobody can screw you better than a lawyer, so it all balances out.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:25:44 +0000

SPQR: Because of the nature of her celebrity, what she looks like IS news.

I wouldn’t characterize it as a slam dunk. But I think AP has the better of the argument here. (It wouldn’t if it had also reproduced her copyrighted songs; they’re not news. And by the way, I’ve read that she’s already made $200k+ from selling downloads. I’m guessing without her pix circulating on the net, her revenues might possibly be $200.)