forums

Will Bayern Munich Champions League Title Help Miami in Recruiting?

Advertisement
No but when the Florida Panthers almost won it all in 1996, it clearly helped the Canes as they won it all 5 years later. LOL
 
Advertisement
I better ******* hope so, that game vs Paris made me five years older.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Canemang said:
Robert Lewandowski once visited Miami
Click to expand...
As did Mario Gotze...
q7mx50bon3_gotze1.jpg
 
HurricaneAce07 said:
As did Mario Gotze...
q7mx50bon3_gotze1.jpg
Click to expand...
Oh man, I got a story about this picture...

About four years ago, my 18 year old naive *** thought that I wanted to become a journalist. First week at my job was to learn all of the legal stuff surrounding journalism, including someones legal rights.

We saw pictures of Kate and William being butt naked on the balcony, Heidi Klum being secretly pictured back when Seal was her husband and... this one. All of these pictures were taken secretly and all of the photographers had to pay a lot of money because legal rights werent respected.

Its funny, the Götze picture was not allowed to be printed, but it still made its way onto the internet.
 
Advertisement
What legal rights? That’s a public boner. In plain view. Anybody can see it. Now maybe they have to pay him a royalty, a boner use fee, a hard-on license or something along those lines. That is, if they make some money off his rod. If it’s just spread around, and nobody making a profit, it’s fair use or something like that.

I didn’t have to pay to see it and I sure wouldn’t. Doubt anybody else will. NYSOM and Kenneth have beat it from this site (oh, didn’t mean to say that) so no one hear is interested. So nobody’s exploiting his erection for money.
 
TheMatador said:
What legal rights? That’s a public boner. In plain view. Anybody can see it. Now maybe they have to pay him a royalty, a boner use fee, a hard-on license or something along those lines. That is, if they make some money off his rod. If it’s just spread around, and nobody making a profit, it’s fair use or something like that.

I didn’t have to pay to see it and I sure wouldn’t. Doubt anybody else will. NYSOM and Kenneth have beat it from this site (oh, didn’t mean to say that) so no one hear is interested. So nobody’s exploiting his erection for money.
Click to expand...
Its illegal to makes pictures of someone without their consent (in Germany). That accounts for any picture, even the most normal ones in public. Since Götze is German... well, you know the deal. And I dont know how the pictures got onto the internet. I guess Götze stopped giving a **** (haha...ha, sorry), since he laughed about the picture years later.

And Fair Use wasnt the case, since the guy wanted to sell the picture to newspapers in order to make profit. This is where Fair Use isnt a thing anymore. Newspapers have started to avoid printing pictures of that order that show certain... things. Cause the lawsuits are pricey. Very pricey.

Doesnt even have to be a photo. Someone stole Michael Schumachers medical report after he suffered his brain injuries from a skiing accident in late 2013. Wanted 50000 dollars for the information, it ended in him hanging himself in his police cell.

Most stars actually see the photographer and let him have his pictures, in some cases even acting for him. Tolerance has gone down since everyone posts his **** on Instagram these days (and makes money off of it).

But I do appreciate the boner-puns, they gave me a good laugh.
 
CFB_Hogan said:
Its illegal to makes pictures of someone without their consent (in Germany). That accounts for any picture, even the most normal ones in public. Since Götze is German... well, you know the deal. And I dont know how the pictures got onto the internet. I guess Götze stopped giving a **** (haha...ha, sorry), since he laughed about the picture years later.

And Fair Use wasnt the case, since the guy wanted to sell the picture to newspapers in order to make profit. This is where Fair Use isnt a thing anymore. Newspapers have started to avoid printing pictures of that order that show certain... things. Cause the lawsuits are pricey. Very pricey.

Doesnt even have to be a photo. Someone stole Michael Schumachers medical report after he suffered his brain injuries from a skiing accident in late 2013. Wanted 50000 dollars for the information, it ended in him hanging himself in his police cell.

Most stars actually see the photographer and let him have his pictures, in some cases even acting for him. Tolerance has gone down since everyone posts his **** on Instagram these days (and makes money off of it).

But I do appreciate the boner-puns, they gave me a good laugh.
Click to expand...

Was the photograph taken in Germany? If so, then that's a whole different ball of wax.

Also, just to clarify, fair use is a copyright principle that isn't really applicable in this circumstance. If I take a photograph of something, I am the owner of the copyright on the photo. If someone else attempts to use that photograph without my permission, they have violated my copyright. Fair use is a legal exception to the owner's exclusive rights for various purposes (news reporting, research, academic scholarship, teaching, etc...). It has very little to do with the ability of the subject of the photograph to object to the photograph's publication.

In that instance, things like the right to privacy and publicity are where the rubber meets the road. But photographs taken in public are generally more likely to be considered ok to publish, so long as they aren't being published for a commercial purposes, promotional/advertising purpose, or in any way that implies a false connection or endorsement.

But even then, what qualifies as a "commercial purpose" is blurry, and you are spot on that the costs associated with these lawsuits can be crazy... so crazy that even if a newspaper or other organization thinks they have legitimate legal grounds to print something, they often don't because the litigation costs and risks of being wrong just aren't worth it.
 
Last edited:
No_Fly_Zone said:
In that instance, things like the right to privacy and publicity are where the rubber meets the road. But photographs taken in public are generally more likely to be considered ok to publish, so long as they aren't being published for a commercial purposes, promotional/advertising purpose, or in any way that implies a false connection or endorsement
Click to expand...
yeah thats the point i was trying to make.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top