Posted on 09/26/2007 8:59:27 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
You gotta hand it to the Clintons, though.
You can bet this guy has been properly cowed and you won’t see him donating anymore $$$ to Republicans.
They know full well who his clientele is, and if need be, they’ll make sure that no “Villagers” see the inside of his joint.
Don’t be surprised if you see him hosted a “Hill-Raising” event next year.
If I’m the owner, I’d make a few extra copies of that pic...just in case of a non-coincidental breakin or fire.
Hmmmmmm ....
“I am really heartbroken,” Selimaj told us. “Until this morning, I would have voted for Hillary. Bill was my favorite president of all time . . . I really hope they will reconsider.” Selimaj also said he would “post the letter from the office instead of the photo.”
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262007/gossip/pagesix/agita_over_chelsea_photo.htm
I might have lost my appetite if I had seen the picture while waiting to be seated.
This just goes to show how incredibly petty and arrogant the Toons are. What a family.
he he. yeah, it’s a stretch, especially given that Lamb Osso Bucco is quite common. ( I ran an Italian restaurant for a year and we served this version quite a bit. Seems people don’t care as much about baby lambs as they do baby cows.)
More in your face crap from the Klintoons!!!!!....They don’t care what the story is as long as their name is in the headlines!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...............BARF
As I understand it, the photographer who took the picture owns it, not the subject(s) of the photograph. Depending on what arrangements were made between the owner of the restaurant and the photographer, the owner may well have legal rights to the image, which includes the right to use that image as he sees fit.
Typically one is asked to sign a release form for the use of their image in such a manner. Now if she had signed the photo, I’d say to consent was a given.
Anytime I do an interview or a piece for TV, I’m always asked to sign-off my rights to allow the station to use my image in whatever way suits them.
I assume that means they won’t have my Photoshopped image showing me up on a stage in Tijuana, assisting Juicy Lucy and a small burro.
That was a foolish way to handle it. If Bill had called the owner and asked nicely, as a dad, the owner probably would’ve taken it down and there wouldn’t be another embarrassing story.
>>I assume that means they won’t have my Photoshopped image showing me up on a stage in Tijuana, assisting Juicy Lucy and a small burro.>>
Thanks, I can start my diet now.
“In any event, I doubt the law suit would survive a motion to dismiss anyway.”
The restaurant owner would have to show a written release of all rights to Chelsea’s image, signed by her.
You can’t simply use someone’s photo in an environment like that as an implied endorsement. To push the point in a legal proceeding, the restaurant owner would lose, and he know’s it, but he’s milking this for more publicity.
Can’t blame him for that.
Would it not have been more appropriate if it was webb hubbel requesting this???
This picture was probably taken when chelsea was jogging around the WTC on 9/11???
Ever hear the ole saying "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse?"
I guess this proves that she is a chip off the old blockheads.
"...all options available to us"... = 0.0
I don't think so. She doesn't make money off the use of her likeness, like a movie star would, and the lawyers themselves make the point that she is a "private person."
So it's not like he's infringing on the rights to her likeness, and costing her any money. So what damages does she have?
You mean to tell me that if the owner wanted to take a picture of a full dining room at his restaurant and put it on the wall, he would have to get a release from every person in the picture? I don't think so.
Moreover, she was in a public place when the photo was taken (restaurants are deemed to be public places, which is why the can't discriminate). So she cannot claim that she had an expectation of privacy.
Think about newspapers like the National Enquirer, which photograph movie stars at the beach and then publish close-ups of their cellulite on the front page. You think the paparazzi and the newspapers pay the stars royalties for those pictures? (They don't.)
I'm sure her lawyers would argue your position, but I think it would be a non-starter in court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.