Copyright determination is perfectly clear and simple; if you created it, you own it. If you take a photo of a person in public (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy*), correct - there is nothing they can do about it (legally). Personal rights and Copyright are two completely different things (and a…

Given that user submission - based sites typically require submitters to confirm ownership of submitted materials and contain indemnification clauses (specifically to protect the site against this exact type of thing), she would probably have to sue the party who uploaded the images, not the site itself.

Only if she was the one who took them. But you are correct in that registration is not required.

The person creating the image owns the copyright by default. Simply appearing in a photograph taken by someone else gives you no rights to ownership. None. If she owns the images, she could prove it by way of embedded metadata.

Yes - if you take the photos, you own the copyright. It makes every bit of sense.

I grew up in a very large family, living in a house with only 2 bathrooms - one of them being my parents' bathroom. My siblings and I used that bathroom as "back-up" when the main one was occupied. One day when I was very young I went in there after my mom had been in there, and when I lifted the lid I saw something…

Ugh - *"...that a Mormon-run store would *not* sell items..."

*it would be just as ridiculous...

The underlying value is not what I am addressing here. Isha Aran said that it is "beyond ridiculous" that a Mormon-run store would sell items that are in direct opposition to the tenets of the religion. She even provided a detailed description pointing out that it is the acting upon homosexual feelings that they are…

Given that their religion is opposed to same-sex marriage, there is nothing ridiculous or unexpected about the fact they they would choose not to sell the items in question. It would be ridiculous to expect that they would sell them. The decision itself is completely logical and within reason, given the context. If…

Why is this "beyond ridiculous"? Any privately-run institution / business is (as they should be) allowed to decide what products they do and do not sell.

That's not what he said.

Ha.

It absolutely is brilliant. It also opens up the possibility of integrating it into other products (non-toxic additive to ice machines?). Also worth note is that it was a group of male students who came up with it; a group who quite likely do not encounter or have to deal with the threat or danger themselves (not that…

@ "L":

While it's fucked up that there's a legitimate need for a product such as this, I'd say it's the opposite of fucked up that someone thought of - and went through all of the research and work in - creating one to fulfill that need.

So why no outrage over the fact that this image has been photoshopped to hide her rolls, change the shape of her breast, and make her butt look fuller and arm slimmer / more toned...???

Yup. What gets me is that this site (the writers & commenters) are constantly talking about how everyone is to be respected, etc. (with which I do not disagree), yet it is a celebrity gossip site; the whole point of which is to speculate on and judge / ridicule the personal lives, thoughts, and motivations of people…

Yeah, I never really understood how exposing yourself in response to people wanting to see you naked is in any way "empowering." Especially when you use it as a means to sell your songs (or rather, the recordings someone else made and mastered of you singing songs - that some other people wrote - into an autotune…