Because you have not said anything except "no."

Um, not really. Again, I'll ask you to explain why you're correct.

"do you know if that has a specific legal meaning? Like she can post
them, use them for publicity, or provide them to other publications, but
not for money? Or are there tons of loopholes to the meaning of
"non-commercial"?"

Right, which is why the photographer gets the copyright. But the only reason the publication is buying the photograph is because it's of Swift; they're not buying the same shot for the same money if the subject is the touring drummer.

Yeah, not with any correctness, the only person that has is KateH and she basically says the same thing I am. Simply stating that you can't do something doesn't make it correct, and your refusal to explain yourself only implies that you don't know what you're talking about.

Okay, explain why not? It's a counter-offer; if they sign it with the changes, that's them accepting the offer.

Hey, if the photographer wants to kick the appropriate percentage of the license fee to anyone with a copyright in what he's photographing, or the percentage of the value of his photograph that comes from Swift's celebrity, then I don't think there would be too much of an issue. All the value in the photograph comes…

Why can't anyone read the actual clause? Swift only has the ability to use the image IF she gets written consent from the publication that is sponsoring the photographer. That's not the same thing at all that the photographer is claiming.

You don't have to actively inform them of the changes, but you can't conceal them. So, for example, if you took a pen and drew a line through one of the clauses and sent that back signed, it'd be considered a counter-offer. If they then signed the document, they've effectively assented to your changes, and that's the…

Actually, if the alterations were noticeable, and they signed it after, then it's completely enforceable. They bear the risk of their own lack of care. So long as g2 doesn't attempt to conceal the changes, it's not fraud, but simply a counter-offer.

"I was brought into being for one reason, and one reason only, the right of white people to own black people."

The claim that "most of the U.S. Constitution had been suspended or just out and out ignored" is so far beyond true to be laughable. But, please, enlighten me. (Assume I know about the suspension of habeas corpus, and agree that it was probably the wrong decision, although there are cogent defenses of the action.)

Everyone on Papa New Guinea.

Sure. But as I said, Briennne is probably the most literal and least capable of nuance in the show—can't imagine her being someone to make ignore the express in favor of the implied.

Brienne's whole character is a lot of nothing. And what was with her being all Renly the one true king and all that? Doesn't she realize that's BS—especially for someone supposedly so set on following the rules—and that by law, Stannis IS the rightful King? I've always found her quest to be the most boring and…

Yeah, and the later is far more interesting and nuanced than the former characterization.

Can someone with a working knowledge explain the difference between this and what Paul Thomas Anderson used in The Master?

I can't imagine what Joy Division's fifth album was going to be like, but a third album from them would have been absolutely stellar, given the sounds of Love Will Tear Us Apart, Atmosphere, some of the reworked versions of earlier songs, and of course a few of the demos with Curtis and full versions without that were…

Yeah, but Hitler and the Nazis.

If anyone in the talkie pulls out a cellular telephone, I'm going to throw my soda pop at the moving picture screen.