Correct; if the photographer jumps the fence onto their property, it's a different story (and even then, it is still legal to take a photo, but there are legal restrictions on what can be done with the photo). But out in public, yes - fair game.

There are certain uses of photos of people (and property as well) that require the consent of the subject, guardian (or in the case of property, its owner), most typically in the form of a signed release. Those uses tend to be more in the commercial realm, such as product advertisements / endorsements, package design,…

This law has nothing to do with privacy; when in public, there is zero expectation of privacy, so anyone can take your (or your children's) photo in public. This law only addresses harassment during the course of taking photos, etc.

Not at all - there are legal definitions of harassment (threats, intimidation, compromising physical safety, etc.) - that is all that this law covers. When in public, a person has zero expectation of privacy, by definition. Anyone can legally photograph, film, videotape, etc., anyone else in public without anyone's…

The law doesn't prevent the taking of pictures, videos, etc. - it aims to prevent harassment in the form of the photographers' conduct and actions while taking (or waiting to take) photos, etc. So, while the law may have an effect on the paparazzi's behavior towards the famous and their children, it does not affect…

Don't mention it.

One reason I could see giving her a "pass" on it for is if she had used it for a noble cause, such as a charity to benefit the victims and families of victims of the tragedy. But she used it for her own financial gain, which is despicable - and thus provides no reason at all for them to be lenient. The penalty for…

No, it's not an honest mistake. ANYONE working in the media industries - especially web designers - know about Federal Copyright Law and how it works. It is one of the primary laws governing the industry and one of the primary reasons anyone in the industry is able to generate any income from their work. Granted,…

It doesn't need to be a direct comparison, I am asking you if someone committed a serious crime against you (that also damaged the integrity of something you owned), would you "give them a pass" and not press charges simply because they had gotten a bad rap from others in the past?

2. Additionally, they are not all iconic images of the devastation caused by the tragedy of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

So, then...

1. That is not a reason as to why the copyright owner should not sue her for stealing their image and using it for personal gain.

Wrong again. I never mentioned the Tina Fey quote. I referenced what she did say, which the Tina Fey quote was parodying.

Yes - in response to your first reply where you excuse her actions because she gets a bad rap. She gets a bad rap because she says and does foolish things in the public eye, for which I gave you examples.

HOW the fuck is a photograph that depicts three New York City firefighters hoisting an American flag among the rubble at the World Trade Center after the attacks "like a lot of other plain jane graphics out there"??? THAT IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS! And even if it did - THAT WOULD NOT MATTER. WHY should anyone cut her…

Here's another way of looking at it;

"I was trying to put across some points so you could see where I'm coming from in regards to her." Right; deflection. Neither of our opinions of her are relevant in this fact-based issue. Yes, I know she didn't say she could see Russia from her house - you are the only one who has brought that up and keeps harping on…

Your insinuation that I was attributing Tina Fey's line to Palin IS making shit up. If you were not insinuating that that's what I was doing, there would be no reason for you to bring that up at all. So yes - you are making shit up. And she did mention being able to see Russia from Alaska in regards to what insight…

:^)

Uh... I think you mean aesthetic. That performance was hardly ascetic.