Image talk:Eugene Volokh.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm curious -- does the release of this photo indicate I am free to take it to another site, say, CafePress, and make T-shirts with this photo on it? After all, the copyright holder has released their rights to it.
Jenolen speak it! 04:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I remain curious -- would you agree that the subject of the photo retains some rights? I mean, I couldn't use this image ANY way I wanted ... say, on a T-shirt that said (by way of extreme example) "I SUPPORT CHILD MOLESTORS" without likely becoming the target of legal action by Mr. Volokh or his attorneys? What's I'm getting at: Do you agree that the subject of the photo still has some rights, even in a "public domain" image? Or would you see no legal problem with a new line of, say, (again by way of extreme example) pro-animal abuse clothing featuring this image? Jenolen speak it! 00:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not a legal action based in copyright. Distinction there. - crz crztalk 00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- So... "not a legal action based in copyright." Then what, exactly, would the legal action be based on? I'm using a photo which is in the public domain -- not his name in the hypothetical T-shirt. Are you suggesting that even in this public domain photo, Mr. Volokh retains some rights to his image?? Jenolen speak it! 02:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not a legal action based in copyright. Distinction there. - crz crztalk 00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I remain curious -- would you agree that the subject of the photo retains some rights? I mean, I couldn't use this image ANY way I wanted ... say, on a T-shirt that said (by way of extreme example) "I SUPPORT CHILD MOLESTORS" without likely becoming the target of legal action by Mr. Volokh or his attorneys? What's I'm getting at: Do you agree that the subject of the photo still has some rights, even in a "public domain" image? Or would you see no legal problem with a new line of, say, (again by way of extreme example) pro-animal abuse clothing featuring this image? Jenolen speak it! 00:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Think of it this way: your hypothetical T-shirt would be either no more or less actionable than a T-shirt that simply said in large block letters "EUGENE VOLOKH IS A CHILD MOLESTER". The presence of the photo is irrelevant. —Chowbok ☠ 00:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I could not disagree more. A t-shirt using his name directly infringes on his personality rights. But this photo is ostensibly rights free. How can that be? Jenolen speak it! 02:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Think of it this way: your hypothetical T-shirt would be either no more or less actionable than a T-shirt that simply said in large block letters "EUGENE VOLOKH IS A CHILD MOLESTER". The presence of the photo is irrelevant. —Chowbok ☠ 00:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
