More frivolous lawsuits

[Xenomit]

A 71 year old model is suing lionsgate because they used an old ass picture of her from the 50's in the opening sequence to "Mad Men"

Why haven't lawsuits for the sake of getting quick and easy money been outlawed yet

[HighWay]

a man sued a laundromat for millions for losing his lucky pants.

[Dry-Ice]

At 3/5/13 12:34 AM, Xenomit wrote: Why haven't lawsuits for the sake of getting quick and easy money been outlawed yet

BECAUSE PEOPLE MAKE MONEY FROM THEM.

[Xenomit]

At 3/5/13 12:36 AM, HighWay wrote: a man sued a laundromat for millions for losing his lucky pants.

.

At 3/5/13 12:34 AM, Xenomit wrote: Why haven't lawsuits for the sake of getting quick and easy money been outlawed yet

[silverspecks]

At 3/5/13 12:36 AM, HighWay wrote: a man sued a laundromat for millions for losing his lucky pants.

This made me snicker.

[HighWay]

At 3/5/13 12:37 AM, silverspecks wrote: This made me snicker.

it really did happen.

[silverspecks]

At 3/5/13 12:39 AM, HighWay wrote:

it really did happen.

I wasn't doubting you. It's just funny to me.

[372]

I don't know man If I heard a picture of me was being used for a popular TV show opening for a couple years without me getting any money I'd be pissed too.

[Xenomit]

At 3/5/13 12:41 AM, 372 wrote: I don't know man If I heard a picture of me was being used for a popular TV show opening for a couple years without me getting any money I'd be pissed too.

So you'd sue them for millions

C'mon man

Really now?

"You used a picture of me GIVE ME MONEY"

[silverspecks]

Do you think asking for a modest % would be out of line?

[372]

At 3/5/13 12:42 AM, Xenomit wrote:

At 3/5/13 12:41 AM, 372 wrote: I don't know man If I heard a picture of me was being used for a popular TV show opening for a couple years without me getting any money I'd be pissed too.

So you'd sue them for millions

C'mon man

Really now?

"You used a picture of me GIVE ME MONEY"

Hell yeah, especially if I was a model. It's their job to look pretty in pictures, why should they do it for free? No matter how old the picture is!

[supergandhi64]

(mood: chrome) that's not frivolous . . . she's entirely in her right to demand compensation for the unlawful use of her image

--supergandhi64

[Xenomit]

At 3/5/13 12:45 AM, silverspecks wrote: Do you think asking for a modest % would be out of line?

1. She's 71, what's she gonna do with all that money.

2. Those pictures were taken in like, the 50's and 60's, she's already been paid for them.

3. I just have a severe hatred for frivolous lawsuits. If you or a family member hasn't been physically harmed in any way, there's no real reason to sue other than just pure greed.

[silverspecks]

By "modest" I meant like less than 0.5%. C'mon, it's only a picture.

[YellowisCOOL]

Old people are so funny.

[Havegum]

At 3/5/13 12:34 AM, Xenomit wrote: Why haven't lawsuits for the sake of getting quick and easy money been outlawed yet

This lawsuit actually has some merit.

She's had a career as a model, in which her job was exclusively to look pretty - a job in which she can no longer do as effectively; and the image was used in a popular and award winning series. If they had bothered to pay to use the image in the first place, they'd be in the clear. By not paying for the use of the image, they're dismissing the work that photographers, make-up artists, and models do (Exaggerated to get the point across).

I think patents for the sake of later suing businesses looking to innovate are much worse, and putting a stranglehold on free market. As well as petty stuff like "I burnt my hand on this coffee!" and "this food made me fat!", but that goes without saying.

[Dry-Ice]

At 3/5/13 12:48 AM, Xenomit wrote: 3. I just have a severe hatred for frivolous lawsuits. If you or a family member hasn't been physically harmed in any way, there's no real reason to sue other than just pure greed.

What about theft?

[Xenomit]

At 3/5/13 01:03 AM, Dry-Ice wrote:

At 3/5/13 12:48 AM, Xenomit wrote: 3. I just have a severe hatred for frivolous lawsuits. If you or a family member hasn't been physically harmed in any way, there's no real reason to sue other than just pure greed.

What about theft?

Theft is something different, I haven't heard of many people suing because of theft

If your life hasn't been disrupted in any way, you have no reason to sue other than you're just a greedy wad

[UVSoaked]

At 3/5/13 12:36 AM, HighWay wrote: a man sued a laundromat for millions for losing his lucky pants.

Did he win? Because if he did, those were lucky pants!

[silverspecks]

At 3/5/13 01:08 AM, UVSoaked wrote:

At 3/5/13 12:36 AM, HighWay wrote: a man sued a laundromat for millions for losing his lucky pants.

Did he win? Because if he did, those were lucky pants!

Take those pants to Vegas! ^^

[sweet21]

At 3/5/13 12:41 AM, 372 wrote: I don't know man If I heard a picture of me was being used for a popular TV show opening for a couple years without me getting any money I'd be pissed too.

I would demand credit and pay.

[Dry-Ice]

At 3/5/13 01:05 AM, Xenomit wrote: If your life hasn't been disrupted in any way, you have no reason to sue other than you're just a greedy wad

Define: 'disrupted'.

In terms of Law, things have to be extremely well defined. So first it's not okay to sue unless you've been physically harmed, now it's only if your life has been disrupted? Okay so lets say I'm going for a walk and there's a pothole in the pavement. I now have to step around said pothole, so my journey has been disrupted. Suppose since my journey was part of my life and it was disrupted that counts right?

Do you see my point?

[Xenomit]

At 3/5/13 01:33 AM, Dry-Ice wrote: Do you see my point?

Yeah yeah, I see your point

Law does have to be really specific due to loopholes and what have you, but I was just being general because I didn't feel like creating actual guidelines

Considerable physical injury that requires medical attention from a professional practitioner. Requires.

Considerable emotional injury that leads to the need of therapy. This one would probably be cut from any official guidelines due to the fact that anyone could claim to have suffered major emotional damage.

Lots of others, I can't be bothered to think up any more. You get the point though (I hope), anything that isn't blatantly dumb and obviously just for greed. Like in the case of this woman. She's 71 years old and has not been injured in any way by lionsgate, she just wants money for the sake of having money, which kills capitalism. Which in turn makes me mad.

[Xenomit]

At 3/5/13 01:44 AM, Natick wrote:

At 3/5/13 01:42 AM, Natick wrote: lookit dry-ice actually xenoshit literally

it's so cute

*taking

What do you think you're accomplishing by calling me xenoshit

Small dick Natick

It's not that hard to do

[372]

At 3/5/13 01:47 AM, Xenomit wrote:

What do you think you're accomplishing by calling me xenoshit

Small dick Natick

It's not that hard to do

I still like Xenomittromney

[silverspecks]

At 3/5/13 01:48 AM, Natick wrote:

At 3/5/13 01:47 AM, Xenomit wrote: Small dick Natick

my fucking sides hurt, you're so late

I thought her thing was calling you a fag.

[Xenomit]

At 3/5/13 01:48 AM, Natick wrote:

At 3/5/13 01:47 AM, Xenomit wrote: Small dick Natick

sevkat came up with that years ago

my fucking sides hurt, you're so late

And turkey based came up with xenoshit almost a year ago

My sides don't hurt, because I don't find it hysterically funny when someone's late to an ad hominem name calling

[silverspecks]

whoops, I fudged up the quote.

[silverspecks]

WOAH I F-CKED UP BIG TIME! I'M REALLY REALLY SORRY NATICK. I was thinking of someone else.

[Havegum]

Sad to see the thread become a piss war. Especially when the topic was going in an interesting direction.

Is there any way to truly stop "bad" lawsuits in its tracks? Isn't the outcome of the situation really for the judge to decide, and thus the ability to discourage future frivolous lawsuits lies in the judges powers and the guidelines they operate within?