At 3/5/13 01:41 AM, Xenomit wrote:
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
Didn't feel like it? Sorry but no, in this case you have to concede that you can't redefine what is and isn't justifiable in a court of law. No one person can.
Considerable physical injury that requires medical attention from a professional practitioner. Requires.
Right cool, so from now on I can go around slapping people just so long as I don't send them to the hospital.
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.
Oooh you just cracked open a very juicy can of worms here. What kind of therapy counts, and what are the scales of severity for this rule?
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.
I do get your point, and to a certain extent I agree with you, there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits and some cultures have such a strong unwarranted sense of entitlement that would make anyone mad. However in this case I don't agree.
Have you ever had something stolen from you? I made a Flash once and then some cunt submitted it to NG as his own, the feeling of someone else taking credit for your work is unlike any other. If you create something you're proud of it's only natural to want some credit for it. Not money, necessarily, but credit. The reason artists sign their paintings, etc.
That woman was a model, and the fact that her image was used (without her permission) as an iconic representation of the 50s-60s is something she should be proud of, and the people who decided to use her image without giving her credit should have known that something like this might happen. Read the article, the quote saying how the network would be throwing legal nukes if their program was used commercially makes a very good point.