Lawsuit over image use

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tony cooper, Sep 15, 2012.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    An interesting case here in Orlando over the use of a woman's
    photograph at a professional basketball game.

    http://tinyurl.com/9kznhbn

    Of special interest is the basketball team's defense saying:

    "...a disclaimer on the back of Orlando Magic game tickets also serves
    as a waiver of rights. It warns that the ticket-holder is giving the
    NBA team "the irrevocable and unrestricted right and license" to use
    the holder's image in "any medium or context" and specifically
    mentions promotional purposes "without further authorization or
    compensation."


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 15, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:30:46 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012.09.15 13:09 , Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> tony cooper writes:
    >>
    >>> An interesting case here in Orlando over the use of a woman's
    >>> photograph at a professional basketball game.
    >>>
    >>> http://tinyurl.com/9kznhbn

    >>
    >> The need for a model release for advertising and marketing use is very well
    >> established in the United States. If it's just editorial use, no problem, but
    >> this is clearly a use that requires a release.

    >
    >Not at all. By attending the event she agreed to the conditions on the
    >ticket. That was the "release".
    >
    >
    >>
    >>> Of special interest is the basketball team's defense saying:
    >>>
    >>> "...a disclaimer on the back of Orlando Magic game tickets also serves
    >>> as a waiver of rights. It warns that the ticket-holder is giving the
    >>> NBA team "the irrevocable and unrestricted right and license" to use
    >>> the holder's image in "any medium or context" and specifically
    >>> mentions promotional purposes "without further authorization or
    >>> compensation."

    >>
    >> My intuition tells me that this defense will not work, but we'll see. The

    >
    >Intuition? A good thing you're not a practicing lawyer.
    >
    >> reason being that the average person probably hasn't read the terms, hasn't
    >> signed anything saying that they've read the terms, and the terms extend well
    >> beyond what an average person might expect to be agreeing to just by buying a
    >> ticket to a game.

    >
    >You also, when you _use_ the ticket to attend, agree to hold the
    >organizers, performers and the venue not responsible for whatever injury
    >might occur to you by any manner. You won't sue on that basis either
    >other than gross neglect.
    >


    What I find difficult to accept is that a woman has suffered emotional
    distress because she has been picked out as "young and attractive"
    when she attended something as wholesome as a basketball game.
    Further, she claims to have suffered indignity by being asked if she
    was a model.

    Unless the question used the phrase "plus-size model", no woman
    objects to that question.

    However, I hope she nails the Magic on this. Any organization that
    charges what they charge for tickets to see a mediocre team play, and
    charges what they charge for beer and hotdogs, and an organization
    that stuck the taxpayers for most of the cost of their new arena,
    deserves to be nailed.

    The last time I attended a Magic game, I told the beer lady that I had
    never paid that much for a beer from a woman with her top on before.
    She did not find the comment amusing.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 15, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mxsmanic <> writes:

    > Alan Browne writes:
    >
    >> Venue tickets usually include all sorts of protection for the
    >> organizers. Buyers are screwed in pretty much all cases other than the
    >> event being cancelled or moved to another date or location.

    >
    > There are limits, though. You can't lay a claim to a spectator's first-born
    > child just by putting it on the ticket, for example.
    >
    > I think it's reasonable to put something on the ticket that says a spectator
    > consents to being photographed and to that photographed being published
    > (especially since no release is normally required for this, anyway), but
    > extending that to for-profit commercial use is stretching things.


    A release is required for "commercial use" (a technical term largely
    meaning advertising and promition; definitely not news reporting, even
    though the photographer gets paid). Which is why those disclaimers on
    the tickets are important, you can't really avoid the crowd appearing in
    telecasts and some photos.

    >> If the ticket says as you say above, I don't think she'll get very far
    >> even with her lawyer's position: { no fan reasonably expects to
    >> surrender privacy rights simply by walking into a sports venue.

    >
    > He's on the wrong path. It's not a matter of privacy rights here, which are
    > indeed generally surrendered in public places (in the U.S.). It's a matter of
    > consenting to have one's image used for advertising or marketing, which is a
    > different ball game (no pun intended).


    Yes, that's the line.

    >> Hornsby
    >> said the ticket's fine print also should not serve as a waiver or
    >> permission to allow the team to "plaster your face on a bus." He argued
    >> that Slavin, a Magic fan, was not merely a face in the crowd in the
    >> basketball team's ticket campaign, but a featured star, singled out
    >> because she was young and attractive.

    >
    > That is a much more cogent argument. I don't think that walking into a stadium
    > equates to working as a paid commercial model.


    Being the primary face of a campaign does seem to go beyond what you
    ought to waive by buying a ticket and walking into a sports venue.
    Being a background face seems different to me.

    Should be interesting!
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 15, 2012
    #3
  4. Alan Browne <> writes:

    > On 2012.09.15 13:13 , Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> Alan Browne writes:
    >>
    >>> Venue tickets usually include all sorts of protection for the
    >>> organizers. Buyers are screwed in pretty much all cases other than the
    >>> event being cancelled or moved to another date or location.

    >>
    >> There are limits, though. You can't lay a claim to a spectator's first-born
    >> child just by putting it on the ticket, for example.

    >
    > Do you always have to raise specious and unrelated issues to make a point?


    Reductio ad absurdem, right? (Or some spelling fairly close to that.)
    "Pretty much all cases" is a strong claim, so looking for an easy
    counter-example seems like the right starting point for that argument.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 15, 2012
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:31:03 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    : Being the primary face of a campaign does seem to go beyond what you
    : ought to waive by buying a ticket and walking into a sports venue.
    : Being a background face seems different to me.
    :
    : Should be interesting!

    However it comes out, the basketball team loses. They could spend more on
    defending the case than it would have cost them to pay the woman a modelling
    fee. And the negative publicity will diminish the benefit of the advertising
    campaign.

    So why didn't they just buy the rights? It might be mostly a matter of
    logistics: when they decided to use the woman's picture, they didn't know who
    she was and had no easy (i.e., cheap) way to find her.

    The case will be settled, but in a way that doesn't force the team to admit
    that the disclaimer on their tickets is questionable. They'll pay the woman
    for the rights to the picture, in return for a gag order prohibiting her and
    her attorney from disclosing the terms.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 15, 2012
    #5
  6. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:13:09 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:31:03 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >: Being the primary face of a campaign does seem to go beyond what you
    >: ought to waive by buying a ticket and walking into a sports venue.
    >: Being a background face seems different to me.
    >:
    >: Should be interesting!
    >
    >However it comes out, the basketball team loses. They could spend more on
    >defending the case than it would have cost them to pay the woman a modelling
    >fee. And the negative publicity will diminish the benefit of the advertising
    >campaign.


    I dunno about that. The Magic have a team of lawyers on retainer. I
    doubt if this will add to the Magic's legal cost at all. They'll
    spend less time on this than they will on a contract for a
    third-string reserve player.

    The girl, though, probably has an attorney who has taken the case on a
    contingency basis. That will be side pushing to settle.


    >So why didn't they just buy the rights? It might be mostly a matter of
    >logistics: when they decided to use the woman's picture, they didn't know who
    >she was and had no easy (i.e., cheap) way to find her.
    >
    >The case will be settled, but in a way that doesn't force the team to admit
    >that the disclaimer on their tickets is questionable. They'll pay the woman
    >for the rights to the picture, in return for a gag order prohibiting her and
    >her attorney from disclosing the terms.
    >
    >Bob


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 15, 2012
    #6
  7. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/15/2012 11:50 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > An interesting case here in Orlando over the use of a woman's
    > photograph at a professional basketball game.
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/9kznhbn
    >
    > Of special interest is the basketball team's defense saying:
    >
    > "...a disclaimer on the back of Orlando Magic game tickets also serves
    > as a waiver of rights. It warns that the ticket-holder is giving the
    > NBA team "the irrevocable and unrestricted right and license" to use
    > the holder's image in "any medium or context" and specifically
    > mentions promotional purposes "without further authorization or
    > compensation."
    >
    >


    There are cases to the contrary in NY, but mostly dealing with attempts
    to be absolved from negligence. We call them adhesion contracts. No
    matter what your parking claim ticket says on the back, if the attendant
    gets drunk and smacks up you car, the establishment is liable.
    If they show your image as a fan, you have little rights.
    Several years ago a young lady was wearing a Giants logo on her
    sweatshirt. the word "Giants" was practically horizontal. Her image
    could be freely published.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 16, 2012
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/15/2012 1:30 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2012.09.15 13:09 , Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> tony cooper writes:
    >>
    >>> An interesting case here in Orlando over the use of a woman's
    >>> photograph at a professional basketball game.
    >>>
    >>> http://tinyurl.com/9kznhbn

    >>
    >> The need for a model release for advertising and marketing use is very
    >> well
    >> established in the United States. If it's just editorial use, no
    >> problem, but
    >> this is clearly a use that requires a release.

    >
    > Not at all. By attending the event she agreed to the conditions on the
    > ticket. That was the "release".
    >
    >
    >>
    >>> Of special interest is the basketball team's defense saying:
    >>>
    >>> "...a disclaimer on the back of Orlando Magic game tickets also serves
    >>> as a waiver of rights. It warns that the ticket-holder is giving the
    >>> NBA team "the irrevocable and unrestricted right and license" to use
    >>> the holder's image in "any medium or context" and specifically
    >>> mentions promotional purposes "without further authorization or
    >>> compensation."

    >>
    >> My intuition tells me that this defense will not work, but we'll see. The

    >
    > Intuition? A good thing you're not a practicing lawyer.
    >
    >> reason being that the average person probably hasn't read the terms,
    >> hasn't
    >> signed anything saying that they've read the terms, and the terms
    >> extend well
    >> beyond what an average person might expect to be agreeing to just by
    >> buying a
    >> ticket to a game.

    >
    > You also, when you _use_ the ticket to attend, agree to hold the
    > organizers, performers and the venue not responsible for whatever injury
    > might occur to you by any manner. You won't sue on that basis either
    > other than gross neglect.


    There is a principle of assumption of a risk.

    If you get hurt by a baseball, in the normal course of play, you have
    assumed the risk of injury.

    When a model plane used as part of a half time show killed someone, the
    deceased was held not to have assumed that risk. IIRC the case was
    settled out of Court, and the ruling not published.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 16, 2012
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:44:57 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >> You also, when you _use_ the ticket to attend, agree to hold the
    >> organizers, performers and the venue not responsible for whatever injury
    >> might occur to you by any manner. You won't sue on that basis either
    >> other than gross neglect.

    >
    >But the disclaimer should theroetically exclude all types of neglect, based on
    >its language alone. And yet it doesn't.


    This is about the fourth of fifth time "neglect" has been used in
    posts on this subject. The word that should be used is "negligence",
    not "neglect". A property owner can allow the property to fall into
    neglect without exposing himself to liability as long as he is not
    negligent in allowing people to be exposed to danger.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 16, 2012
    #9
  10. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:42:20 +0200, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    : Eric Stevens writes:
    :
    : > If you are referring to the picture I think you are, the picture
    : > wasn't a spontaneous photograph of someone in the street. It was
    : > carefully arranged by Brian Brake and I would expect there was some
    : > form of model release.
    :
    : There was no model release. Photographers in those situations generally do not
    : seek releases, since the intended use is editorial. NG depended on the
    : likelihood that the girl would never realize that her image had been used
    : commercially around the world and would not come looking for NG with a lawyer.

    In what venue was the litigation undertaken? Pakistan? A U.S. state? The
    District of Columbia? Whose responsibility was it to prove that the courts in
    that venue had jurisdiction and/or that U.S. law was applicable?

    The lack of a model release doesn't mean that the model will win her case. I
    suspect that in the U.S. (e.g., in the Florida case) the model would still
    have to prove that the publisher of the picture understood that payment was
    expected. The absence of a model release might or might not make that easier
    to do, depending on the circumstances. As I understand the Florida case, the
    picture was a candid shot and the woman didn't know she was "modelling". If
    so, the blabbing she did about how it offended her to have people think she
    worked as a model, will likely not be helpful to her case.

    But I stand by my guess (and that of several others in the group) that the
    Florida case will be settled out of court.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 16, 2012
    #10
  11. Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > On 2012.09.15 14:31 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> Alan Browne <> writes:
    >>> On 2012.09.15 13:13 , Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>>> Alan Browne writes:


    >>>>> Venue tickets usually include all sorts of protection for the
    >>>>> organizers. Buyers are screwed in pretty much all cases other than the
    >>>>> event being cancelled or moved to another date or location.


    >>>> There are limits, though. You can't lay a claim to a spectator's first-born
    >>>> child just by putting it on the ticket, for example.


    >>> Do you always have to raise specious and unrelated issues to make a point?


    >> Reductio ad absurdem, right? (Or some spelling fairly close to that.)
    >> "Pretty much all cases" is a strong claim, so looking for an easy
    >> counter-example seems like the right starting point for that argument.


    > Which is why I added the reasonable conditions under which one is not
    > screwed by the ticket conditins.


    You didn't list "claim to the first-born child", you only listed
    cancellation or shifting date or location, but you agree with
    the limitation. Good, there is a line between OK and not OK even
    when it's listed on the ticket in your opinion.

    Expecting to find yourself on TV broadcasts on or online in a
    report about the game is one thing, being the model who wasn't
    asked and wasn't paid in an ad campain is something different.
    I'd draw the line mentioned above between them, but that's only
    me and my diffuse feelings, not a legal opinion.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 16, 2012
    #11
  12. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 09:11:52 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:42:20 +0200, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >: Eric Stevens writes:
    >:
    >: > If you are referring to the picture I think you are, the picture
    >: > wasn't a spontaneous photograph of someone in the street. It was
    >: > carefully arranged by Brian Brake and I would expect there was some
    >: > form of model release.
    >:
    >: There was no model release. Photographers in those situations generally do not
    >: seek releases, since the intended use is editorial. NG depended on the
    >: likelihood that the girl would never realize that her image had been used
    >: commercially around the world and would not come looking for NG with a lawyer.
    >
    >In what venue was the litigation undertaken? Pakistan? A U.S. state? The
    >District of Columbia? Whose responsibility was it to prove that the courts in
    >that venue had jurisdiction and/or that U.S. law was applicable?
    >
    >The lack of a model release doesn't mean that the model will win her case. I
    >suspect that in the U.S. (e.g., in the Florida case) the model would still
    >have to prove that the publisher of the picture understood that payment was
    >expected. The absence of a model release might or might not make that easier
    >to do, depending on the circumstances. As I understand the Florida case, the
    >picture was a candid shot and the woman didn't know she was "modelling". If
    >so, the blabbing she did about how it offended her to have people think she
    >worked as a model, will likely not be helpful to her case.
    >
    >But I stand by my guess (and that of several others in the group) that the
    >Florida case will be settled out of court.
    >
    >Bob


    She might settle for season tickets to the Magic. I wonder, if she
    does, if her lawyer will take her seat for 40% of the games.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 16, 2012
    #12
  13. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 11:35:25 -0400, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 09:11:52 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:42:20 +0200, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    : >: Eric Stevens writes:
    : >:
    : >: > If you are referring to the picture I think you are, the picture
    : >: > wasn't a spontaneous photograph of someone in the street. It was
    : >: > carefully arranged by Brian Brake and I would expect there was some
    : >: > form of model release.
    : >:
    : >: There was no model release. Photographers in those situations generally do not
    : >: seek releases, since the intended use is editorial. NG depended on the
    : >: likelihood that the girl would never realize that her image had been used
    : >: commercially around the world and would not come looking for NG with a lawyer.
    : >
    : >In what venue was the litigation undertaken? Pakistan? A U.S. state? The
    : >District of Columbia? Whose responsibility was it to prove that the courts in
    : >that venue had jurisdiction and/or that U.S. law was applicable?
    : >
    : >The lack of a model release doesn't mean that the model will win her case. I
    : >suspect that in the U.S. (e.g., in the Florida case) the model would still
    : >have to prove that the publisher of the picture understood that payment was
    : >expected. The absence of a model release might or might not make that easier
    : >to do, depending on the circumstances. As I understand the Florida case, the
    : >picture was a candid shot and the woman didn't know she was "modelling". If
    : >so, the blabbing she did about how it offended her to have people think she
    : >worked as a model, will likely not be helpful to her case.
    : >
    : >But I stand by my guess (and that of several others in the group) that the
    : >Florida case will be settled out of court.
    :
    : She might settle for season tickets to the Magic. I wonder, if she
    : does, if her lawyer will take her seat for 40% of the games.

    The lawyer probably has season tickets already. Maybe she does too. She's a
    social worker, but maybe her husband is rich.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 16, 2012
    #13
  14. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 17:40:09 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 11:35:25 -0400, tony cooper <>
    >wrote:
    >: On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 09:11:52 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >:
    >: >On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:42:20 +0200, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >: >: Eric Stevens writes:
    >: >:
    >: >: > If you are referring to the picture I think you are, the picture
    >: >: > wasn't a spontaneous photograph of someone in the street. It was
    >: >: > carefully arranged by Brian Brake and I would expect there was some
    >: >: > form of model release.
    >: >:
    >: >: There was no model release. Photographers in those situations generally do not
    >: >: seek releases, since the intended use is editorial. NG depended on the
    >: >: likelihood that the girl would never realize that her image had been used
    >: >: commercially around the world and would not come looking for NG with a lawyer.
    >: >
    >: >In what venue was the litigation undertaken? Pakistan? A U.S. state? The
    >: >District of Columbia? Whose responsibility was it to prove that the courts in
    >: >that venue had jurisdiction and/or that U.S. law was applicable?
    >: >
    >: >The lack of a model release doesn't mean that the model will win her case. I
    >: >suspect that in the U.S. (e.g., in the Florida case) the model would still
    >: >have to prove that the publisher of the picture understood that payment was
    >: >expected. The absence of a model release might or might not make that easier
    >: >to do, depending on the circumstances. As I understand the Florida case, the
    >: >picture was a candid shot and the woman didn't know she was "modelling". If
    >: >so, the blabbing she did about how it offended her to have people think she
    >: >worked as a model, will likely not be helpful to her case.
    >: >
    >: >But I stand by my guess (and that of several others in the group) that the
    >: >Florida case will be settled out of court.
    >:
    >: She might settle for season tickets to the Magic. I wonder, if she
    >: does, if her lawyer will take her seat for 40% of the games.
    >
    >The lawyer probably has season tickets already. Maybe she does too. She's a
    >social worker, but maybe her husband is rich.


    Well, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to sentence someone to
    watch the Orlando Magic every home game in the season.

    Free tickets would not be enough for me. Parking in the arena parking
    garage is $20. If you are willing to walk some distance, you can park
    in other garages for $10, and if you walk even further, $5.00. From
    any of them, it will take a minimum of 30 minutes to get out of the
    downtown area due to traffic.

    Free tickets, with a couple of beers and hot dogs, will put you back
    at least $50. Take your wife and/or kids, and it's a hundred dollar
    evening.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 17, 2012
    #14
  15. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/16/2012 8:40 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Alan Browne writes:
    >
    >> The case is not extreme in the least.

    >
    > It's extreme in assimilating a simple release to a commercial modeling
    > contract. The former is reasonable on a ticket, the latter is not.
    >


    You too shall become assimilated.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 17, 2012
    #15
  16. tony cooper

    R S H Guest

    What is ignored in this whole stream of discussion is 'what if she was a fan of the OTHER team? Not everyone attending a basketball game is
    a fan of the team whose home stadium is being used.

    RsH



    On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:31:03 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >Mxsmanic <> writes:
    >
    >> Alan Browne writes:
    >>
    >>> Venue tickets usually include all sorts of protection for the
    >>> organizers. Buyers are screwed in pretty much all cases other than the
    >>> event being cancelled or moved to another date or location.

    >>
    >> There are limits, though. You can't lay a claim to a spectator's first-born
    >> child just by putting it on the ticket, for example.
    >>
    >> I think it's reasonable to put something on the ticket that says a spectator
    >> consents to being photographed and to that photographed being published
    >> (especially since no release is normally required for this, anyway), but
    >> extending that to for-profit commercial use is stretching things.

    >
    >A release is required for "commercial use" (a technical term largely
    >meaning advertising and promition; definitely not news reporting, even
    >though the photographer gets paid). Which is why those disclaimers on
    >the tickets are important, you can't really avoid the crowd appearing in
    >telecasts and some photos.
    >
    >>> If the ticket says as you say above, I don't think she'll get very far
    >>> even with her lawyer's position: { no fan reasonably expects to
    >>> surrender privacy rights simply by walking into a sports venue.

    >>
    >> He's on the wrong path. It's not a matter of privacy rights here, which are
    >> indeed generally surrendered in public places (in the U.S.). It's a matter of
    >> consenting to have one's image used for advertising or marketing, which is a
    >> different ball game (no pun intended).

    >
    >Yes, that's the line.
    >
    >>> Hornsby
    >>> said the ticket's fine print also should not serve as a waiver or
    >>> permission to allow the team to "plaster your face on a bus." He argued
    >>> that Slavin, a Magic fan, was not merely a face in the crowd in the
    >>> basketball team's ticket campaign, but a featured star, singled out
    >>> because she was young and attractive.

    >>
    >> That is a much more cogent argument. I don't think that walking into a stadium
    >> equates to working as a paid commercial model.

    >
    >Being the primary face of a campaign does seem to go beyond what you
    >ought to waive by buying a ticket and walking into a sports venue.
    >Being a background face seems different to me.
    >
    >Should be interesting!
     
    R S H, Sep 17, 2012
    #16
  17. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/17/2012 6:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-09-17 15:16:37 -0700, R S H <> said:
    >
    >> What is ignored in this whole stream of discussion is 'what if she was
    >> a fan of the OTHER team? Not everyone attending a basketball game is
    >> a fan of the team whose home stadium is being used.
    >>
    >> RsH

    >
    > Check the jersey. A non-fan isn't likely to wear a Dwight Howard #12
    > Orlando jersey.
    >
    >

    The skill of observation is one that one keeps. ;-)

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 18, 2012
    #17
  18. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:34:16 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-09-17 15:16:37 -0700, R S H <> said:
    >
    >> What is ignored in this whole stream of discussion is 'what if she was
    >> a fan of the OTHER team? Not everyone attending a basketball game is
    >> a fan of the team whose home stadium is being used.
    >>
    >> RsH

    >
    >Check the jersey. A non-fan isn't likely to wear a Dwight Howard #12
    >Orlando jersey.


    The reason the campaign was pulled is that Dwight Howard is no longer
    a Magic player. After a long and acrimonious period of Howard
    shilly-shallying about whether or not he'd remain with the Magic or
    demand to be traded, he opted for the trade. He's now a Laker.

    Howard is not liked in Orlando anymore.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 18, 2012
    #18
  19. tony cooper

    R S H Guest

    On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:44:08 -0400, PeterN <> wrote:

    >On 9/17/2012 6:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2012-09-17 15:16:37 -0700, R S H <> said:
    >>
    >>> What is ignored in this whole stream of discussion is 'what if she was
    >>> a fan of the OTHER team? Not everyone attending a basketball game is
    >>> a fan of the team whose home stadium is being used.
    >>>
    >>> RsH

    >>
    >> Check the jersey. A non-fan isn't likely to wear a Dwight Howard #12
    >> Orlando jersey.
    >>

    >The skill of observation is one that one keeps. ;-)


    In this day and age that doesn't mean a thing, what with the number of photos that are altered using photoshop or other software. So even if
    she is shown wearing that jersey, it does NOT mean that at the game she was wearing that jersey. And if she was wearing the jersey, it still
    doesn't mean she is a fan of the team. She might like a specific player while NOT liking the team.
     
    R S H, Sep 18, 2012
    #19
  20. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:57:02 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-09-17 18:51:28 -0700, R S H <> said:
    >
    >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:44:08 -0400, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 9/17/2012 6:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>> On 2012-09-17 15:16:37 -0700, R S H <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> What is ignored in this whole stream of discussion is 'what if she was
    >>>>> a fan of the OTHER team? Not everyone attending a basketball game is
    >>>>> a fan of the team whose home stadium is being used.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> RsH
    >>>>
    >>>> Check the jersey. A non-fan isn't likely to wear a Dwight Howard #12
    >>>> Orlando jersey.
    >>>>
    >>> The skill of observation is one that one keeps. ;-)

    >>
    >> In this day and age that doesn't mean a thing, what with the number of
    >> photos that are altered using photoshop or other software. So even if
    >> she is shown wearing that jersey, it does NOT mean that at the game she
    >> was wearing that jersey. And if she was wearing the jersey, it still
    >> doesn't mean she is a fan of the team. She might like a specific player
    >> while NOT liking the team.

    >
    >OK! You got me!
    >She was actually naked, and team neutral when they got the shot. The
    >Howard jersey was just PSed on her.


    Actually, the photo is of Dwight Howard. It's the face that was
    photoshopped in.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 18, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. TechNews
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    699
    Duane Arnold
    Jun 16, 2004
  2. Tech
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
  3. olympussuit

    Olympus class action lawsuit

    olympussuit, Aug 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    715
    Chuck Gadd
    Aug 30, 2003
  4. Mark Gold

    Lawsuit over fake widescreen

    Mark Gold, Jan 7, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,039
    Brian \Demolition Man\ Little
    Jan 11, 2004
  5. Theo Markettos

    VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G

    Theo Markettos, Feb 3, 2008, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,081
    Theo Markettos
    Feb 14, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page