Sports Illustrated Swipes Photo of Woman in Her Underwear

[Col. Bleep]

http://extramustard.si.com/2013/12/...rgarments-during-a-blowout-loss/?xid=ob_blogs

They "credit" Syracusefan as the source...even though Orange46R has the copyright.
No way this is legal as "fair use."
But big media generally don't care.

A good lesson for all of us...once you post something to the world there's no controlling what happens to it.

 

[CaptainJ]

I'm no expert in regards to copyrights, but if I post a picture i took(or obtained, that wasnt copyrighted), do I automatically have a copyright on it? Something tells me this is not the case.

I liked the rest of your post though, especially the lesson at the end. There's at least one more lesson as well. Most anything you do in public is able to be shown to the world. I don't doubt this is the first time someone has had to take off their gear at a game for whatever reason, but it looks like it is SU fans are the first ones I've noticed who made it go viral. Then again I stopped following most media, so I could have missed a lot.

I wonder if traffic and registrations have picked up with all the free advertising?

 

[Col. Bleep]

I'm no expert in regards to copyrights, but if I post a picture i took(or obtained, that wasnt copyrighted), do I automatically have a copyright on it? Something tells me this is not the case.

I liked the rest of your post though, especially the lesson at the end. There's at least one more lesson as well. Most anything you do in public is able to be shown to the world. I don't doubt this is the first time someone has had to take off their gear at a game for whatever reason, but it looks like it is SU fans are the first ones I've noticed who made it go viral. Then again I stopped following most media, so I could have missed a lot.

I wonder if traffic and registrations have picked up with all the free advertising?

The VERY general rule is that person who records something in "a tangible medium of expression" (such as a photograph) holds the copyright. There are complications and limitations, of course, but that's the simplest statement of the law.

 

[Madbiker]

This girl is famous now.Maybe she can parlay that into appearances on Jerry Springer and Oprah. Maybe even Today. Next thing you know, she'll be a sideline reporter for ESPN.

 

[tee1222]

All legal ramifications aside, I'm pumped. The thread sort of lives on!

 

[IthacaMatt]

I'm no expert in regards to copyrights, but if I post a picture i took(or obtained, that wasnt copyrighted), do I automatically have a copyright on it? Something tells me this is not the case.

I liked the rest of your post though, especially the lesson at the end. There's at least one more lesson as well. Most anything you do in public is able to be shown to the world. I don't doubt this is the first time someone has had to take off their gear at a game for whatever reason, but it looks like it is SU fans are the first ones I've noticed who made it go viral. Then again I stopped following most media, so I could have missed a lot.

I wonder if traffic and registrations have picked up with all the free advertising?

Yes, copyright exists as soon as you set something down in a fixed medium of expression. To protect that copyright, though, you need to provide notice to others ("c in a circle" logo, followed by the name of the person or entity who owns the work, the year, and the statement "All Rights Reserved").

If you do that (or create a watermark on a visual image that you post online that says pretty much the same thing), then you are able to enforce your rights as copyright holder. In the absence of public notice (or prompt notice post-publication), you forfeit your rights.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

This girl is famous now.Maybe she can parlay that into appearances on Jerry Springer and Oprah. Maybe even Today. Next thing you know, she'll be a sideline reporter for ESPN.

I'm thinking more like a sideline reporter at the truck pull or pig rasslin.

 

[jekelish]

I have to admit, I kind of feel bad for the girl. And I feel kinda bad for Orange46R because I know this wasn't his intent to have it go viral like this...but man, this girl - who may or may not have issues, may have just lost a bet, who knows? - was sitting at a game and had no clue that she was about to be passed around the internet like this. And again, I know Orange46R never intended for that to happen when he started that thread, since he deleted it, and all.

So now she's being mocked and laughed at by all kinds of sites, which now includes Sports freaking Illustrated. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I really do feel for her.

 

[Col. Bleep]

Yes, copyright exists as soon as you set something down in a fixed medium of expression. To protect that copyright, though, you need to provide notice to others ("c in a circle" logo, followed by the name of the person or entity who owns the work, the year, and the statement "All Rights Reserved").

If you do that (or create a watermark on a visual image that you post online that says pretty much the same thing), then you are able to enforce your rights as copyright holder. In the absence of public notice (or prompt notice post-publication), you forfeit your rights.

Actually, that's not quite right, Matt.
I didn't want to get into the complications.
But the bottom line is that if you don't perfect your copyright via registration it means you just can't take advantage of some of the statutory protections (such as the ability to collect prescribed statutory damages and attorneys fees).
But the copyright interest itself still exists and can be enforced.
The problem is you have to show actual damages and they may be too minimal to justify the expense of litigation.
That's what big media such as Sports Illustrated are counting on.

 

[PoppyHart]

I really hope this girl doesn't harm/kill herself. She looks older than the typical bullying victims you read about, but social media is such a beatch and this girl's life may be forever altered if she's not mentally strong enough to overcome.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

I really hope this girl doesn't harm/kill herself. She looks older than the typical bullying victims you read about, but social media is such a beatch and this girl's life may be forever altered if she's not mentally strong enough to overcome.

if she is brazen enough to wear underwear in front of 25 k actual people, Im guessing she can handle being in front of millions of virtual observers.

 

[strumpfasaurus]

I have to admit, I kind of feel bad for the girl. And I feel kinda bad for Orange46R because I know this wasn't his intent to have it go viral like this...but man, this girl - who may or may not have issues, may have just lost a bet, who knows? - was sitting at a game and had no clue that she was about to be passed around the internet like this. And again, I know Orange46R never intended for that to happen when he started that thread, since he deleted it, and all.

So now she's being mocked and laughed at by all kinds of sites, which now includes Sports freaking Illustrated. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I really do feel for her.

If the girl had issues, then I agree with you and do feel for this girl. Someone with a legit problem should not be passed around the internet. If this was because she lost a bet or something like that then I can't really help feeling sorry for her, in today's day and age you should know better.

 

[PoppyHart]

"He was shocked. She then immediately starting putting her clothes back on after that. She then started to cry and then a fan came up and starting to talk to her, I think he was checking on her. At this point, she was just bawling her eyes out."

http://www.syracuse.com/axeman/index.ssf/2013/12/syracuse_basketball_underwear.html

I suppose we can believe that she was a rebel, a veritable Morganna the Kissing Bandit of the modern era, and then feel at ease.

I wonder when the last time a streaker at a sporting event was caught and then started to bawl their eyes out?

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

"He was shocked. She then immediately starting putting her clothes back on after that. She then started to cry and then a fan came up and starting to talk to her, I think he was checking on her. At this point, she was just bawling her eyes out."

http://www.syracuse.com/axeman/index.ssf/2013/12/syracuse_basketball_underwear.html

I suppose we can believe that she was a rebel, a veritable Morganna the Kissing Bandit of the modern era, and then feel at ease.

I wonder when the last time a streaker at a sporting event was caught and then started to bawl their eyes out?

Yeah, we can come up with some stories about why it might have been "cool" for her to do this, but instead I suspect she has some pretty serious issues. The older guy (father? uncle?) she was with seemed shocked and appalled at what she did, but as though perhaps it wasn't her first time. Clothing removal is pretty common in people with mental disorders. The fact that she started genuinely crying does not bode well for her mental status.

 

[cto]

I feel bad for the girl... and I feel bad for Orange46R. Neither she nor he realized it would go viral on the internet. Orange46R clearly felt bad about posting it when he deleted his post. But it was obviously too late to prevent its further dissemination. Based on what was said about her in the Brent Axe article, I hope she will be all right.

I think the moral of the story, once again, is the power of the internet. Random comments and pictures ... whether in a sports forum, a blog, on Twitter, or on Facebook..... can have a life of their own... far beyond what the poster wanted or imagined. I think it is a good lesson for anyone reading this thread.

 

[CaptainJ]

Pre-save edit: Much of what I say here isn't aimed at this specific event but uses it to point out concerns with both a knowingly diseased media, and a less guilty but just as diseased public consciousness. So my intent isn't to offend the copyright holder(lol, i still get a kick out of that even if others dont understand why), or those who would think I'm taking a swipe at him or the behavior of this forum. It's more about how beliefs are formed, the apparent lack of vigilance when it comes to such, and our belief that the providers we seemingly choose to follow(dont worry, I won't trouble you with biological evidence against free will here) have our best interest in mind(that last part isnt so much in question in this example).

Back in the original 317 thread, I posted what I just learned is supposedly "copyrighted" material(lol) in which I brazenly lashed out at both mainstream journalism(both the "serious" and the more obvious infotainment), and the average brain-numbed American(I'd say Westerner, but I won't assume all Western countries are this guilty) who readily laps stories up like a dehydrated canine who doesn't have the strength to get to water and has to take whatever is in the bowl brought to it. While I originally praised the OP(I dont want to give the dude grief by even mentioning his screen name) like everyone else, I felt a powerful mid-sentence responsibility to issue an admonishment that it wasn't proper journalism to not utter the 1 syllable, "Why?" to the subject. Certainly the OP knew a d*mned large enough audience here would see it, and mentally have their way with it(no, not that way, well not necessarily anyhow) with the stories they came up with, on top of his brief and now oft-quoted blurb. As for the other quoted fellow who called in, I certainly have no proof that he was in that seat, not that it would matter if I did. He didn't take the time to utter the one syllable either. Is this society uncaring, incurious, or do we not find things of import until they are validated by large numbers of others, generally directed by the media? At least this story, unlike the predigested propaganda the 6 corporations that own 95% of all media serve to us, lets us realize "we don't know". The OP could have easily at the outset listed as fact one of the many possibilities that we later engineered, and with the proper story odds are most of us would have accepted it(myself included, possibly).

With liberty comes responsibility. When I feel compelled to write something I consider of import, I realize my popularity on here could take a hit from those who don't share the same sensibilities. No one can argue the intent wasn't to have a laugh at someone else's expense. My question to you is: at what number of people does it stop being ok to make fun of someone? That was not a rhetorical question, I'd appreciate as many answers as possible. Apparently we got more sensitive when others outside the tribe joined in the same activity(like uninvited guests to the orgy), and yet others observed the actions of our tribe and found it in poor taste. This isn't a judgment of the thread, just an observation in the change in tone and some of the factors that may have effected it. I don't claim to have all the answers, but things like this interest me and I feel are worthy of discussion(especially with so few games upcoming). I sometimes like to gauge how close or far my mind is from those of others(if not for our flesh, how much would we look alike?), and admit my communication has it's flaws. But I'm working on it, and this seems like a relatively safe(albeit not the most expedient) place to grow a bit as a person, kind of like getting playing time in some of the pre-conference games. I think we feel a certain degree of safety here that we don't elsewhere, and that became apparent when our latest Frankenstein escaped the confines of the castle.

copyright 12/10/2013 CaptainJ, may not be reposted/reprinted in part or in whole (yes, that includes quotes) without express written consent from CaptainJ. Not that Axeman or anyone would ever care to lift anything thoughtful from here.

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

Talked to a law professor friend about this and he seems to think that while not technically legal, the law hasn't really settled a case that deals with someone disseminating something on a public forum and then it going viral. He said he believes that since it's a public space and Internet users should be aware of the viral nature of the medium, they typically would not have recourse -- until someone actually sues to have their material taken down on other websites (which obviously is a lengthy process).

Basically, websites know it takes a long time to get people to take this stuff down, and since it happened in public and was posted on a public forum, the "illegal" nature of taking it and using it on other websites is lessened.

 

[two3zone]

I feel bad for all the Mardi Gras flashers...

The sole responsibility to me is on the girl, if she was mentally unstable then I place the blame on the chode sitting next to her. Poster did nothing wrong by snapping the photo nor posting it.

 

[Col. Bleep]

Talked to a law professor friend about this and he seems to think that while not technically legal, the law hasn't really settled a case that deals with someone disseminating something on a public forum and then it going viral. He said he believes that since it's a public space and Internet users should be aware of the viral nature of the medium, they typically would not have recourse -- until someone actually sues to have their material taken down on other websites (which obviously is a lengthy process).

Basically, websites know it takes a long time to get people to take this stuff down, and since it happened in public and was posted on a public forum, the "illegal" nature of taking it and using it on other websites is lessened.

The "virality" idea is interesting...but from a pure copyright perspective, I take a different view.
And I don't think it matters whether the medium in which the photo appears is online, print, TV or anything else.

We're getting really hypothetical now but...suppose instead of wanting his photo withdrawn, Orange46R wanted to be paid for his work.
It seems to me Sports Illustrated (and other infringers) would have to work out a deal (or force him to sue).

One of my favorite cases is largely on point...the case of Hugo Zachini the Human Cannonball.


(I link to the trailer because it's obviously posted for promotional reasons).
The trailer only has a few good seconds beginning at about :55 in.
But that makes the point.
The guy had a brief limited act.
A TV station couldn't show the whole thing...it all but destroyed Hugo's right and ability to make money from his performance.

Same thing with the photo of the woman at the Indiana game.
You can't just steal it...That photo is the entire work.
Using it destroys the copyright holder's right to profit from it (not that Orange46R ever would want to do that).

Another good example is the way helicopter pilot Bob Tur enforced his rights to the video he shot of thugs beating up truck driver Reginald Denny during LA's Rodney King riots.
He sued.
People stopped swiping his video.

 

[Fireball Jr.]

The "virality" idea is interesting...but from a pure copyright perspective, I take a different view.
And I don't think it matters whether the medium in which the photo appears is online, print, TV or anything else.

We're getting really hypothetical now but...suppose instead of wanting his photo withdrawn, Orange46R wanted to be paid for his work.
It seems to me Sports Illustrated (and other infringers) would have to work out a deal (or force him to sue).

One of my favorite cases is largely on point...the case of Hugo Zachini the Human Cannonball.


(I link to the trailer because it's obviously posted for promotional reasons).
The trailer only has a few good seconds beginning at about :55 in.
But that makes the point.
The guy had a brief limited act.
A TV station couldn't show the whole thing...it all but destroyed Hugo's right and ability to make money from his performance.

Same thing with the photo of the woman at the Indiana game.
You can't just steal it...That photo is the entire work.
Using it destroys the copyright holder's right to profit from it (not that Orange46R ever would want to do that).

Another good example is the way helicopter pilot Bob Tur enforced his rights to the video he shot of thugs beating up truck driver Reginald Denny during LA's Rodney King riots.
He sued.
People stopped swiping his video.

I hereby promote you from colonel to generalissimo, my good friend and one-time (actually, two-time) colleague.

 

[sutomcat]

I'm no expert in regards to copyrights, but if I post a picture i took(or obtained, that wasnt copyrighted), do I automatically have a copyright on it? Something tells me this is not the case.

I liked the rest of your post though, especially the lesson at the end. There's at least one more lesson as well. Most anything you do in public is able to be shown to the world. I don't doubt this is the first time someone has had to take off their gear at a game for whatever reason, but it looks like it is SU fans are the first ones I've noticed who made it go viral. Then again I stopped following most media, so I could have missed a lot.

I wonder if traffic and registrations have picked up with all the free advertising?

There has definitely been a surge in users requesting handles. Some might be related to the football team/its quest for a bowl game and some just based on the great play by the basketball team early, but based on timing, most of it has been driven by "the photo".

 

[Col. Bleep]

I hereby promote you from colonel to generalissimo, my good friend and one-time (actually, two-time) colleague.

That's me... two-timer.

But I will stick with the Khaddfy model and remain a Colonel.
My favorite military "strong man" was Master Sergeant Samuel K. Doe who took over Liberia back in the 80's (and whom Ronald Reagan once called "Chairman Moe").
I never figured out why a guy who leads a revolution can't promote himself beyond Sgt.

I thought you'd appreciate Hugo Zachini...although judging from the trailer that film looks dreadful.

 

[upperdeck]

At what point does the person in the photo get any rights to the picture being released to the public? why do some things require people to sign a release form and others dont seem to?

 

[PoppyHart]

At what point does the person in the photo get any rights to the picture being released to the public? why do some things require people to sign a release form and others dont seem to?

I think a lot of this discussion has overlooked the concept of "fair use". In general, pictures and accounts (or at least portions thereof) can be taken without proper attribution if its deemed newsworthy or used for educational purposes. I believe the release forms typically relate to commercial endeavors and waiving rights of privacy.

 

[llandz]

I haven't read the whole thread. But many years ago there was a famous case with nude pictures taken of Brad Pitt and Gweneth Paltrow when they were dating.They were on vacation and sunbathing nude on the terrace. A paparazzi photographer took photos and posted them on the internet. The internet and the public use of it was fairly new at the time. Playgirl magazine took the photos from the internet and put them in the magazine. Brad Pitt then sued the magazine. My sister in law was the attorney for the magazine. I think the prevailing opinion by all of the attorneys at the time was that non copyrighted material on the internet becomes the public domain. Anyways, they settled out of court because both parties did not want to draw out the negative publicity. Things have changed a lot since this case. No one thought to copyright their material before placing it on the internet. Now it is almost always done. And I am sure there must be more precedent cases on this.

OK. Now for the funny story. My sister in law flew out to LA for the deposition. As each person entered the room, the parties present introduced themselves, and shook hands. When my sister in law came in the same thing happened, but now Brad Pitt was there, and he did not introduce himself or extend his hand. So she walked right up to him, put out her hand and said, I am so and so (leaving out her name) and you are???