Crazy Copyright Suit Over Gigi Hadid Posting A Photo Of Herself To Instagram Shows Absurdity Inherent In Photo Copyrights

from the copyright-is-so-weird dept

One of the things about copyright that copyright supporters really hate to discuss is just how problematic the whole idea of getting copyrights on photographs can be. They basically have to twist themselves into all sorts of logical knots just to justify it in the first place. You can't get a copyright on factual information and -- some might argue -- what is a photograph but a capturing of factual information. That photograph is a factual representation of what the lens captured. To date, the way that courts have dealt with this fundamental problem is either (a) to ignore it, or (b) to construct flimsy logical houses of cards arguing that the copyright actually applies to things like the "framing" and (in some cases) lighting choices or decisions positioning of the objects in a photograph of the photographer (if those things were, indeed, done by the photographer). And you can kind of understand the thinking on that when the photographer really does "design" whatever is being photographed. But it gets more questionable when you're talking about "nature" photographs or just general snapshots walking around.

Some of this oddity is coming out in a somewhat weird, somewhat amusing case that the Fashion Law Blog has been following over the last few months. Reading through the filings in the case (some of which are embedded below) leads to a bunch of fairly absurd arguments (on both sides), many of which come out of the fundamental troubles with allowing copyright on snapshot photos in the first place. This case involves model Gigi Hadid, who is frequently photographed by the paparazzi. One day last fall, she was approached by a photographer and played along, "posing" for the photographer. The next day she found the photo online, cropped about 50% of the photo (so it was even more focused on her) and posted it to her Instagram feed. In January, an organization called Xclusive-Lee sued her for infringement.

There have been all sorts of procedural problems with the lawsuit, and I am expecting it to be tossed on those alone, without touching on most of the other issues that are popping up in the case, so let's start there. First off, as we discussed back in March, the Supreme Court has said that you can't sue until you have a copyright registration (and not just a mere application for that registration). In this case, the copyright in question has only been applied for, not issued. Xclusive-Lee's lawyers insist that because they filed the case before the Supreme Court ruled on that issue it's all fine and dandy, but that's not how the law works. Separately, the complaint doesn't establish that Xclusive-Lee actually holds the copyright on the image (it's not even clear who Xclusive-Lee is). Hadid's filings note that "Xclusive-Lee" did not take the photograph, and that's not even the name on the copyright registration form. And Xclusive-Lee has not provided any proof (such as a copyright assignment) to show that it holds the actual copyright here. That seems kind of like a big deal. Xclusive-Lee's lawyers insist that they don't need to show such evidence up front and can do it later, which seems like a weird response. Why not just show the copyright assignment upfront?

Separately, the judge has repeatedly had to scold the lawyers for Xclusive-Lee for not following the rules, which can't bode well:

I may not be a lawyer, but I would expect that judges don't very much like it when lawyers repeatedly fail to follow basic instructions.

For what it's worth, one of the lawyers for Xclusive-Lee is David Deal who has also been associated with Pixsy in the past. Pixsy is one of those scrape the internet and threaten to sue trolling operations out there.

So given all the procedural shenanigans described above, it would not surprise me at all if the case just gets tossed on those grounds. It seems like that would be the easiest (and most likely correct) way the court would go in this situation.

However, in Hadid's motion to dismiss, Hadid's lawyers also raise a fair use argument that is, shall we say, a little "out there." To be clear, I do think that there are credible fair use arguments for Hadid's usage here, but I'm not sure that Hadid's lawyers make that credible case. Instead, they suggest a bunch of things that if the court ever gets to a fair use analysis, could raise a lot of issues.

However, in dealing with the second fair use factor (the nature of the work), Hadid's lawyers strip away decades of everyone pretending that photographs deserve copyright and point out that it's simply capturing facts.

The published photograph here depicts Ms. Hadid smiling while standing in front of a non-descript building. See Compl., Ex. 1. It is not a studio composition but rather a quick “shot in a public setting,” and there is no allegation that the photographer “attempted to convey ideas, emotions, or in any way influence [the subject’s] pose, expression, or clothing.” Katz v. Google Inc., 802 F.3d 1178, 1183 (11th Cir. 2015). In such circumstances, the photograph is considered a factual work, not a creative one, thus favoring a determination of fair use. See id.; Otto v. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 3d 412, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (second factor favored fair use where photograph at wedding was “spontaneously taken to document its subjects, as they were in the moment,” and where photographer “did not direct or pose the subjects of the photo, nor control the lighting or the background”).

To bolster that point, they argue that because Hadid "posed" for the photograph, she's actually partially responsible for some of the copyright-covered elements of the photograph (remember, earlier cases have held copyright on photographs can apply to the arrangement in the photograph, if done by the photographer). But what if that "arrangement" is done by the subject of the photograph? Uh, that would shake up copyright, and reminds me of the crazy Garcia v. Google case where the 9th Circuit (briefly, before fixing its bad ruling) decided that an actress in a film could hold a copyright in her own performance. Here, Hadid's lawyers argue that there's a stronger fair use argument because of Hadid's own contributions to the photograph and even hint that maybe she should be declared a "joint author." That, alone, would shake up the copyright world.

In fact, the second factor strongly favors Ms. Hadid here because Ms. Hadid posed for the camera and thus herself contributed many of the elements that the copyright law seeks to protect. See Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301, 307 (2d Cir. 1992) (elements of originality in photograph include “posing [of] the subjects”); see also Gillespie v. AST Sportswear, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 1911, 2001 WL 180147, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2001) (jury could find defendant was joint author of photographs where defendant contributed to “clothing” and “poses” of models). Where creative features come not from the photographer but rather from the subject, holding the subject liable for infringement does not nothing to “foster” what the Copyright Act values....

Xclusive-Lee's lawyers hit back on that point arguing that this would more or less destroy copyright in lots of photographs:

The Photograph in this case is undoubtedly a highly creative and expressive, not factual, work. It is not just a mere snapshot of an individual on a street corner taken on a cellphone; the Photograph in this case is a highly creative work, involving a number of creative choices including timing, lighting, angle, composition, and others. Taken to its logical conclusion, the Hadid’s position would deem any photograph of a real-world location or individual to be a factual, thinly protected work.

Well, yeah. As noted up top, this is the whole myth about copyrights in photographs that lawyers and courts have sought to avoid discussing for years, so it's actually kinda cool that the issue is being raised here -- though I doubt the court will end up dealing with it.

Xclusive-Lee also hits back hard on the mere suggestions that Hadid might be a joint author:

Concerning Hadid’s assertion that she somehow maintains joint copyright in the Photograph because she noticed the photographer and smiled at the moment the photographer chose to snap the shutter is preposterous. Ms. Hadid is as much a joint copyright holder in the Photograph as the subject of a biography is joint copyright holder to the words used by the author to describe her life.

Hadid’s assertion tests the limits of cynicism because Hadid has gone out of her way to criticize photographers like the author of the Photograph as a necessary evil of the publicity she receives. []. Also, it is well worth pointing out Hadid makes a point of regularly copying these same street photographs (to be fair, Hadid regularly copies and posts runway images of her without license or permission of the copyright holders) of herself to her Instagram page []., which contribute to her online presence, popularity, and most importantly her marketability. If Hadid were genuinely interested in accomplishing the same thing but without being a serial copyright infringer, she could properly license the images or hire someone to take similar photographs of her liking. Instead, Hadid wants to have it both ways. She derides the individuals who capture photographs of her, then turns around and appropriates their work.

As if both sides of this equation aren't exploiting each other?

The other element of Hadid's fair use argument that is interesting, but seems highly unlikely to persuade the judge in the case, is to argue that posting to social media is, by itself, transformative:

According to the Complaint, Ms. Hadid merely reposted the photograph to her Instagram page and made no effort to commercially exploit it. Compl. ¶¶ 9-11. Her reposting thus reflected a personal purpose different than the photographer’s purpose in taking the photograph, which was to commercially exploit Ms. Hadid’s popularity.

That's certainly an interesting argument, but I'd be shocked if judges ruled that reposting images to social media for "personal purpose" is transformative from the photographer's interest in commercially exploiting the photograph. I'm usually first in line to defend a variety of things as transformative, but this argument seems unpersuasive. Of course, Xclusive-Lee's response to this point also misrepresents the current state of things with regards to transformativeness as well:

The purported purpose of Hadid in using the Photograph here is not even close to being transformative. Accordingly, under the language of Campbell itself, the second work must actually either make some critical use of, or change to, the original work to qualify as transformative. Hadid’s use of the Photograph here does nothing of the sort. The Photograph is a well-executed, candid, street photograph of Ms. Hadid. Hadid posted it in its original, barely cropped form for the purpose of depicting exactly that. Hadid has not claimed she copied and posted the Photograph for any of the established albeit narrowly defined statutory allowances, including commentary, criticism, reporting, or research.

This is blatantly misrepresenting fair use. Fair use is not in any way limited to "narrowly defined statutory allowances." Indeed, Section 107 clearly uses "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research," (note: a longer list than Xclusive suggests) as representative examples. It explicitly says "for purposes such as" highlighting that those are examples, not an exclusive list. This is not "fair dealing" -- which has narrowly defined statutory allowances. It's fair use, which has long been applied by looking at the whole of the situation, rather than through any "narrowly defined statutory allowances."

Even so, I'm not convinced that the re-posting is "transformative" under fair use -- though I would argue that there are other reasons why it should be declared fair use. I just don't think Hadid's motion lays those out very well.

Still, this is an interesting case, even just to see the slightly nutty arguments on both sides. I fully expect the judge to go the easiest and most direct route of tossing it out for the failure to get the registered copyright (let alone failing to show that Xclusive-Lee holds the copyright) and not for any element in the fair use argument. However, if the case does move forward, it certainly could shake up copyright law if the court starts to dig in on some of those fair use arguments...

Filed Under: copyright, copyright registration, fair use, framing, gigi hadid, joint authorship, photographs, transformative
Companies: david deal, xclusive-lee


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 28 Jun 2019 @ 8:31am

    You can't get a copyright on factual information and -- some might argue -- what is a photograph but a capturing of factual information. That photograph is a factual representation of what the lens captured.

    I'm all for reining in copyright abuse, but that's a facially silly argument. If you can say that, you can just as easily say "a book is nothing but the factual representation of the words the author wrote," etc.

    [massive list of procedural problems and irregularities]

    Now that is a good reason to throw out this suit. Challenging the very concept of copyrightability of photos... not so much.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      ANANONANA, 28 Jun 2019 @ 9:34am

      Re:

      Yeah, I was going to make a post expressing a very similar sentiment about the copyrightability of photographs... I expect quite a few people will post on that topic as well.

      I mean really, photographs a simple reproduction? You should go to more photography exhibitions.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        OldMugwump (profile), 28 Jun 2019 @ 11:11am

        Re: Re: photographs a simple reproduction?

        Photographs are a simple reproduction of the light that fell on the image sensor (as processed, non-creatively, by software in the camera).

        I think the idea is that photographs deserve (some level of) copyright protection because there is usually an element of creativity in arranging that light.

        If a photographer sets up a scene, arranges props, controls lighting, devises framing, enhances creatively in Photoshop, etc., there's pretty clearly an element of creativity involved.

        But not in every photograph. At the other extreme, a security camera snapping photos of a parking lot every minute, 24/7, doesn't seem to me to involve any creativity at all.

        So if we're going to go with the traditional copyright notion that creativity is of the essence, then some photos qualify, and others don't.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gary (profile), 28 Jun 2019 @ 12:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: photographs a simple reproduction?

          So if we're going to go with the traditional copyright notion that creativity is of the essence, then some photos qualify, and others don't.

          This argument is as old as the camera. Many artists embraced the new technology. Others really wondered if this was "art" at all. Especially since it was infinitely repeatable. It wasn't art if you had the negative and could make a thousand more prints - it was just mechanical duplication.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Bruce C., 28 Jun 2019 @ 5:30pm

          Re: Re: Re: photographs a simple reproduction?

          Obviously you have never spent time in a darkroom...or using Photoshop. Even with simple ducking or filtering, the resulting image often bears little resemblance to the original pattern of light.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 28 Jun 2019 @ 9:37am

      Re:

      I'm all for reining in copyright abuse, but that's a facially silly argument. If you can say that, you can just as easily say "a book is nothing but the factual representation of the words the author wrote," etc.

      ...but the words the author wrote are the thing that's copyrighted. The objects in the photograph are not.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2019 @ 10:28am

        Re: Re:

        ...but the words the author wrote are the thing that's copyrighted. The objects in the photograph are not.

        I think you'll find that it's the arrangement of the words the author wrote that are copyrighted. The words themselves mostly are reprints from a dictionary. And reproduction is controlled by copyright, so it's not the act of writing the words down that's copyrighted either. It's purely the arrangement. Likewise, it has been argued that it's the arrangement of the objects in the photograph that get the copyright, and that's where semantics count, as in this case the model argues SHE did the arranging of the subject of the photograph, not the photographer, who just captured factual data.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2019 @ 10:33am

        Re: Re:

        ...but the words the author wrote are the thing that's copyrighted. The objects in the photograph are not.

        When those objects are people, shouldn't we consider whether they're being creative too? If framing can give the photographer a copyright interest, why can't posing give the photographed person a copyright interest?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Jun 2019 @ 11:19am

      Re:

      I'm all for reining in copyright abuse, but that's a facially silly argument. If you can say that, you can just as easily say "a book is nothing but the factual representation of the words the author wrote," etc.

      No, because the creativity in writing a book is in the arrangement of the words. The comparison there would be a painting. In both cases, you are starting from a blank slate and creating. Photographing a mountain is different from painting one.

      And, again, you can get the copyright based on the choices you make in that photograph, but it should be very, very limited, since much of the photograph of the mountain was not your creative doing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        michael, 28 Jun 2019 @ 12:09pm

        Re: Re:

        Since there are a billion examples of creativity in photography (you've conveniently chosen "a mountain," as though every picture is just a landscape while ignoring 90+% of art photography of the past 150 years), including images showing things that, in fact, are NOT there but appear to be, I'd love to see how you'd word a law that would make some photography copyrightable and some not.

        Given that the shit most people take with the cell phone isn't exactly Cindy Sherman, please enlighten us on how you'd differentiate the former from the latter.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gary (profile), 28 Jun 2019 @ 12:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Given that the shit most people take with the cell phone isn't exactly Cindy Sherman, please enlighten us on how you'd differentiate the former from the latter.

          Exactly - does all that shit taken with a cellphone deserve the same copyright protection as a novel? If most of it is shit, where do you draw the line?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Jun 2019 @ 1:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You will note that I have been careful to be explicit that there is a difference when photographing things in nature vs. things arranged by the photographer.

          The law already covers such differences. Copyright on a landscape photo is already fairly light and does not cover as much as some think.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Optical Point (profile), 30 Jun 2019 @ 5:58am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yeah, but that depends on which country we’re talking about. Some countries are more strict on their copyright coverage, while others aren’t. So just because one country allows you to post a landscape photo doesn’t mean all countries will.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    N. Souciant, 28 Jun 2019 @ 9:34am

    Thanks for wasting an hour of YOUR time on this anomaly.

    These one-time "nutty" cases keep you out of further mischief.

    But have zero effect on copyright.

    As to your musings on photographs: they didn't just "frame" themselves, now did they? Your take is silly as silly as asserting that the characters I put up here have no identifiable cause or source.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Glen, 28 Jun 2019 @ 10:04am

      Re: Thanks for wasting an hour of YOUR time on this anomaly.

      Thanks for wasting time with a silly response.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2019 @ 10:12am

      Re: Thanks for wasting an hour of YOUR time on this anomaly.

      For someone who loves to whine about corporations controlling speech, you sure do love to support the idea when it involves copyright.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Gary (profile), 28 Jun 2019 @ 1:00pm

        Re: Re: Thanks for wasting an hour of YOUR time on this anomaly.

        For someone who loves to whine about corporations controlling speech, you sure do love to support the idea when it involves copyright.

        You have raised a salient point. The answer is, "Because some smart person at Reason said that copyright is essential and belongs to class A1 people."

        Thus, Blue Balls can safely ignore the consequences of corporate copyright. Corporate censorship is welcome to Blue.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2019 @ 7:13am

          Re: Re: Re: Thanks for wasting an hour of YOUR time on this anom

          I wouldn't put words into the mouths of the folks over at Reason on the stuff blue balls rants about. (From what I've read of them, they are consistently pro-230, even, although their more-or-less silence on copyright issues is mildly unfortunate.)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2019 @ 5:59pm

      Re:

      How's the Fox Rothschild defense fund coming along, bro?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 29 Jun 2019 @ 12:11am

      Re: Thanks for wasting an hour of YOUR time on this anomaly.

      I wonder... if I search for you whining about "anomalies" on this site, how many words and how much time have wasted in doing so?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    andy, 28 Jun 2019 @ 9:40am

    Can you reproduce the text from the judge's rebuke, I can't read it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ANANONANA, 28 Jun 2019 @ 9:43am

    Please someone correct me but the subject of the photo does not have a direct copyright over the photograph. However, due to more recently developed precedents etc they do have image rights.

    So Xclusive-Lee would hold the copyright for the photo but could not publish it or exploit it commercially without a waiver from the subject, correct? Could Hadid cross litigate on that ground, if the various fuckups and misrepresentations by Xclusive-Lee's lawyers don't sink the case first?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 28 Jun 2019 @ 10:11am

      Re:

      Image rights are a confusing and contradictory mess that only exist in states with statutes that grant such image rights. As paparazzi haven't suddenly disappeared from existence and this lawsuit doesn't make image rights claims, I imagine whatever 'recently developed precedents' exist aren't as broad as you seem to assume.

      And if they are that broad, it is likely copyright, a federal statute, overrides the state level image rights.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2019 @ 9:47am

    This smells like someone hoping to make money off of someone else celebrity, and annoyed that the celebrity has possibly reduced their market.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Christenson, 28 Jun 2019 @ 10:07am

    That is not art which arrives at its result by chance....

    And, for a photograph, the question is what part is art, what part is chance??? Let me fingerpaint a mustache on Mike Masnick's stock photo.

    Yes, those photos at an exhibition show quite a bit of original artifice, possibly worth a copyright.

    I also think a due diligence standard needs to apply if there is to be a copyright...meaning both registration and notice. It's nuts if a photograph is out there but there is no indication of its copyright status, and no indication the author actually cared...see that blur of my pants my phone keeps taking??? lol.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2019 @ 10:53am

      Re: That is not art which arrives at its result by chance....

      I also think a due diligence standard needs to apply if there is to be a copyright...meaning both registration and notice.

      ...and an annual property tax, which would nicely take care of the orphan works problem.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ArkieGuy (profile), 28 Jun 2019 @ 10:56am

    So wait....

    Didn't we already determine that the monkey didn't get the copyright? ;)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2019 @ 12:24pm

    Some common sense

    Okay, so maybe this is more of a 'makes sense to a toddler' sort of things, but if someone takes a picture of me, I don't see what the problem would be if I were to show it to others... it's a picture of "me" so it seems "fair" that I can show it to others... ... I wouldn't be able to monetize it, but I should be able to make use of it as long as there's no direct monetization (like selling the picture on a shirt or mug).
    Now, if I were famous/popular, one could argue that anything I do could be monetized, but as long as I'm not taking the credit for someone else's work (or directly selling it), what's the issue?

    You don't want me using your pictures, then I don't want you using me in your pictures.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2019 @ 12:57pm

    gIgi posed for the photo, she chose the cloths to wear,
    its a photo taken in the street,
    the photographer did not set up lighting or a backround .this is an important
    case ,one photo of a famous person shopping or with a child or a friend can be sold for 1000,s of dollars .
    papparazzi follow famous people around just to take photo,s
    which are sold to tabloids ,
    or magazines like People .
    i think many photo,s can be art IF they the photographer select,s the background, lighting, the lens used , where to place the subject.
    Every day photos, of ivanka trump are taken as she leaves for work.
    thats the problem with america ,they want to place everything
    under copyright ,
    even basic photos that require no creative input.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Optical Point (profile), 28 Jun 2019 @ 1:37pm

    Wow. How Dystopian!

    ...and there is no allegation that the photographer “attempted to convey ideas, emotions, or in any way influence [the subject’s] pose, expression, or clothing.”

    Wow, what a harsh way to treat content.

    ...In such circumstances, the photograph is considered a factual work, not a creative one, thus favoring a determination of fair use.

    So in other words, DeviantArt is a no-go and anything that has creativity and brings community togethers goes down with it? These guys don’t understand how copyright is supposed to work, and I’d be surprised if they somehow make it better.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2019 @ 4:02pm

      Re: Wow. How Dystopian!

      No, you're misinterpreting the argument. Hadid's lawyers are saying that in this case, in these circumstances, this particular photograph doesn't merit a copyright. They are not saying, as you suggest, that all photographs are unworthy of copyright.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2019 @ 2:10pm

    arguing that this would more or less destroy copyright in lots of photographs

    You want to know what happens when you destroy a bunch of IP rights? Go ask Alice/ I think she'll know.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2019 @ 6:10am

    Answer this.
    I take my family to Magic Kingdom in Disney World. I stand everyone in front of Cinderella Castle pose them the way I want get the settings on the camera I want and the lighting just right. Then grab some rando walking by to press the button instead of hauling around a tripod and setting a timer.
    Who owns the copyright? Me? The rando? Disney (it is their castle in the background)?
    As long as this is even a question with a debatable answer there is a problem with copyright.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2019 @ 5:12pm

    A Company, operating in a public space, can boot who it wants for whatever reason. Run it how you want, it is yours.

    A Person, walking in a public space, has no right to tell someone else that they can't speak, has no expectation of privacy nor of any other right if it infringes any others rights, can be sued for re-posting an image they find of themselves that someone else took.

    Photographer can just take a pic of someone else, can't they?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.