Ellen show used my photos- PART 2

 

<p>After reaching an agreement on the un-authorized use of my photos by the Ellen Show (see earlier thread "<em>Ellen show used my photos</em>"), I was able to see why this occurred.<br>

It seems that one of the local station's editor sent an email to the Ellen Show asking if they were still planning on running the piece (containing my photos). The response was yes, but the shows rep was more interested in if they had secured the permission of the photographer (me). For whatever reason, the editor said <strong>yes, they had</strong>!<br>

My question is this. Is the local station or the editor himself on the hook here? <br>

The Ellen Show contact I worked with sent me the email chain between the editor and the Ellen show, so this is not just "word of mouth", but rather the smoking gun.<br>

I guess I should be happy with the money I got from the Ellen show, but it really pisses me off that some lame-brain editor would give permission for something they clearly don't own.<br>

Thanks!</p>

 

<p>If you've been paid and got the exposure, what on earth would you be worried about?</p>

<p>I've had several similar instances with newspapers in the past and been only too pleased to get the money. </p>

<p>Congrats on the exposure and resolution, and kudos to the show's producers for doing the right thing. I'm sure they were just as annoyed as you that the station/editor in question lied about the situation. </p>

<p>What Matt said. I'll bet he/she got an ear-full. </p>

<p>You have been paid and I would let it go. Not everyone is an expert in copyright law. Most people are just working day-to-day and trying to get by. It may seem like it by his/her title but a local TV "editor?" is probably a very small fish. Time to drop it and move on IMO. </p>

<p>I am happy with the payment and the exposure, and certainly haved "moved on".<br>

I guess I just want to make sure this guy gets some kind of <strong>strong</strong> <strong>message</strong> so he thinks twice about doing something like this again. Thinking about sending the e-mail chain to his boss.</p>

<p>I am absolutely rabid about people retaining their rights to photos/images in this ripoff world. But I think maybe you are beating a dead horse here. I'm amazed the show "did the right thing" in so short a time and believe you are way ahead of the game.</p>

I'm not a copyright expert, but I think there are two aspects in play.

 

Although the show seems to have acted in good faith by relying on the local station's assurance that permissions were already taken care

of, that did not relieve the show from its obligation to have permission before publication. The show should have asked the local station

for a copy of the permissions document. In the absence of such copy or if its terms and conditions did not give the show permission to

publish, the show would have to obtain permission or at least an undertaking by the local station to hold harmless and indemnify the show

in the event the show had to settle with the photographer. They probably paid you because they accepted their liability.

 

Although acting on good faith in the local station's undocumented representations does not relieve the show of its obligation to the

photographer, the show might be able to recover the payment made to the photographer by claiming reimbursement from the local

station.

 

Since the local station was not the actual publisher of the photo in this situation, the photographer could probably not obtain a judgment against the local station.

<blockquote>

<p>I guess I just want to make sure this guy gets some kind of <strong>strong</strong><strong>message</strong> so he thinks twice about doing something like this again. Thinking about sending the e-mail chain to his boss.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok. So you asked.....You are now sounding like you can't let go of your moment of fame here. It is not your job to manage the station. That is up to them. What is it that you want? Suppose the station fires this guy and takes money from his family. Would that make you feel better? I sincerely hope not. </p>

 

 

<p>Rick, let me ask you this. If this guy (or one like him) tells someone you don't know that it's OK for them to use your things. Would this be OK with you? If it would, my car could use some work, can I use your bank information for a day or two?<br>

Most people don't respond to "doing wrong" unless they are severally punished.<br>

Let me jump on my soapbox for a few lines...One of the problems with our people today is because they never really learned right from wrong while growing up, so they learn that they can do what they want........ i.e. shoot a bunch of kids in school, or any one of countless terrible things people do these days.<br>

I was "taught" behind the woodshed, and learned to respect others belongings (among other things) Now we can't even spank our kids without fear of jail.<br>

My point is, if this guy didn't learn the lessons of life by now, he needs a lesson. Period.<br>

What do I want? To protect you and other photographers.</p>

 

Nonsense. You see yourself as some caped crusader who is out to save the world. You even found a way to mention

school shootings. Eye roll here.

 

Most people do respond to correction without being severely punished. In fact severe punishment should be used

sparingly. The fact is that how this guy is handled is up to his boss, not you. You don't have a dog in the fight.

 

I have been a photographer and photojournalist for a very long time. I learned long ago that it was my job to report, no

more. What other people do with that reporting is up yo them. If you want to be a PJ too, you are going to have to learn

this and get very comfortable with it. It is part of the job.

 

But you won't stop until you have potentially harmed this guy and his wife and his kids.....to no purpose whatsoever

except what? Some misguided notion that this guy will serve as an example....to whom? The other one guy in his office?

<p>For what it's worth, I think Rick's got this summed up correctly. Time to move on.</p>

<p>I disagree with Rick. I think his sentiments are totally correct, but they seem to be based on a misunderstanding of copyright infringement. I'm don't have a business or law degree, but I've read up on some similar cases in my own time, and I'm pretty sure it would go down like this:</p>

<p>If Russell DOES choose to sue over this (and I'm not saying that he should or shouldn't), the station will be the defendant. Most likely the station is incorporated, meaning that no single individual can be held legally responsible for something that 'the station' chooses to broadcast, regardless of who the editor of that show was. I'm pretty sure he could still be brought up on criminal charges if he forged Russell's signature on a release, but copyright infringement is a civil matter, and I'm fairly certain that unless there was forgery or criminal fraud involved, then the only defendant would the the station itself.</p>

<p>IF Russell sues, and IF he wins the case or settles out of court, then the editor will probably get fired. And he should be. He knowingly and illegally used copyrighted material twice, with one of those times as a way to promote his station by getting it featured on a national show. Punishing his wife and kids? Please. He breaks the same law twice, he deserves whatever punishment the courts see fit to dole out. You wouldn't keep a murder out of prison because it would make his kids grow up without a father, would you?</p>

<p>But Russell probably can't sue the editor, so at least his wife and kids won't need to pay any fines. They just need to get Dad a new job.</p>

<p>Russell, I think that it would be totally ethical of you to sue the station. I think it would also be totally ethical of you to drop it. It's really great of the Ellen Show to try to make things right with you. I'm actually really glad to hear that they did that for you, because I always really liked her, and it makes me feel good about her. Granted she's much more my mother's cup of tea, but she comes across as an honest, likable person, and I'm glad to hear that her show is run that way too. It makes me feel like maybe not everyone in entertainment is a jerk out for Number One.</p>

<p>You have a strong case against the station though, as they were very clearly in the wrong. Their employee, acting on behalf of the company, wronged you legally, and you have evidence of that in the testimony of the station's partner in this dealing. Unless you had email records where the station asked for permission to use your photo and you replied telling them no, it couldn't be any more open and shut.</p>

<p>You'd look like a jerk yourself doing this. But you would also be doing a huge favour to the greater photo community, and helping to establish legal precedent that shows what happens if you try to rip off a photographer, famous or not.</p>

<p>On the other hand, you'd be a much nicer guy if you just let it go, and let somebody else carry the torch the next time it happened. And if there's no legal repercussions for the company that actually broke the law (which there aren't yet), then it WILL happen again.</p>

<p>If it were me, I wouldn't cash the check from the Ellen Show just yet. I'd talk to a real lawyer, and see what he/she had to say. If they felt I had a case, I'd write the Ellen Show a letter thanking them for their cooperation, and telling them that I felt that the wrong party was paying for this, and that I didn't think it was right. Because ethically, you can't blame both parties for what one company did. Then I would tell them that I was going to sue the local station, and ask them if they would be willing to testify that the editor from the local station lied to them about their right to use my images. I'm pretty sure I'd settle with the local station before it went before a judge, but having someone that is willing to testify is an important piece to bring to the settlement table.</p>

<p>I'd sue the local station for everything I could. If I happened to get a ton of money, and I felt guilty about it, I'd donate most of it. Regardless of where you live, I can assure you that there is a food pantry nearby that is really hurting for money right now.</p>

<p>And I'd take Ellen's check to the bank, have them void it, send a photocopy to the show, and frame the original check :)</p>

<p>That's what <em>I</em> would do. But I am always more than willing to play the bad guy and make a jerk out of myself if I feel that it helps the community as a whole. You might not be. You need to decide for yourself what the right thing to do is. Either choice is ethical, and I think that most people on this forum will support your decision, regardless of what it is.</p>

<p>Wow, I just find this guy at the station highly incompetent and annoying. Every rolling frame of video that's being released is copyrighted, so why the same is not applied to still photos ? What in the world was he thinking ? Anyway, folks that deal with images (art dir, editors, authors, historians, directors, and slew of others) totally get the fact that this work is usually copyrighted...and if not, it should be. It protects people down the chain. So essentially this editor didn't do his job properly. Excuse me, in some types of work there is no slap on the hand or demotion....if you fail to do your job and as a result others can and do perish. Hello ? <br>

How you're going to handle this thing with the station is up to you. However, I disagree with Rick M., since this editor could easily create similar situation (again and again) for the station and their liability could increase several folds....and it can be v. costly....attorneys and court costs are not exactly reasonable. OK, so the Q is to Rick, would you let this guy go now or wait till the court/s rule in similar case of some future photog (costing X amount)....and then you'd let the guy go ?</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Zack.<br>

Very well said. Thank you.<br>

Rick.<br>

If you really think that I don't have a dog in the fight, you have <em>not</em> been paying attention. This was <strong>my</strong> photo he gave permission to use. <em>Not his</em>. My copyright protected photo I might add. I did that because I wanted the extra protection it gave me. If this guy finds himself jobless when this is over, So be it. My guess is this is not the first time something like this has happened. I know very few employers who would dump an employee over one mistake.</p>

 

<p>As for being a "caped crusader who is out to save the world". Hardly. But I do believe in protecting what is mine. Redistribution does not appeal to me any more than <em>reserving punishment</em>. These are liberal ideals, and not my cup of tea.<br>

Also, I have no interest what so ever in being a photojournalist. This was simply being there with my camera when a newsworthy event happened. I wasn't even out to make money on it. In fact, I "gave" it to everyone for the credit only. (all 4 local stations, <em>Good Morning America, & CNN</em>). It wasn't until it was <strong>taken from me</strong> that I got my undies in bunch.<br>

The current situation with the local station's editor who gave "my permission" is something that needs to be addressed. If for no other reason, simply because (as Zack said) it will happen again. No matter what we choose to do with our cameras, be it photojournalist, landscape photographer, or whatever, we need to protect our work from infringement. I guess I'm out to protect <em>our</em> world. (minus the cape) "<em>up, up & away</em>!"</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Either choice is ethical, and I think that most people on this forum will support your decision, regardless of what it is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course I disagree with this. Just because something is legal does not make it ethical. That is a problem these days. We seem to think that just because something is legal it ia good to do. So I would not support his decision to sue the station. Here is why.</p>

<p>Read the original post. He gave this station permission to use them provided they gave him credit. The court decision would have to consider the permission he gave them. If he did not specify that they could only use them locally and not share them with the network he may have no claim at all except to ask them to credit him with the work. I don't know what the document says but my guess is that there may be no paper trail at all. So if he gave his permission verbally he may have no case.</p>

<p>Now I don't intend to try this case here but the OP said this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The following day I was contacted by <em>Good Morning America</em> as well as <em>CNN</em> asking to use them. I said yes with the same need for the credit. After these went national, I decided to copyright the photos, and did so. The day after doing this, I got an email from one of the local stations asking for permission to give my contact information to the <em>Ellen Show</em>. <strong>Clearly</strong> saying that it was permission to send my contact info only. Not to use the photos.<br />I said yes, but heard nothing from the <em>Ellen Show</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This makes no sense. Why would they need his permission to give them his info? They had his (I assume verbal) permission to use the photo but they would need no permission to give his contact information and I can't imagine why they would think that they would. </p>

<p>Everyone here was careless. Here is what happened. He got a lucky shot. He was excited to see it on the media so he gave several people including two major media outlets permission to use it for free. Not in writing I would assume but verbally. He was happy as a clam and then it dawned on him that there may be money to be made here. Now all of a sudden he is the injured party. Poor photographer. Well some well meaning people at the Ellen show did the right thing and paid him some money. (A more than fair amount for a non-exclusive use by the way.) They might not have had to but they did the right thing. </p>

<p>Now he is not satisfied with his 10 minutes of fame and $750.00 and wants to go after the local station. (Which had permission to use his photo remember. And also remember that presumably they did not sell it.) </p>

<p>The people at the Ellen show are the heroes here. Our man agreed to settle with them for $750.00 for the use of the photo. He is no longer harmed. He has been made whole. That is what the show intended and that is what they have every right to expect from him. If he was going to threaten legal action for the use of the photo he should have done it then before he agreed to go away and not bother them anymore. Now if he follows Zack's suggestion they find themselves hauled into court at a minimum as witnesses after they did the right thing. </p>

<p>So I think that going after the local station would be unethical. But threre is someone here who should be taught a lesson. That person is Russell. If he wants to play in the big leagues he needs to learn the rules. An experienced professional photographer would have known about and protected his interests in the first place. He would not have gone around saying "please put my name and picture on TV free of charge" and then decided to ask for money later acting like some injured party. He made an amateur mistake but some professional media people did right by him anyway. </p>

<p>So Russell has made $750.00, gotten his name in lights for awhile, achieved national recognition he can claim for a lifetime <em>("Russell as seen on CNN, NBC and the Ellen show"</em>) and learned a valuable lesson that every single professional photographer who posts here knows: Get it in writing! Charge for your work! Then go back to work!</p>

<p>Rick, you said several things that are wrong, so I'm going to just hit on the really important ones and gloss over the rest here.</p>

<p>Russell let the local station use the photo. Since you're apparently confusing 'ethics' (which is a branch of legal study, btw) and 'law', I'll address both.</p>

<p>Ethics:<br>

The image was 'given' to the local station in good nature, to be broadcast on their show. It was then used for something else. Since the image wasn't used for the purpose for which it was 'given', the station (or editor or whatever) has acted unethically, and Russell's rights have been infringed on. Ethically, he has the right to remedy this in whatever way he sees fit, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights. Since the station has no ethical imperative to make use of others' work, and the editor has no ethical or God-given right to that job, Russell would not be doing anything unethical.</p>

<p>Legal:<br>

There is a difference between copyright and license. In allowing the image to be used locally, Russell has effectively given the station license to use that photo. Only the holder of a copyright can license it to someone else, unless that right has been given in writing. Since this editor gave licensed to use the image to The Ellen Show, he has broken copyright law. This editor (or legally, the station) has committed a civil crime, which is generally punishable by fine.</p>

<p>Secondly, Russell <em>does not</em> get to claim that his work appeared on these shows. At least, not so it would matter. The Ellen Show, through no fault of their own, used his image illegally. That is NOT the same. If that line on his resume is the only thing that gets him a job, any client that Googles that is going to see what happened, and it won't earn Russell any acclaim at all. In fact, it will probably turn the client off. If the image shows up in any other show or news article it will be as a description of the event, and that won't count either. Russell can claim he was 'shown nationally' in the exact same way that getting your mugshot on 'America's Most Wanted' is the same as 'being a model for a national television program.'</p>

<p>Lastly, your ending advise to Russell completely missed the entire point. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>So Russell [...] learned a valuable lesson that every single professional photographer who posts here knows: Get it in writing!</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

If you've been following along with the rest of us, you'd know that whether or not he had his arrangement in writing is irrelevant. All writing does is lay out what can and cannot be done legally. Since the editor has a job that already requires him knowing whatever would possibly be in that contract, that fact that you'd chastise him for failing to produce one shows that you're either not reading carefully, or you don't understand the situation.<br>

<br>

Oh, I lied ... one last thing:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And also remember that presumably they did not sell it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

What does that mean? That we should remember that an assumption was made without evidence? Or that we should remember that 'conferring a license illegally' is only illegal if there is money involved? Or should we remember that having the local news' name on a national television show is FREE ADVERTISING, and as such is worth whatever a commercial on that channel at that time costs? Arguably it's worth MORE, since viewers are more likely to pay attention to the actual show than commercial breaks.<br>

<br>

Since the television station used his image to get a "free" commercial nationwide, I figure that they owe Russell exactly the amount that it would cost to broadcast a 30-second commercial in every region that the Ellen Show aired.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since the television station used his image to get a "free" commercial nationwide, I figure that they owe Russell exactly the amount that it would cost to broadcast a 30-second commercial in every region that the Ellen Show aired.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have said enough. I will let your last statement stand. It makes no sense legally or ethically.<br>

I understand very well what is going on here Zach. You need not resort to insult. I disagree with you. Others will agree with you and others will agree with me. Either way I stand by what I said. It is my opinion based upon my sense of ethic and experience. What you and I think is irrelevant. The ball is in Russell's court. I hope he does the right thing. </p>

<p>+1 Rick M.</p>

<p>It sounds to me like human error, the Ellen show asks "did you get permission to air the photos?" the local rep says "yes we did!" and they both go away with the wrong idea, one thinking he now had permission and the other knowing that they had permission to run it on their own local show. I doubt that anybody was purposely out to damage or steal from the photographer, and by the photographers own admission they weren't the only ones to make mistakes here, as he made many of his own. I would suggest that he take it as a life lesson and move on, there is no point in pursuing it further.</p>

<p>Rick, I may have been rude to you before you were rude to me, but you played the bully card first by referring to Russell as 'poor photographer' and then writing a few snarky paragraphs about him. Don't you dare claim that I cast the first stone. I saw that you were being rude to Russell in a way that he didn't deserve, and responded in kind. As I said before, I'm not above being a jerk on someone else's behalf.</p>

<p>As John said, this may be a matter of human error. But since it's human error on the part of an employee who, as his job description, needs to know better, it's an entirely different ball of wax. We're all making our own assumptions - even me. But it comes down to this:</p>

<p>If the editor knowingly gave license illegally, then he committed a crime and ought to lose his job.</p>

<p>If the editor unknowingly gave license illegally, then it's still illegal, but I could understand it. But it means that <em>he doesn't understand something that is his job to understand</em>, and as such he should <em>still</em> lose his job.</p>

<p>Claiming that the only 'ethical' move is letting this guy go is making a statement that employees shouldn't be fired just for being bad at their jobs. That's sounds all butterflies and rainbows to me, but I'd hardly call it ethical in the grand scheme of things; it means that the station is forced to keep a sub-par employee, and <em>somewhere</em> a much more appropriate employee is losing out on an editorial job that they'd be better at than the current guy.</p>

<p>You mentioned that this would be hurting this guy's family ... if this guy gets the station sued later on, what about the family of everybody else working there? Is it more ethical to keep this guy from being screwed over, or is it more ethical to make sure that he doesn't screw over his fellow employees later?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One of the problems with our people today is because they never really learned right from wrong while growing up, so they learn that they can do what they want........ i.e. shoot a bunch of kids in school</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does anyone <em>really </em>believe that type of thing is the result of a people today not "learning right from wrong" at an early age? It is my suspicion that there are other reasons for this sort of behavior than a lack of understanding of proper social behavior. <br>

I don't think I would consider it my responsibility -- or even my place -- to attempt to mete out justice directly by communicating with the person's employer. If I felt as strongly as Russell seems to I would pursue legal action (if there is, indeed, a basis for it). </p>

<p>My take: You gave permission to some to use for free. The local editor made a mistake when talking with Ellen's show. Ellen's show used your photo. They found out about the mistake and paid you. What are your damages? You have none. The local station did not publish in violation of your copyright. You have to have damages to sue. I don't believe this is the kind of situation that would justify awarding you some kind of punitive damages. Chances are, if you pursue this, you would not prevail and never again would your local station show one of your photos.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But it means that <em>he doesn't understand something that is his job to understand</em>, and as such he should <em>still</em> lose his job.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br /><br />Or more likely, have it pointed out to him that he shouldn't have done it.<br /><br />If everyone were to lose their jobs every time they made mistakes, there wouldn't be many of us left working.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Claiming that the only 'ethical' move is letting this guy go is making a statement that employees shouldn't be fired just for being bad at their jobs. That's sounds all butterflies and rainbows to me, but I'd hardly call it ethical in the grand scheme of things; it means that the station is forced to keep a sub-par employee, and <em>somewhere</em> a much more appropriate employee is losing out on an editorial job that they'd be better at than the current guy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't argue with silliness like this. I have made my point and it appears a few people agree with me. I just must be all "butterflies and rainbows" but I am fine with that. I don't think anyone did anything "illegal". If I hurt Russell's feelings then sorry about that. He was out to ruin someones career over what can only be categorized as one of the world's biggest who-gives-a-?x(%s. </p>

<p>It is easy to rationalize hurting people. All too easy. We see it everyday. Much easier than understanding and forgiving. I guess it just depends on what kind of person you want to be. I take forgiveness and understanding when I need it and offer it to others when they do. </p>

<p>So here is a solution. Randall can write a temperate and respectful note to the employee who made the mistake. He can share with him the fact that he could have been a jerk but decided it was an honest mistake and that he knows it won't happen in the future. </p>

<p>I hesitated to say this but it is a good tiime to do it. The cold hard reality is that if Russell has aspirations of ever working as a photojournalist, ever having one of his pictures published in the local area again or ever working as a professional in his town he had better get right off his high-horse. I work in that industry and can tell you that word gets around. We know who we can trust and who is a jerk. We talk to each other. I am on friendly terms with just someone in just about every media outlet in this region. I have been privvy to these conversations time and again. We don't employ, publish or give the time of day to jerks. So it goes like this. Someone tells me how this guy Russell got 'Bill' fired. A few days later the editor asks, "anyone know Russell? He wan't to do some work for us." Across the table I just slowly shake my head and say nothing. Our friend Russell never hears the bullet that gets him. The editor doesn't ask why. She knows and trusts me. Russell may well win a battle and lose the war. He may be the one who ends up losing his job. If you think the saying "you'll never work in this business again" is Hollywood you are just wrong. </p>

<p>So let's see how wise everyone is. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>He knowingly and illegally used copyrighted material twice</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What evidence do you have that the particular editor's state of mind was to act intentionally and that it could not have been by mistake? Also, where did you get information showing that the editor or the local station, itself, displayed copyrighted material without permission?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's really great of the Ellen Show to try to make things right with you. I'm actually really glad to hear that they did that for you, because I always really liked her, and it makes me feel good about her.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would that make you feel good about 'Ellen' without knowing whether she had any involvement of any kind or even any knowledge of the situation? If she was involved, how do you know her attitude was to tell the photographer to bug off or something? Do you have some inside special knowledge of her conduct in this matter that we weren't told?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You have a strong case against the station though, as they were very clearly in the wrong. Their employee, acting on behalf of the company, wronged you legally, and you have evidence of that in the testimony of the station's partner in this dealing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What kind of case is strong? Infringement? If so, What part of the email we are told of indicates that the local station was the publisher of the image? Fraud? Where is the proof in the email that the information provided was intentionally incorrect vs. negligently provided? Unfair trade practice? What elements apply?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since this editor gave licensed to use the image to The Ellen Show, he has broken copyright law.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where did you get information showing the editor granted licensing or even purported to grant licensing? We were merely told the e-mail discussed a question of whether the <em>owner</em> of the image grated licensing. What exact copyright law did the editor break because, according to the facts told to us, the editor did not display the image so, therefore, the editor was not the infringer. Can you cite the exact part of the Copyright Act that says incorrectly mentioning that someone else has granted a license is illegal under the act? I can't seem to find it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This editor (or legally, the station) has committed a civil crime, which is generally punishable by fine… … If the editor knowingly gave license illegally, then he committed a crime</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is a "civil crime"? There is the penal code which covers crime and there is the separate civil actions where people or entities can bring lawsuits for money or court orders. Where is this hidden hybrid of American jurisprudence found? I can't find that either. While we are at it, where in civil law is there authority for private people and business to collect fines from each other without contracting for that power? Is it part of this elusive "civil crime" scheme?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you've been following along with the rest of us, you'd know that whether or not he had his arrangement in writing is irrelevant. All writing does is lay out what can and cannot be done legally.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I heard that people sometimes produce these things called written documents in court to prove facts. That sometimes its better than just testifying as to what someone said because its so easy to lie or forget about the things that are said. I guess there is no such thing in court since "[a]ll writing does is lay out what can and cannot be done legally."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since the television station used his image to get a "free" commercial nationwide, I figure that they owe Russell exactly the amount that it would cost to broadcast a 30-second commercial in every region that the Ellen Show aired.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even if the station published the image, where in the Copyright Act is this measure of damages allowed?</p>

<p>Are you really sure you should be telling Russell all these things? He sure seems to like hearing them since they sound like they support his cause but I think it would be good to cite the laws and facts you are telling him about because they seem to be secret ones and he will need to know about them more specifically before relying on them.</p>

<p> </p>