Hustler magazine loses nude news anchor photo fair use appeal

[john_h.1]

<p>http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0267p-06.pdf</p>

<p> </p>

[parv]

Background, summary: http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/08_-_August/Hustler_loses_appeal_over_news-anchor_photo/ (text/html)

[William Kahn]

<p>The good news is that the appeals court decision is another precedent in support of copyright law, meaning it's also a win for the good guys; i.e. the rest of us...</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>I am kind of curious about the original phogorapher. Why did he give up his copyright?</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>From the one link "Bosley and her husband negotiated with the photographer for rights to the photos, which they registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in 2004." I'd say the original amateur photographer gave up his copyright because he received some offer that made it worth his while, William. </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Buying the copyright and suing for infringement may deter publications but "The Barbara Streisand Effect" in suing has garnered even more public attention negating the entire purpose of these efforts.<br /><br />An academic issue is if displaying the image now, to show what the newsworthy event concerns, amounts to fair use.</p>

<p>Opinion?</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>I'm not a lawyer - but isn't there a difference between fair use and news/editiorial? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that now that a court has ruled on this case - use of the photo is germane to the situation and provides needed context for the stories that all are running on this case... </p>

<p>As a side note, I now wonder how long she will be at her current station. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>now that a court has ruled on this case - use of the photo is germane to the situation and provides needed context for the stories that all are running on this</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the exact issue I was thinking of. </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>I think the distinction here is that the news media (web, broadcast, and print) are using the image as editorial, where as Hustler attempted (and admitted as much) to use it, not as editorial or news, but instead under "fair use". </p>

<p>Had Hustler claimed "editorial" use - I think they might have gotten away with it, although it would be debatable how much news / editorial content is in a Hustler magazine. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[jeff_livacich]

<p>I'm just glad it wasn't Babs dancing nude. =8^0</p>

[mike dixon]

<b>Moderator's note:</b> I've edited this thread to keep it on the topic of copyright and fair use.

[q.g._de_bakker]

There's too much hiding behind "editorial use" or that abomination "fair use".<br>If you never heard of the case, read Thomson Reuters' synopsis, you know all there is to know. Without seeing the photos.<br>The photos themselves do not carry any additional news content. All publishing them would do is pander to people's desire to see a person, that could be semi-well known due to her job, in a compromising situation. Lust.<br>All Hustler used them for is to boost sales offering their prospective readers the prospect of satisfying their lust for such a thing.<br>Nothing editorial or fair about it. Pure business.<br><br>And the combination of lust and Hustler may seem too easy, but this also applies to many other so-called "editorial" or "news" thingies. The lust is not a sexual one. It's the seedy thing that made the gutter press possible.

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I think the distinction here is that the news media (web, broadcast, and print) are using the image as editorial, where as Hustler attempted (and admitted as much) to use it, not as editorial or news, but instead under "fair use".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is definitely a distinction between a news article about the dispute and the Hustler action giving rise to the dispute. "Editorial use" alone is way too broad a category. Whether being non commercial under misappropriation analysis or the more commonly understood news editorial sense. Editorial use, either way, still needs to be weighed using the four prong fair use test. Can a news article about the litigation that features the relevant image in dispute meet the four part test?</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Any new "news" on the Hustler/Benoit front? Hustler previously lost then appealed lawsuits over use of old nude images claiming them to be "newsworthy." Don't know if that continued or will continue on appeals. Could the "fair use" tack be an alternative approach just in case the Benoit case continues and not go well?</p>