i don't have any particular commentary or opinions on this, but it'll be interesting to see how this situation all shakes out or if the courts find that any sort of recourse is to be had here. i...
i don't have any particular commentary or opinions on this, but it'll be interesting to see how this situation all shakes out or if the courts find that any sort of recourse is to be had here. i would guess no, but you honestly never know with courts.
I would wager an incredibly large sum of money on it. She apparently can't even prove she is genetically related to the photo's subject, and the photo itself is over 160 years old, so this is just...
i would guess no
I would wager an incredibly large sum of money on it. She apparently can't even prove she is genetically related to the photo's subject, and the photo itself is over 160 years old, so this is just a frivolous, hail-Mary, activist lawsuit which most courts, even ones in the US, generally do not look well upon.
What the media attention hopefully will, and probably should accomplish though, is having Harvard officially enter the photo into the public domain instead of continuing to charge licensing fees for it, if that allegation is indeed true.
i don't have any particular commentary or opinions on this, but it'll be interesting to see how this situation all shakes out or if the courts find that any sort of recourse is to be had here. i would guess no, but you honestly never know with courts.
I would wager an incredibly large sum of money on it. She apparently can't even prove she is genetically related to the photo's subject, and the photo itself is over 160 years old, so this is just a frivolous, hail-Mary, activist lawsuit which most courts, even ones in the US, generally do not look well upon.
What the media attention hopefully will, and probably should accomplish though, is having Harvard officially enter the photo into the public domain instead of continuing to charge licensing fees for it, if that allegation is indeed true.