StrangeSox

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 03:05 PM) I said likely have "POTENTIAL" liability. It would depend on the facts. Starbucks isnt going to buy that photo from Instagram without an indemnification statement. That would just be stupid. I was assuming we were talking about the real world where corporations like Starbucks have lawyers and they dont buy anything unless the seller warrants and represents good title. But there's something different between publishing a photo of Tom Cruise doing something in public, which any tabloid can do legally, and some company claiming endorsement of a product. That's where this example is getting really convoluted.

they're not even subtle about the "compensating" angle

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 03:01 PM) Instagram would likely have potential liability to Tom Cruise (unless Tom Cruise was a member of instagram and the tos of instagram states that by being a member you allow us to do anything with your likeness.) You cant bind someone who doesnt have privity of contract. Thats just basic contract law. Instagram could sell whatever photos they want of Tom Cruise to Starbucks' ad agency. What Starbucks' ad agency does with them isn't really relevant to who sold those pictures or where they came from in the first place, which is why the scenario doesn't seem relevant.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) Wasn't my point that it's limited to that scenario...I'm saying it's saying the CAN do that scenario, and I don't think they can. Instagram's TOS has nothing to do with what Starbucks does with a photo in an ad.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) Or lets say you took a really amazing picture of the Sears Tower that did not have any people in it. As Sears Tower is a building that functions there is no copyright that protects its reproduction, thus Instagram could sell your Sears Tower picture. Im pretty sure that Instagram will have a few attorneys reviewing this before they do anything. Id hope that they are smarter than me about this. Right, it essentially gives Instagram a huge catalog of "stock photographs" to sell to ad agencies. It doesn't have to be celebrities.

who cares about that scenario, it doesn't really have anything to do with Instagram's TOS. That's a problem with Starbucks' use of the pic that they could have gotten from anywhere, not with Instagram's TOS.

I already said I'm willing to concede Israel's hyper-militarized school gun policy if we get the rest of their gun policies as well

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) Magazines aren't RESELLING the picture for advertising purposes, Instagram is attempting to say they can. Tom Cruise drinking a cup of starbucks on a magazine isn't the same as Instagram popping up a picture of Tom Cruise drinking starbucks that says "Tom Cruise Loves Starbucks...so should you!" But Instagram's new TOS isn't limited to your weird scenario, it's just giving them the ability to sell your photos to whomever they want. So they could sell that pic you snapped of Tom Cruise to People the same as a freelance photographer could.

Or stealing a gun and shooting a teacher. Or another student. Or a teacher using the gun as an intimidation tool to keep students inline. I'm going to repost this comment again: And also note that teachers are already under-resourced, under-paid and over-taxed when it comes to their job duties, and now we're going to have them as trained armed responders as well? I am literally having difficulty processing that anyone is proposing this as a serious solution.

Jesus christ I can't believe anyone is seriously considering "Arm the Teachers!" as a real, viable, good policy. What is wrong with this country.

Magazines publish pictures of celebrities all the time. I'm failing to see why Instagram couldn't sell your pic of Tom Cruise to People or whatever.

You don't love children at all, otherwise you'd be advocating to allow them to defend themselves instead of relying on nanny-state public school teachers.

You're absolutely right.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 12:06 PM) I have to say I love my ASUS TF300 tablet that I bought myself on Black Friday. It's my first Android experience. I can see why people say that iOS is still better, but I really like the flexibility and customizability. With that said, there is a slight price to pay in terms of stability/smoothness, though it is not really a big factor at all. It is definitely making me reconsider whether my next phone will be from Apple. Someone needs to explain to me what exactly rooting is and why I would want to do that. Consider it like giving yourself full administrator access on a PC instead of just restricted user access. You can change more settings, unlock locked features, install programs you might not otherwise be able to and even run a different or modified operating system.

It's a valid point that you can't extrapolate what happens in Austin to the rest of Texas.

Yeah, Austin is a liberal enclave in a sea of red.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 10:25 AM) I never had any interest in it - I stopped watching 'Family Guy' long ago, and this just looked like live-action 'Family Guy'. same.

Apparently Instagram's new TOS allows them to sell any of your photos. Wired recommends downloading your photos and deleting your account. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/12/how...l-your-account/

the Tea Party Nation has the solution to gun violence! That bit lionizing Zimmerman and equating unarmed teenager Treyvon Martin to a deranged mass murderer is pretty awful!

QUOTE (zenryan @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 05:48 PM) Pretty clear the NFL protects QBs and will really protect QBs they want to market. Mark Barron got hit for an Unnecessary Roughness call for this tackle on RG3. As you can see at this point of the play RG3 was a ball carrier, not a QB in the pocket. He lifted him off the ground and drove him down with his shoulder. I could see that getting called against a WR or RB.

missed out on the championship by .7 points. I blame the people recommending the Lions D in this thread!

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/a...e/p2p-73733082/

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 04:15 PM) Agreed. But getting that kind of cooperation is next to impossible. Especially with neighboring suburbs, cities, and states constantly undermining each other for a multitude of reasons, including trying to lure businesses there with promises of less tax, better services, etc... If it's not done federally, it will never happen. We obviously need better baseline federal regulations, but you can still modify on the state or local level from there.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 04:14 PM) Guns serve an important purpose for livelyhood of many people. I use them to keep the coyotes away from the chickens. The ground squrriels and rodents who destroy crops also fall in this category. There was a cougar once that was threatening the cattle. Right, and that's why balta's talking about different restrictions based on where you live making sense.

All guns with biometrics and GPS tracking to disable them based on location