Mark Roberts wrote: > Adam Maas wrote: > >> There's a little more to the story. The family did try and deal with >> Virgin Mobile but got stonewalled. > > Where did you get that information? I couldn't find it in any of the > news stories about the case.
It's not in the news stories, I found it in the relevant thread on flickr (the comment thread in the picture of the billboard that initially clued the family in to the issue). http://www.flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ > >> So they filed suit. This would have happened in any first-world >> country. It's very much not a case of americans being sue happy. > > Virgin definitely deserves to get sued. But it sure looks like the > plaintiffs are exaggerating their "suffering" for monetary gain. I > notice that the photographer who put the photo on line and licensed it > for commercial use (without getting a model release) is a co-PLAINTIFF, > not a co-DEFENDANT! Amazing. He should be sharing liability with Virgin. > He's a friend of the family and is equally pissed off, his real mistake was in not reading the fine print between the different licenses (He actually thought he'd picked the non-commercial license apparently). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
