I wonder if anyone actually refused to strip for the researchers, and if so, what the consequences were.
The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)
21–30 of 75 posts
Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)
#22Note: article is NSFW.
...in America.
Ah yes, I must be careful as an American, because my employer and everyone I work with is literally this guy: http://wikihistoria.wikispaces.com/file/view/purtian_pic_2.j...
Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does Fox News have to do with anything?
Are you kidding? My response was 2 sentences about how I've seen them especially, and TV news in general, replay things they were saying were so "edgy" for TV, _on TV_. Just like the re-distribution of these images in an article about how inappropriate the taking of these images was. I don't know how to explain that more clearly?
From my initial reading of your comment, I thought you were defending the posting the photos on the grounds that FoxNews does it too. That is an excuse (a bad one), not justification.
It seems that wasn't what you meant. Maybe you would like to rephrase?
Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)
#24Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)
#25From the article: "No written permission of any kind was ever given by the students." What's the statute of limitations on something like this? I'm guessing since this occurred so long ago, nothing can be done.
It usually varies by state law. Here's some good information: http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/07/q-statute-of-limitation...
"Because copyrights are governed by federal law, there is only one statute of limitations for copyright claims. Copyright infringement claims are rights of the copyright owner of the photograph and have a three-year statute of limitations from the date of the infringement. See 17 USC 507(b). Some courts start counting the three years when you had a reasonable chance to discover the infringement."
Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you kidding? My response was 2 sentences about how I've seen them especially, and TV news in general, replay things they were saying were so "edgy" for TV, _on TV_. Just like the re-distribution of these images in an article about how inappropriate the taking of these images was. I don't know how to explain that more clearly?
From my initial reading of your comment, I thought you were defending the posting the photos on the grounds that FoxNews does it too. That is an excuse (a bad one), not justification. It seems that wasn't what you meant. Maybe you would like to rephrase?
He was providing the reason for why the authors would have published the photos (by using Fox News as an example), not defending or justifying their having done so.
Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)
#27Did the title, and the link just change?
Looks like it. In this case, it makes complete sense. The original was intentionally inflammatory leading with a line about nude pictures of Hilary Clinton, and was based on the NYT article to begin with.
Except that now the comments here make no sense at all.
Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)
#28This story comes up every now and then; I have a hard time seeing it as a “scandal”. It’s nothing more than a piece of historical anatomical pseudoscience that happens to tickle the salacious fancies of puritan America with the proximity of “nudity” and the names of recognizable celebrities.
Might as well be phrenology otherwise.
Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you kidding? My response was 2 sentences about how I've seen them especially, and TV news in general, replay things they were saying were so "edgy" for TV, _on TV_. Just like the re-distribution of these images in an article about how inappropriate the taking of these images was. I don't know how to explain that more clearly?
From my initial reading of your comment, I thought you were defending the posting the photos on the grounds that FoxNews does it too. That is an excuse (a bad one), not justification. It seems that wasn't what you meant. Maybe you would like to rephrase?
Oh I see. Not sure how to rephrase - but what I really mean is my very last statement - the author doesn't truly believe that it was wrong to take these photos so strongly that they aren't doing the same - they just know these photos are controversial enough to attract attention - and that's what they're after. I'm sorry if it's confusing...
Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)
#30From the article: "No written permission of any kind was ever given by the students." What's the statute of limitations on something like this? I'm guessing since this occurred so long ago, nothing can be done.
It usually varies by state law. Here's some good information: http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/07/q-statute-of-limitation... "Because copyrights are governed by federal law, there is only one statute of limitations for copyright claims. Copyright infringement claims are rights of the copyright owner of the photograph and have a three-year statute of limitations from the date of the infringement. See 17 USC 507(b). S…
The subjects of the photos wouldn't have a copyright claim on the photos, as they did not take them (the university did, and would own the copyright). I'm sure there's other laws at play though, such as personality rights.