But I will, when someone gives me a copy. MM will not see a penny of my money.

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

Nope, same as Perk, Moore won't see any of my money. (kinda like FTG). Personally, I don't do theaters anymore anyway, I prefer the comfort of my own home. If it ever makes it to cable I'll probably watch.

However that does not preclude me from commenting on the news story linked to in the beginning of the thread.

I must say I'm a bit underwhelmed by the ethics displayed by at least one Moore hater on this thread.

You want to see the movie, but you don't want to give Moore your money, so your solutions is:

1. Watch a pirated version!

That's theft, pure and simple.

I don't see any good in breaking the law over your distaste for Moore. He created the film; if you want to see it, pay the man. Or do what some of the others are doing:

2. Wait for someone to give you a copy (assuming it's a legal copy)
3. Wait for it to come on to cable.

You also could do #4: Pay a few bucks and rent it when it comes out on video. Moore will get some of your money, but not nearly as much.

As far as permissions: Generally, if you're in a public place, or are easily visible from a public place, you have no expectation of privacy and your image can be used with or without your permission. A graveyard is a public place, like it or not. So is your front yard, if I'm taking a picture of you from the street.

Most publications and media outlets are overfastidious about getting permissions simply to avoid ANY legal hassles of any sort. But the paparazzi, for example, thrive along the margins of the "no expectation of privacy" line.

Tell that to "Girls Gone Wild", there are plenty of law suits for that one.

It's always the details.

Here's a link. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ggwildmore1.html

The suits, you'll note, involve paying or otherwise manipulating underaged girls to engage in sexual conduct. They do not involve taking pictures without permission.

There were a couple of suits involving invasion of privacy: http://www.valdosta.edu/spec/20020919/news5.shtml

One was thrown out, one was settled. The main legal point: courts don't recognize a right to privacy in public. If you walk down the street naked and someone takes a picture of you, they can do pretty much anything they want with that photo. It's theirs. You don't control your image except in specific commercial uses.

I believe the operative word is 'commercial use', and then consent would be necessary. Moore is walking a fine line in that he classifies his movie as a documentary, and claims it to be news footage, so as to be deemed exempt as commercial use. I'm not sure that it won't be challenged.

You're right, I was coming at this from the news/documentary side of things. If Moore's movie were classified as commercial speech, he might be vulnerable.

I have a hard time seeing that happening, though. He's not selling anything except his movie, which obeys the form of documentary. I have no idea if there's a legal definition of "documentary", but I'd bet it's pretty broad. Courts tend to be reluctant to limit expression, and err on the side of permitting more rather than permitting less.

This is the version of 9/11 I saw. I just threw the pirated version to see the reaction. As I said, I wouldn't so much as ask for the time of day from that fat pig of a human being MM. It would put me at his level if I was to steal from him.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/f...publicans.html