Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9-11 was Re: Mazes and Monsters

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Stacia" <stacia@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:ee4gqi$rkb$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>>No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Using someone's image for commercial purposes without their consent is
>>>generally illegal. One exception is for the news, which might (or might
>>>now) apply if F911 had been a do***entary. Since it wasn't, that
wouldn't
>>>apply.
>>
>>>There's also the matter of deliberately (and it couldn't have been
>>>otherwise) misprepresenting their views, and various slander, libel and
>>>defamation laws.
>>
>> Yeah, that's why everyone defamed and slandered has been suing the
>>pants off Moore, instead of just whining about it online.  Oh, wait,
>>that's right... there ARE no lawsuits.  Never were.  That's odd, don't
>>you think?
> 
> 
> Peter Damon filed a suit, claiming he did not sign a release.  That is
all 
> that I know of, and as far as I know, nothing has happened with it.  Now
of 
> course, prosecuting such a case would be expensive, but there are plenty
of 
> resources out there to take care of that (folks who would like to see
Moore 
> get taken down, for example, and that is ignoring contingency
arrangements).
> 

I didn't see anything about not signing a release; his claim is about 
not wanting to be used in what he says is anti_Bush propaganda, which as 
far as I know isn't illegal.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/moore-faces-911-film-lawsuit/2006/06/01/1148956464634.html

Or, in TinyURL-speak:

http://tinyurl.com/ohcms