Quote:
Originally posted by str8outavannuys
You're probably right. I'll just point out that finding photos on Google is not the same as obtaining rights to use such photos from the copyright holder. Internet news sites are probably pretty limited in the scope of cleared photos they can use - I'd think they'd be limited to works-for-hire created by their own company (which in the case of CNN/Time Warner is pretty broad) because they need to find photos fast and couldn't possibly approach the copyright holder for permission between when the story breaks and when it goes up on the page.
|
I have no idea what kind of access CNN has to photos of Mack 10. I would guess that their libraries are pretty deep. But, what purpose exactly does the photo they chose serve? You can't even see his fucking face.
But that is neither here nor there. The decision to post that photo in conjunction with the article was a deliberate one. And I found it highly offensive.
At the absolute very least, if they thought it was vital to run a photo and that's
all they had, they've had all day to do their diligence and replace it.
TM
