You know me, the generic student.
LOL. I love the way they credit my son John Althouse Cohen on the picture, which was taken in May 1981, as I was studying (and lactating). John was born March 17, 1981.
२२ ऑक्टोबर, २००९
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२३ टिप्पण्या:
Ann,
You are confident woman for allowing a picture of you during law school finals while also having a new baby. That is not conducive to flattering pictures. There are so many great ones of you in the 70s. I think perhaps 60s and 70s fasion just suited you better than the 80s.
You know, jac-off blog Althouse photography might not give the impression you really want here.
You were quite the Susan Sarandon look-alike in them thar days.
And one Hell of a lot smarter.
Well, let's analyze this technically. According to the caption which JAC provided, it was taken by Richard, so Richard would own the copyright in the photo. Presumably, he has granted a license to JAC to allow him to post it on Flickr, and we'll suppose further that Richard has granted JAC sufficient rights in the picture to authorize JAC to license the picture photo under a Creative Commons license.
JAC has posted the picture on Flickr and has granted a limited Creative Commons license to it, specifying (among other limitations), that any reproduction of the photo pursuant to the CC license must be attributed. According to the Creative Commons definition, the "attribution" requirement requires the subsequent user to "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."
JAC does not seem to have expressly specified the manner in which the attribution should be made, so it's understandable that LifeHacker would simply credit the owner of the Flickr account to which the photo was uploaded. Crediting it simply to "Richard" without more would not actually identify either the original copyright holder or the licensee (JAC) who subsequently licensed the photo through Creative Commons.
Since the article does use the photo in an editorial capacity, to illustrate, as you put it, the "generic student," then you as the model have relatively few rights to assert. You could, potentially, object to Richard giving it to JAC and JAC publishing it to the internet on some sort of invasion of privacy grounds, but that would likely be an action available only against them, not subsequent users of the photo. They haven't cast you in a false light or anything like that, so there's no claim there.
Had they used the photo in a commercial capacity (an advertisement) rather in an editorial capacity, then you would likely have an action against them for misappropriation of your likeness. The CC license specifically notes that it does not affect: "Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights." So your right to object to a commercial use of the photo would not be affected by JAC's grant of a CC license.
Not that I'm bored at work today or anything, no....
People learn from mistakes...who would have thunk it? Glad we can now google that article.
I'm fairly certain that with commenter's like Titus, you don't want a post about a lactating young Althouse to have - as the first two tags - the words "Jac" and "off."
You're just begging for it at that point, Ann.
PatHMV
Nice job there. You realize though that blogging and practicing law conflict. The former is a horrible time sink, seriously impacting one's billable hours.
I seem to remember seeing pictures of Hillary with glasses something like that, but maybe even worse (sorry Ann).
I think that you are wrong about the glasses we wear today really being out of style in 25 years, because by our ages, our glasses tend to be more functional. My father has been wearing glasses that look pretty much like the ones he wears today for over 25 years, but, then, he is nearing 90.
Rather, I would suggest that the stylish glasses that the younger generations wear will be out of style well before 25 years. You know the ones I am talking about, that look like small rectangle, with a noticeable plastic frame around them?
It would be interesting to see Ann as an undergraduate - did she wear the ubiquitous granny glasses of the time?
I have moved to glasses after 40 years of wearing contacts. I got new contacts two years ago, under our vision plan at work, and got the first pair of glasses that I have had for over a decade. Bifocals, of course. And, in those 2 years, I have almost totally abandoned the contacts. Glasses are just more convenient, except for skiing, where I still wear the contacts.
It took a bit to get used to them - mostly training myself to keep from breaking them. It turns out that if you don't close them up, then roll on top of them, they break, even if they are guaranteed not to. So, I broke the first pair, and my SO the next two pair. And, so, I make sure that they are folded up at night and away from her when she is around at night.
Damn, and my folks thought I was precocious.
I cannot believe that I am thinking this about the diastinguished Professor, but she was very CUTE in 1981.
TMI
I didn't know Althouse had a son!
"I cannot believe that I am thinking this about the diastinguished Professor, but she was very CUTE in 1981."
She is cute now. I mean if you had to go for someone in the over 50 set, Ann would stack up very well. She definitely punchs well for her weight class.
If only Roman Polanski back then had a fetish for lactating grad students how much happier his life would be today.
I didn't realize you were the mother of a two-month-old baby when that picture was taken. I like it even more now.
(disclosure: I had two babies while I was in graduate school, one about 9 months after passing my oral exams, and the other 6 months before I graduated.)
From the article: "Trying and failing to retrieve the answer is actually helpful to learning."
Then I'm gonna be damn genius some day.
It's near impossible to imagine how your life would be if just a few early decisions were done differently. The possibilities are limitless.
At nearly that exact same time in 1981, I was due to finish the final semester of an engineering degree. Instead I quit and drove cross country to California landing broke and homeless. I stayed and prospered, but I can't imagine my life without that decision. It changed everything. I love the life I chose and it went extremely well, but at the time the decision was ridiculous and reckless.
Ann you seem to have been such a good girl. Nothing wrong with that, but did you ever do something completely irresponsible? I mean other than meeting Mead in person without a handgun.
Nice boobbies
as I was studying (and lactating)
Now the final puzzle piece of why that photo of you looks the way it does.
and lactating
Gee, for someone who loves to criticize the New Agers, you sure are good at, uh, sharing too much yourself.
But you neglected to tell us how your bowel movements were at the time!
What, no "bodily fluids" tag?
(Well, it is your tag...)
i lol'd hard at those glasses ..however, i must agree with Beaverdam ... althouse has a great rack
I disagree with Bruce Hayden when it comes to blogging and cutting back on billable hours. I think the blogs will "pay for themselves" over time. It's out there for potential clients to read, for sites to reference, and for the overall good. For the firm's interest, it builds accreditation and demonstrates professionalism (provided that blog posts are relevant to legal affairs and are kept professional).
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा