TASK 1
- I AM IN FAVOR OF PAPARAZZIS BEING ABLE TO POTOGRAPH CELEBRITIES WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION, AS LONG AS THEY ARE RESPECTFUL OF INTIMATE MOMENTS OR AS IN THE CASE OF THE GOLDEN COUPLE WHERE THEY HAD A PRIOR WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH A MEMBER OF THE PRESS.
- GIVEN THE FAXT THAT CELEBRITIES ARE ALWAYS IN THE PUBLIC LIGTH, I BELIVE IT ABSURB THAT A CELEBRITY TRADEMARK HIS FACE. ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WOUL ALLOW FOR ADITIONAL INCOME EVERYTIME SOMEONE USED THEIR IMAGE.
- I BELIVE THAT THE ARTISTS CERTAIN HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO REQUEST PRIVACY IN EVENTS OF A FAMILY NATURE, DUE TO THE ADDED RISK THAT A NON CELEBRITY FAMILY MEMBER, SINCH AS A CHIL OR PARENT ARE LEFT EXPOSED TO SUCH THINGS AS KIDNAPPINGS AND ASSALTS BECAUSE OF THEIR RELATION TO THE CELEBRITY.
- I BELIVE A CERTAIN AMOUT OF DISTRESS MAYBE CAUSED BY THE PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN UNAUTHARIZED PHOTE DUE TO THE POSSIBLE SECURITY RISK.
- THE MAGAZINE HELLO DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH, THE PHOTOS SINCE THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN SOULD UNDER EXCLUSIVE RIGTH, AT THAT MOMENT THE ARE VIOLATING NOT ONLY INFRINGEMENT LAWS BUT I BELIVE THEY ARE BEHAVING UNETHICALLY.
TASK 2
IF I WERE THE JUDGE IN THIS LAWSUIT DETERMINING IF THE COUPLE LAD TENLY SUFFERED BY THE HAD SOLD RIGHT FOR THE PHOTOS, THERE BEFORE HAVING THE INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY ANYONE WOULD HAVE BEEN DISTRESSED. I WOULD AWARD NOTHING ON THE OTHER HAD THE MAGAZINE OK HAS EVERY RIGTH TO SAVE THEIR RIVAL FOR THE UNAUTHARIZE PUBLICATION OF THE WEDDING, SINCE IT IS NOT ONLY A CRIME BUT ALSO A LACK OK PROPER BUSINESS ETHICS.
IN M OPINION I WOULD AWARD OK NOT ONLYTHE SUN OF THE LAWSUIT BUT 3 TIMES THE AMOUNT THAT THE EXCLUSIVITY CONTRACT COST THEM, BECAUSE EVEN WITH THAT MONETARY AWARD IT WOULD NOT RECOMPENSE THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE REPULATION OF MAGAZINE, SINCE IT APPEARED THAT THEY LIED IN THEIR MARKETING CLAMING EXCLISIVE PHOTOS.
- THE MAGAZINE HELLO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBE FOR ALL THE LEGAL COST GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEIR BEHAVIOR WAS THE CAUSE OF ALL THE LAWSUITS.
