And taking one’s appearance in whole without being reproduced in satire wi not legal. But that’s like pretending to be someone you’re not, or taking someone’s article or text in whole rather than part, which also would be not fair use.

But that’s just clarifying… Taking a picture of someone in a public place is fair use.

But what I want to know… Why was the place public-build-okay, anyhow?

To use an analogy with the Other World, Ms. Chung’s actions are the equivalent of a certain large producer of Engine-programs in the American Pacific Northwest deciding to severely restrict images of its bespectacled Chairman and Chief Architect. Which this corporation has not done, to its credit, as that would appear just as petty as ACS’s stance in this case, if not more so.

I believe the use of these photographs and cinematographs to date would fall, in the States, under the “fair use” exemption in copyright law, as they are certainly being used here for the purpose of “comment,” to accompany news stories or Aethernet Journal entries on the events in question. Of course, I am not an attorney…

I doubt that Ms. Chung’s reputation was seriously harmed by the initial phallic attack, despicable as it was, or any reporting of it that took place. There is an old maxim in dealing with the press that would seem applicable here: “It doesn’t matter what they say about you, as long as they spell your name right.” On the other hand, by forcing the issue in the way that it has, her firm has opened the proverbial “can of worms”…and, in the long term, their “cure” may be worse than the “disease.”