- 29,366
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Dicks in favour of women who are not shy of a hard tackle or two?
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is your idiot - senator, butcher and mother of two seeks love with rich, well-hung man half her age ... on national radio
I just want to see how the political satire "How Green Was My Cactus?" handles it.
A scared driver pulled over when they saw 'fire' on their dashboard display, but it was just an Adele track playing.
Courtesy of Auto Express:
Quite clearly a simple typo... it's spelled correctly about 5 times.Great site, they can't even spell "illegal"
Great site, they can't even spell "illegal"
Quite clearly a simple typo... it's spelled correctly about 5 times.
Is that actually him?Brett Favre!
No. That's John Madden. Brett Favre is this guy.Is that actually him?
A wildlife photographer is taking legal action to reclaim the copyright on a selfie that a cheeky monkey took using his camera.
I saw that on /r/childfree. Didn't expect people to pick it up this much.
I saw that on /r/childfree. Didn't expect people to pick it up this much.
Just pointing out, I think you quoted the wrong post.Tough one, it's a pro camera that required preparation. While unattended the animal used (or took, depending on the source) the camera and took a picture. Because it physically pressed a button and knowingly interacted (even if it didn't know it was photographing) it owns the image. Except it can't legally own the image and therefore it belongs to the public domain.
Interesting case.
What's fun here is that the argument that the photographer owns the image regardless of recognised competence under law technically means the police cannot use speed camera images in prosecution for speeding offences...Tough one, it's a pro camera that required preparation. While unattended the animal used (or took, depending on the source) the camera and took a picture. Because it physically pressed a button and knowingly interacted (even if it didn't know it was photographing) it owns the image. Except it can't legally own the image and therefore it belongs to the public domain.
Interesting case.
What's fun here is that the argument that the photographer owns the image regardless of recognised competence under law technically means the police cannot use speed camera images in prosecution for speeding offences...