September 16, 2010

"Really? Ann Althouse made mistakes in a job interview?"

Jeez. I am such a stereotype!

25 comments:

rhhardin said...

Better a stereotype than a cliche.

Even though the words are the same thing, printing press wise.

Big Mike said...

It's a shame you don't get royalties on that picture.

America's Politico said...

Prof., you are the best. Congrats on being every-where. One day I hope MoDo is removed from NYT and you get a shot.

But, I hope that happens after Jan. 2013. I want Obama/Biden to win easily in Nov. 2012 :)

k*thy said...

Folks project a lot onto that photo, don't they?

El Presidente said...

If I were you I would register that picture with the copyright office. Statutory damages are the bomb.

ricpic said...

I would imagine hard slog types, who generally don't ace interviews, often make ace employees.

traditionalguy said...

We warned you about "just winging it". But have no fear, you will always get the best job since you are a unique mixture of a precision mind and a perfect body. ONLY, stay far away from running for political office against one of Carl Rove's candidates.

Christopher said...

This is all very well and good, but she didn't prepare well enough for the job interview. I mean come on.

Ron said...

the apotheosis of a career is to become a cliche!

Ann Althouse said...

Why do people think I own the copyright? I didn't take the picture.

Eric said...

Why do people think I own the copyright? I didn't take the picture.

Yeah, yeah, we know. You were young, you needed the money.

1jpb said...

"Why do people think I own the copyright? I didn't take the picture."

1) Meadehouse reenact the famous photo w/ as much detail as possible. Then, you can distribute and cash in on the updated photo.

2) After the role playing you follow the lady mags and Meade goes back to school.

edutcher said...

You? Muff an interview?

Tell it not in Christendom!

PS It's got to be the glasses.

Prosqtor said...

So ungodly photogenic, eh Meade?

TRO said...

"Yeah, yeah, we know. You were young, you needed the money."

LOL. Winner of this short thread . . .

TRO said...

It's interesting though. While there isn't a lot in that photo to date it, I do wonder if law school students still look this way. Shouldn't there be an iPod or iPad or iSomething photo-shopped into it to bring it up to speed?

El Presidente said...

Is Mr. Cohen authorizing these uses? As I recall you have disclaimed some but not all of your/his rights to this photograph. It seems to me that you and Mr. Cohen might be able to work out a deal where you register and enforce and the two of you split the proceeds.

This has the makings of an interesting Intro to Intellectual Property Law exam. If I were answering the exam question I would also add a paragraph or two on your rights of publicity.

Bruce Hayden said...

If I were you I would register that picture with the copyright office. Statutory damages are the bomb.

Registration has to be submitted within three months of publication.

Why do people think I own the copyright? I didn't take the picture.

Ann, being a law prof, is, of course, correct here. However, she may have a cause for invasion of privacy or reputation, or some such. Not very strong, despite her renown.

As I was refreshing myself on the statute though, I was reminded of something. We have been operating under Berne Convention rules since 1989 or so, and so many of us have forgotten that the U.S. drastically changed the way that they handled copyrights starting in 1978, and then again with Berne.

Prior to the Decennial period, copyright was under the 1909 Act, and notice (i.e. the copyright symbol, owner, and date) was required. Otherwise, the work entered the public domain upon publication (and I don't think that there was any protection for unpublished works). Lack of notice didn't invalidate the copyright during the Decennial period if the notice was omitted from a relatively small number of copies, the copyright was registered w/i five years of publication, or the notice was omitted by someone who had a legal obligation to affix it. Then, under Berne, notice became pretty much irrelevant, except in rebutting a defense of innocent infringement.

Anne, I suspect, knows the actual dates here, and, esp. when the picture was first published (my guess is that it was taken right around the transition from the 1909 Act to the Decennial Period).

wv: clown - wish I had gotten that when commenting on Joe Biden. Oh well.

Ann Althouse said...

The picture is from 1981. I was 30 years old.

Prosqtor said...

I vote for a return of the giant glasses.

Prosqtor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Prosqtor said...

Photogenic with or without, for sure.

jimspice said...

Are you aware of TinEye (http://bit.ly/9YsdeW)? It's a photo search site that allows you to search for duplicates of a photo online. The photo is not only found at businessinsider.com, but such sites as financegeek.com, lifehacker.com, peoplesalmanac.info, legalgeekery.com, and my favorite, crankyfitness.com under such names as prepare-ahead-of-time.jpg, law-school-studying.jpg, talking_loud_for_memory-thumb-480x288.jpg and appropriately, althouse-300x204.jpg

c3 said...

Admit it Professor, you love it.

jimspice said...

A-hah!! The reason the photo keeps popping up is that it is posted under the "by-nd" (free to share with attribution -- no derivatives) Creative Common license on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/johncohen/152850884/) by one John Althouse Cohen with the photographer listed as Richard Lawrence Cohen. But it appears you already knew this since you have a comment there. Darn, I thought I was being quite industrious.