Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

NastyRiffraff

(12,448 posts)

8. She and her husband should keep an eye out

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Oct 26, 2018, 03:58 PM

Oct 2018

to make sure Fox doesn't use it anyway. I wouldn't put it past them, even after they were specifically told they couldn't.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

THAT's going to leave a mark! [View all] brooklynite Oct 2018 OP

K&R... spanone Oct 2018 #1

Haaha. That's funny "because you aren't a reliable source of what's going on in our country today." Bfd Oct 2018 #2

If Fox were to get the rights you can bet we'll never see the pictures again. Hugin Oct 2018 #3

Wait, they asked permission? durablend Oct 2018 #4

Yes, like the fucking grifters they represent, they offer nothing in exchange, except a mention. TheBlackAdder Oct 2018 #5

In fairness, that's a standard permission request; every other network does the same brooklynite Oct 2018 #7

Yep. I guess it doesn't hurt to ask first, to see if they can get it on the cheap before paying. TheBlackAdder Oct 2018 #12

I would include language limiting their right if I responded. LiberalFighter Oct 2018 #13

They asked... TwistOneUp Oct 2018 #16

Perfect Augiedog Oct 2018 #6

She and her husband should keep an eye out NastyRiffraff Oct 2018 #8

If they did, it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen... brooklynite Oct 2018 #9

I'll admit when I'm wrong... brooklynite Oct 2018 #19

can fox use it if they take the image from cnn or some other network JI7 Oct 2018 #33

She said yes to other news stations. irisblue Oct 2018 #10

Pic in question FakeNoose Oct 2018 #11

Hey! this is a different van than the one CNN got on video FakeNoose Oct 2018 #14

CNN's picture is of the driver's side of the van. Staph Oct 2018 #15

Nope. Right side and left side. MineralMan Oct 2018 #20

What I want to know is why wasn't this asshole ever ticketed for obstructed visibility . . . . ET Awful Oct 2018 #17

Well the Feds say that he has an arrest record FakeNoose Oct 2018 #18

There's all kinds of vehicle wraps that you can see out of OriginalGeek Oct 2018 #24

You don't need to have rear windows clear whopis01 Oct 2018 #29

I'm specifically referring to the passenger side window n/t ET Awful Oct 2018 #31

It didn't appear to obscure the side view mirror. n/t whopis01 Oct 2018 #32

Not perfectly legal in every state. I can tell you it wouldn't fly in California or Mass ET Awful Oct 2018 #34

What I said was perfectly legal in every state was a panel van with no rear or read side windows. whopis01 Oct 2018 #35

Anyone who decoupages RW political crap all over their car windows is a nut case. YOHABLO Oct 2018 #21

Yes !!! Haggis for Breakfast Oct 2018 #22

It just says "Link To Tweet" when I open nt Cetacea Oct 2018 #23

AP's release is based on them being a subscription service LTG Oct 2018 #25

thats awesome kaotikross Oct 2018 #26

Sorry haydukelives Oct 2018 #27

They probably hear that a lot. bitterross Oct 2018 #28

I'm confused. what's so special about this photo? libdem4life Oct 2018 #30