More chaos Sarah Palin's 9/11 copyight trial: In order to secure confidentiality for the settlement, Sarah Palin's lawyer even made an improper filing, was rebuked by the judge and then outmanoeuvered by the plaintiff - Sarah Palin wants "no hint of compromise to be associated with her name", but her huge waste of SarahPAC money is now out in the open

By Patrick

Sarah Palin's 9/11 copyright trial has already kept us busy with two long, detailed posts, which included lots of documentation on the September 14, 2013 and recently on March 25, 2015. In the last post, we reported that despite various assurances by Sarah Palin's lawyer that they really, really want a settlement, this did not happen due to almost comical circumstances: Good luck with trying to reach Sarah Palin! Let's just say that it is pretty difficult indeed.

In any case, her lawyers finally managed to talk to Sarah, and now we know where the problem lay: Sarah Palin, the woman who can never admit to having made a mistake, due to her legendary personality disorder, strikes again. Yes, she wants a settlement, because the dispute is a lost cause for her, as we also explained in our previous post, but she also does not want the world to know that she did in fact compromise.

Because Sarah Palin is "THE UNDEFEATED", and compromise simply is not an option for her! "Compromise" sounds a  ot like "defeat", doesn't it? Unless of course, the compromise can be kept secret. Then it is apparently perfectly fine.

That is what I call a predicament. We can almost visualize Sarah Palin shouting at her lawyer: Make it happen, you elitist New York bastard! No, she probably didn't say it like that, but in any case, she definitely wanted him to proceed with the settlement, as we learn from the recent court documents. But she also wanted the details to be kept confidential, because compromise is apparently just appropriate for liberal losers, and not for a strong frontier women who kills animals to fill her fridge.

So her New York lawyer, Ronald D. Coleman, tried to earn his money and submitted a "sealed" filing, a "motion under seal", only to be sharply rebuked by the trial judge immediately afterwards, explaining that the fact that the motion was only supported by attorney certification was "insufficient":

Screenshot from the docket, download it here.

Therefore Sarah Palin's lawyer wanted certain documents to be sealed, and the judge warns him that unless a "compliant motion" is filed, the "Court will issue a further order unsealing the documents."

In his (insufficient) certification which Ronald D. Coleman submitted together with his motion, he explains: "As set forth in the filings themselves, releasing this material from its current sealed status would result in harm and would severely undermine not only the motion being filed but the ability of the Court to achieve its goal to achieve a negotiated settlement among the parties."

Translation: "My client shouted at me to keep everything secret, because she does not want to make any embarrassing public compromises."


Screenshot:

Download the full document here.

As you can imagine, the plaintiff, North Jersey Media Group, was not pleased. They apparently thought: If Sarah Palin wants to play games, we can play games as well - only much better.

Because what documents could be so sensitive that Sarah Palin is desperate to keep them sealed? Maybe negotiations between the lawyers about the settlement?

BULLSEYE! So why don't the lawyers for North Jersey Media Group just make these negotiations public? Oh wait, they just did!

It's just wonderful: In return, or should I say retaliation, the plaintiff submitted the original email conversations, which leave no open questions any more (Brian Farkas is the colleague of Ronald D. Coleman):

So now we know that Sarah Palin is willing to settle for $ 15,000, but at the same time she does not want her minions to know that she wasted huge resources from SarahPAC for nothing. The legal bill for 1 1/2 years of proceedings will be massive, and the $ 15,000 for the settlement will just be a drop in the ocean compared to the legal expenses.

Sarah Palin could have just apologised for the unauthorised use of the photo for fundraising purposes, and could have easily avoided a trial. But for Sarah Palin, it's all, or nothing. She will never admit a mistake, even if there will be a huge bill in the end, which then has to be paid by her fans via their donations to SarahPAC. 

This is the character of the woman who the Republican Party wanted to be one heartbeat away from the US Presidency.

Even more embarrassingly, the lawyers for North Jersey Media Group revealed in their extensive new filing from April 20, 2015 (in which they also submitted the emails as exhibits)

2. On or about December 18, 2014, NJMG and defendants SarahPAC and Sarah Palin (collectively, “Palin”) tentatively agreed in principle upon Palin’s payment of an amount to settle this case. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the email Mr. Brian Farkas, counsel for Palin, sent to me at 6:29 p.m. on December 18, 2014.

3. The parties, however, could not initially agree on whether there would be a confidentiality clause. Palin asserted that there must be a broad confidentiality clause. NJMG disagreed. Attached as Exhibit B are true and accurate copies of emails between Mr. Farkas and me on December 22, 2014.

4. Shortly thereafter, Palin’s counsel, Ronald Coleman, Esq., told me that Palin required a confidentiality clause because her political action committee did not want any hint of compromise associated with her name.

5. NJMG did not want to agree to a confidentiality provision because it is one of the largest news providers in New Jersey, and the lawsuit was a matter of public concern.

Screenshot:

"No hint of compromise associated with her name!"

This is truly epic. It's a real shame that the late Joe McGinniss could not see this any more.

Download:

Filing by North Jersey Media Group in opposition to "sealed" motion by Sarah Palin's lawyer

Email 1

Email 2

Email 3

So now we can say good-bye to the secret settlement!

In a rather comical twist, Sarah Palin's lawyer Ronald D. Coleman then quickly conceded on April 21, 2015 that due to the clever response by the plaintiff with the enclosure of the "incriminating" emails, the reason for "sealing" has disappeared:

Download the document here.

I guess that somebody should have warned Coleman that Sarah Palin is not your "everyday" client.

The lawyers for North Jersey Media Group also filed an additional extensive explanation, arguing that a settlement has not been concluded yet.

Download the document here.

So what will happen now?

The media reported that there will be "a decision on the dispute in the coming weeks", but the scope of this decision remains uncertain. After all, North Jersey Media Group asked the court in February and March to reactivate their pending motions, that were put on hold in December due to the impeding settlement.

Therefore it seems possible that the settlement could fall through entirely. Which would mean more wasted resources for SarahPAC, as they have no chance to win this case, just as Fox News lost an almost identical case in February 2015.

But don't blame Sarah Palin. Did I already mention that she is the victim here? I mean, she is just a housewife from Wasilla, how could she possibly understand all these legal details. I mean, WASILLA! Have you ever been there? Well, I haven't, but I heard that the population there is not exactly famous for their legal expertise. So don't blame her! Blame these fancy New York lawyers! If they cannot keep secrets, they should ask their client for help, because Sarah Palin has not shortage of secrets, and most of the time she manages to keep them. Over and out! :-)

Chaos in Sarah Palin's "forgotten" 9/11-copyright trial against the North Jersey Media Group: Palin's lawyers want a settlement - if they only could get hold of her!

Use a photo for free for your own fundraising: Sarah Palin-style!

+++

"I’m the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can’t."

Sarah Palin during her time as mayor of Wasilla, quoted by "Salon"

By Patrick

We have always enjoyed writing about topics which the mainstream has "forgotten" about or has simply overlooked. Today is such a day! You will all remember that quite some time ago, SarahPAC was sued by North Jersey Media Group for the use of an iconic 9/11-picture without permission - we published a long, detailed post about the lawsuit back then. 

When was that? Believe it or not, the proceedings already started in September 2013!

So, what has happened in the meantime? It's an open and shut case, right? SarahPAC took an iconic 9/11-picture without permission, slapped their SarahPAC logo on it, and Sarah Palin subsequently published it on her facebook (see the screenshot at the top of our post).

There is no room for "fair use"in this case. The photo was clearly used by SarahPAC and Sarah Palin for the purpose of fundraising. Not for extending the discussion about 9/11.

Well, about 1 1/2 years later, not too much has happened - it would seem. However, the examination of the latest exchanges of the parties in this trial reveals a hilarious development: Sarah Palin has managed to cause so much chaos that an exhausted lawyer has revealed a stunning and outright comical account of what happens if you want Sarah Palin to agree to a settlement. Let's just say: You could also try to talk to a stone and would have a better chance of getting a settlement from it...!

This really has to be seen in order to be believed!

On February 17, 2015, attorney William Dunnegan, acting for the plaintiff, the the North Jersey Media Group, wrote one of the most remarkable legal submissions of his career.

Quote (highlights in the text by the lawyer himself):

Dear Judge Cecchi: We represent plaintiff North Jersey Media Group in the above action, and are writing in response to the letter of Ronald Coleman, Esq. (Dkt. 37), attorney for defendants, to make two points.

First, the parties agree that defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 29) should be reactivated and decided. (We believe that the analysis in the decision North Jersey Media Group v. Fox News, 13 Civ. 7153 (S.D.N.Y. February 10, 2015), should be dispositive. Defendants disagree.) Second, the suggestion of Mr. Coleman that "defendants did enter into a settlement with plaintiff" is incorrect. Defendants did not act as if they intended to complete a settlement. Rather, defendants acted as if they wanted to be in settlement negotiations indefinitely. Here is the chronology.

1. Before Christmas 2014, the parties had agreed in principle upon a settlement amount.

2. Since the time of the agreement upon a settlement amount, until at least February 10, 2015, the parties could not agree on the terms that would keep the amount of the settlement confidential. Defendants insisted on this term. Plaintiff owns the second largest newspaper in the State of New Jersey, and would prefer that the truth be told.

3. At a telephone conference with Magistrate Judge Falk on January 29, 2015, I stated that the areas of disagreement were narrow, but that if the parties could not complete the settlement within 10 days, the settlement could not be completed.

4. Between the end of that conference on January 29, 2015, and February 2, 2015, the parties exchanged no fewer than 5 e-mails, including a proposal that I sent to defendants' counsel on January 30, 2015, at 10:59 a.m.

5. On Monday, February 2, 2015, at 6:29 pm, I wrote to defendants' counsel, Mr. Coleman: "Ron, any word on this?"

6. At 6:34, Mr. Farkas, his associate, wrote back to me: "Hi Bill – We're expecting to be able to speak with our client tomorrow or Wednesday, and will get back to you ASAP afterwards."

7. Having heard nothing by Wednesday despite the promise of defendants' counsel, I wrote back on Thursday, February 5, 2015, at 1:52 pm, stating: "Have you made any progress?"

8. Four minutes later, Mr. Farkas wrote to me staying: "We'll be in touch shortly."

9. Having heard nothing, on Monday, February 9, 2015, at 8:15 am, I wrote to counsel for defendants: "Have you made any progress?"

10. Within minutes on February 9, 2015 at 8:38 am, Mr. Farkas wrote to me: "Working on it. Should have something for you this week."

11. Mystified that counsel for defendants were not even able to commit to get back to me by the end of the week, I wrote to them at 12:34 pm on February 9, 2015: "We told the Magistrate on 1/29 that if this settlement could not be finalized within 10 days, it cannot be finalized. We are no further along now than we were before Christmas. Moreover, since 1/29, we believe that our position has strengthened.

Accordingly, unless we have a signed agreement resolving this by the close of business tomorrow, we plan to write to the Judge and ask her to reactive the pending motions, and decide them."

12. Eleven minutes later at 12:45 pm, on February 9, 2015, "We suggest the following, which is essentially what you'd proposed before but with minor tweaks and the addition of a third clause:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties further agree that: (1) news reporters for the plaintiff are free to report on the existence of the settlement, and about whatever facts they learn from sources other than NJMG; (2) the parties or their respective attorneys or agents may respond to questions about the litigation posed by any third party, except that statements about the case must be limited to confirming its settlement and directing the third party to the court file; and (3) this settlement specifically incorporates, and does not replace, the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement entered into by counsel on September 13, 2013. Let us know."

Because defendants' counsel had been unable to reach their clients 11 minutes before this e-mail, it seemed odd to me that this was a firm proposal, as opposed to another effort to waste time by keeping the confidentiality term up in the air. (The word "suggest" is vague.) I nevertheless assumed it to be a firm proposal, but wanted to keep our earlier deadline in place.

13. On February 9, 2015, at 5:22 pm, I wrote to counsel for defendants: "I think that we are in agreement as to the attached settlement agreement. I am also attaching to this e-mail the 9/13/13 agreement, so there is no confusion as to what this is.

Please return a signed copy of the settlement agreement to me in pdf by the close of business tomorrow."

14. We did not hear from defendants by the close of business the next day.

15. After the dilatory behavior defendants had exhibited during the prior six weeks, after defendants were given more than a reasonable opportunity to complete the settlement on the financial terms agreed upon before Christmas even though plaintiff had received a very favorable decision in NJMG v. Fox News, and after receiving no response from defendants within this time frame that we set for writing to the Court, we wrote to the Court on February 11, 2015 (Dkt. 36) and asked for the motions to be decided.

16. If defendants want to blame someone for not completing the settlement, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Screenshots (click to enlarge):

Download the PDF-document HERE.

Oh yes, getting "hold" of Sarah Palin surely is not easy, I can absolutely believe that...LOL! Especially when she does not want to be gotten a hold of.

Also, getting her to agree to a settlement, despite the fact that she surely is an INNOCENT VICTIM, because Sarah Palin always is an INNOCENT VICTIM, certainly is not easy as well...

Sarah Palin's hesitation to enter into a settlement is pure idiocy, as the plaintiff's lawyer also explained in a letter from February 11, 2015:

Yes, Fox News actually lost a "fair use" trial in a very similar case in February 2015, also against the New Jersey Media Group as a plaintiff. As a result, there can be absolutely no doubt that Sarah Palin will lose her trial as well, if a judgement will be delivered.

But maybe Sarah Palin would prefer a negative judgement, because after all, a settlement would be a certain admission of guilt. And Sarah Palin is NEVER GUILTY - EVER.

More new documents:

Letter from Sarah Palin's attorney Ronald D. Coleman from February 11, 2015

Order for settlement conference on March 13, 2015

Civil Docket of the case (printed on March 19, 2015)

Let's see what happens next. Maybe Sarah Palin's lawyer will get hold of her eventually? How long do you think it is going to take? Place your bets, Ladies and Gentlemen!

+++

READ THE FOLLOW-UP:

More chaos Sarah Palin's 9/11 copyight trial: In order to secure confidentiality for the settlement, Sarah Palin's lawyer even made an improper filing, was rebuked by the judge and then outmanoeuvered by the plaintiff - Sarah Palin wants "no hint of compromise to be associated with her name", but her huge waste of SarahPAC money is now out in the open

Sarah Palin and SarahPAC are being sued for using iconic 9/11 photo without permission - Will Sarah Palin now play the victim again? - UPDATE: Read the full filed complaint!

"I’m the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can’t."

Sarah Palin during her time as mayor of Wasilla, quoted by "Salon"

By Patrick

It does not happen very often that Sarah Palin is sued, but maybe people are not as afraid of her as they used to be. Or not even afraid at all.

Sarah Palin's political action committee SarahPAC recently started placing its logo on all sorts of photographs, often with some text added under the photos, in order to "strengthen" the Pac's political message. These "enhanced" photos were then usually published on Sarah Palin's facebook page as well as the SarahPAC website.

However, many people started to wonder whether SarahPAC actually had permission to use the photos and put the SarahPAC logo on them. Just several days ago, Sarah Palin on her facebook for example used an iconic image of Martin Luther King, taken during the March on Washington in 1963, and had no hesitation to prominently display the SarahPAC logo on the picture.

It appears that this question has now been answered, at least for some of the photos in question, as the use of another iconic image by SarahPAC today promptly led to a lawsuit against Sarah Palin and SarahPAC.

A few days ago, on September 11, Sarah Palin posted the following photo on her facebook, an iconic image from 9/11, again with the SarahPAC logo attached on the photo:

Photo Copyright 2001, The Record (Bergen County, NJ)  "as altered by SarahPAC"

The rights to this photo belong to North Jersey Media Group Inc., and they are not amused!

Bloomberg reports:

Sarah Palin and her political action committee SarahPAC were sued by a newspaper publisher over the use of a photo of firefighters raising the U.S. flag at the World Trade Center site after the Sept. 11 attacks.

North Jersey Media Group Inc., publisher of The Record and Herald News daily newspapers, accused the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate and her political action committee of using the photograph without permission in a complaint filed today in federal court in Manhattan.

The picture is of three firefighters, covered in soot, hoisting the flag while standing amid the ruins of the World Trade Center the day of the attacks and taken by a photographer working for North Jersey Media Group, according to the lawsuit. Copies of the image are posted on Palin’s Facebook page and her political action committee page, www.sarahpac.com, according to the complaint.

The publisher, which alleges copyright infringement, seeks a court order barring Palin and SarahPAC from using the image.

SarahPAC representatives didn’t immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment on the lawsuit.

The photo was taken by Record photographer Thomas E. Franklin. The U.S. Postal Service in 2002 issued a stamp called “Heroes” with the image.

This is an interesting development because Sarah Palin is in this case not being handled with "kid gloves", as has so often happened in the past.

Sarah Palin today removed the famous 9/11-photo from her facebook page in an apparent response to the lawsuit.

The iconic photo of MLK which I mentioned above is another particularly shameless exploitation by Sarah Palin, the SarahPAC logo is an insult:

Our reader maelewis also pointed out that in another photo used by Sarah Palin, the "composition" which was created afterwards distorts the real facts:

Sarah is really hitting that Union stuff. At least her logo is on her own trademarked self. Now for the hypocrisy. I'm amazed that Google images can find a photo if I ask the right question. Sarah wants people to thing that her FB photo shows her addressing her union brothers and sisters. Nothing could be further from the truth. That photo comes from a rally in Madison, Wisconsin where Scott Walker was dismantling unions - teachers unions. Sarah was not on the side of unions. She was for Scott Walker cutting his budget any way that he could. First photo: Sarah's FB, second photo, the anti-union rally. And, just to drive home the point that Sarah was anti-union in that photo, click here.

By the way, Sarah is speaking as part of the Tea Party, and the sign on the podium is "Americans for Prosperity," a Koch Brothers enterprise. They are anti-union, anti-workers' rights. Funny that the FB people covered up the AFP logo, and tried to imply that Palin was addressing some union members. Ain't so.

Sarah Palin's "composition" on facebook, created for propaganda purposes:

There, the logo for "Americans For Prosperity" had been cut off, so as not to disturb Sarah Palin's message to her "union brothers and sisters."

An "uncropped" photo from this event in Madison, Wisconsin reveals that she was speaking for the Koch-funded "Americans for Prosperity":

It truly was a terrible "screech" by Sarah Palin, in which she was acting as a paid shill for the Koch Brothers and their infamous fake-grassroots organization "Americans for Prosperity" - watch the speech:

A friend of unions or union-members she is definitely not, our crafty Sarah. She only likes the folks with big pockets like the Koch-brothers who will happily pay her gigantic speaking fees.

Our reader JCos had some suggestions for the future use of the SarahPAC logo:

I think Sarah Palin should seriously consider the last proposal...just think about the headlines!

Good night, everyone!

+++

UPDATE:

The defenders of Sarah Palin, as well as Sarah Palin herself, don't have a leg to stand on in this controversy. One look at the website of SarahPAC reveals that the primary goal of her political action committee is fundraising:

Using iconic images without permission primarily for fundraising purposes therefore constitutes a particularly serious violation of copyright rules, and any other organization would have been sued for such a violation as well.

Even worse: More than 90 percent of the money that SarahPAC raised over the years was not used for the official purpose of SarahPAC - supporting other candidates. The money was used for Sarah Palin herself, in order to pay for her numerous and expensive consultants, for her travels, and even her long-time personal lawyers are being retained by SarahPAC. It's her own personal slush fund, ensuring that Sarah Palin can avoid what she hates most: Actual work.

Her PAC ensures that for example speeches, facebook posts and press articles are being written for her, just like it was the case with speeches, press articles and other items when she was Governor of Alaska. There is only one person, apart from her highly paid staff, who hugely profits from SarahPAC: Sarah Palin herself.

+++

UPDATE 2:

Because we are having so much fun today - Kathleen found an excellent Palin-joke in the comments of Huffington Post:

When they were prepairing SP for VP, they had a security audit checking the passwords on her computer accounts. During the audit, it was discovered that Sarah was using the following password:

“MickeyMinniePlutoHueyLouieDeweyDonaldGoofySacramento”

When asked why she had such a long password, she said she was told that it had to be at least 8 characters long and include at least one capital.

+++

UPDATE 3:

It turns out that it was Sarah Palin's own fault that the was slapped with this lawsuit - from NorthJersey.com (h/t NJfan):

Jennifer A. Borg, vice president, corporate secretary and general counsel for North Jersey Media Group, said the lawsuit was filed when neither Palin nor the PAC responded to a letter.

“It is important to enforce our copyright on this iconic photo,” Borg said. “When neither Ms. Palin nor representatives from her PAC responded to our demand letter to remove the photograph, we were left with no choice but to seek redress in court.”

+++

UPDATE 4:

We got a link to our story at "CNN Trends!"

Surely Palinbot-heads will explode when they see that! :-)

Screenshot:

+++

UPDATE 5:

The full original complaint by North Jersey Media Group Inc. has now been published. They specifically mention in the complaint that the photo was used for fundraising purposes by SarahPAC. They also demand a jury trial.

DOWNLOAD LINK HERE.

Screenshot from the complaint:

+++

UPDATE 6:

The controversy about the use of the picture by Sarah Palin and SarahPAC is now already a few days old, and still no word from Sarah Palin! No apology, no word to her supporters not to reproduce the SarahPAC-graphic any more. Talk about "mitigating the damage"...it isn't happening.

We know from history that Sarah Palin cannot take it if she is challenged for alleged "misconduct", because...how dare anyone to challenge her! How dare they! After all, isn't Sarah Palin an iconic item herself? Way more important than a silly photo, right...?

But "joking" aside:

Many thanks to BanditBasheert for pointing out that this iconic photo, taken by photographer Tom Franklin on 9/11, has been used multiple times very successfully for raising funds for good causes, for example for supporting 9/11 victims. The firemen who are depicted in the photo were also involved in the successful attempts to raise funds for good causes, as well as the photographer Tom Franklin himself.

The news website "Patch" provides more details:

It's one thing when a picture you've taken earns you celebrity status. But not everybody's work gets turned into a stamp. That happened in 2002 when the U.S. Postal Service introduced the "Heroes" stamp, featuring the flag-raising photo.

Proceeds from the stamp have raised more than $10 million to help families and rescue workers of 9/11.

Also that year, an autographed original print signed by Tom and the three firemen sold for $89,625 at Christie's Auction House, with proceeds benefiting two 9/11 charities. The photo has also been instrumental in raising money for other charitable causes, including Juvenile Diabetes, autism, cerebral palsy.

In addition, photographer Tom Franklin explained the following in an interview (which, by the way, is worth reading and contains great images) from 2011:

"The North Jersey Media Group, which owns the Bergen Record, owns the copyright of the photo. They have used the image in many ways to raise money, which then has been allocated to aid certain NJ families affected by 9/11. The "Heroes" stamp, which is a semi-postal US Postage stamp (semi-postal stamps are stamps where proceeds are used for charity, like the Breast Cancer stamp) features the image, and has raised over ten million dollars by itself. Those funds I believe were controlled by FEMA and allocated to 9/11-related victims. I believe that some of the funds leftover were used to aid Katrina victims."

Therefore it has to be noted, in order to understand the full context, that we are not talking about an ordinary photo - it is not just an "iconic" photo, but also a photo which has been used multiple times for fundraising purposes for various good causes. It is this context which makes the use of the photo by SarahPAC for their own fundraising particularly reprehensible.

In any case, Sarah Palin and her highly paid staffers messed it up. The photo is also displayed at Wikipedia, but at the same time, Wikipedia provides a precise warning to anyone who wants to use the photo for free, and accurately explains the limits of "fair use." Hint: Fundraising for your own for-profit PAC is never "fair use." Anyone would understand this and immediately offer a swift and sweeping apology, but we betcha that Sarah Palin feels that she was singled out unfairly. After all, she is the victim here, isn't she?

Wikipedia explains:

This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy).

+++

UPDATE 7:

Many thanks to our readers Maelewis and Sleuth for pointing out that this photo even has its own website, on which the rules for using the photo are explained in greater detail.

Quote from the website:

The Record (Bergen County, NJ), owns the copyright to the photograph. The following copyright notice must appear with the photo at all times: (c) 2001 The Record, (Bergen County, NJ).

• For personal, non-commercial use, visit NorthJerseyImages.com. Prints are available framed or unframed.

• For editorial use, please visit Getty Images.

• For nonprofit reuse, please call (973) 569-7014 or email groundzerospirit@northjersey.com.

• For licensed products, please use officially licensed vendors.

At the bottom of this website, there is a clear warning:

Please contact us if you find people who may be using our photo without permission.

We seek to ensure that the photograph is not used for personal gain and that it is used in a dignified and proper manner.

Therefore the rules are clear. Non-commercial use is possible with permission. For editorial use, the usual licence fee would apply, but the photograph is not to be used for personal gain. Then there are the "fair use" rules which apply to any photo, as mentioned above.

Nothing here speaks in favor of Sarah Palin or SarahPAC, who used the photo commercially without permission, for their own fundraising purposes. Exactly the opposite is the case: From the rules stated on the website, it is apparent immediately that this type of usage by Sarah Palin and SarahPAC would have never been allowed.

Amazingly, the world is still waiting for a statement from Sarah Palin. What's the problem, Sarah?