<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
     xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
     xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
    <channel>
        <title><![CDATA[Judge rules it’s legal to examine fuss over Jon Hamm’s ‘private’ property]]></title>
        <atom:link href="https://usagag.com/2020/09/10/judge-rules-its-legal-to-examine-fuss-over-jon-hamms-private-property/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://usagag.com/2020/09/10/judge-rules-its-legal-to-examine-fuss-over-jon-hamms-private-property/</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:45:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
        <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
        <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
        <generator>https://usagag.com</generator>
        <media:content url="/uploads/2020/09/judge-rules-its-legal-to-examine-fuss-over-jon-hamms-private-property.jpg" medium="image">
            <media:title type="html">Judge rules it’s legal to examine fuss over Jon Hamm’s ‘private’ property</media:title>
        </media:content>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A news site didn&#8217;t break copyright laws when it published a paparazzi shot it did not own showing the actor <strong>Jon Hamm</strong>&#8216;s pants bulge, a judge ruled Thursday &#8212; because of all the fuss surrounding the &#8220;Mad Men&#8221; star&#8217;s member.</p><p>HuffPost used the viral image showing Hamm strolling down the street on two legs &#8212; with an apparent third testing the tensile strength of his trousers &#8212; alongside an article headlined &#8220;25 things you wish you hadn&#8217;t learned in 2013 and must forget in 2014.&#8221;</p><p>The outlet cropped a black text box in the image over the actor&#8217;s crotch with the phrase &#8220;IMAGE LOADING,&#8221; according to the ruling.</p><p>In his ruling, Manhattan federal court judge Ronnie Abrams said there&#8217;s legal precedent for news outlets using licensed images for stories that &#8220;illustrate what all the fuss is about.&#8221;</p><p>&#8220;Here too, the photograph was used to illustrate what all the fuss is about, namely Hamm&#8217;s &#8216;privates&#8217; and the public&#8217;s fixation with them,&#8221; Abrams wrote.</p><p>In addition, HuffPost mocked the actor&#8217;s package, and the accompanying article poked fun at media outlets who deemed the photo newsworthy.</p><p>The flip nature of the piece on Hamm&#8217;s piece proves HuffPost use of the image was &#8220;transformative&#8221; and offered criticism of the photograph.</p><p>&#8220;This year has been a busy one for &#8216;Mad Men star Jon Hamm&#8217;s privates &#8230; Hamm says he wants people to stop talking about his loins, but it might help if he&#8217;d put on some underwear,&#8221; the text of the article read.</p><p>Abrams said the excerpts like that &#8220;reinforces the Court&#8217;s conclusion that the article aims to mock the public fixation on Hamm&#8217;s &#8216;privates&#8217; in addition to mocking Hamm himself.&#8221;</p><p>Photographer Lawrence Schwartzwald sued the news outlet after they published the photo he took, which he said &#8220;illustrates what Jon Hamm looks like wearing trousers in public while he walks down the street.&#8221;</p>]]></content:encoded>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[USAGAG]]></dc:creator>
            </channel>
</rss><!--Time: 0.020004987716675-->