Comments from kencmcintyre

Here is a February 1965 ad from the Victoria Advocate:
http://tinyurl.com/ll5rzy

Here are some 1985 photos. The state is misidentified in the second photo.
http://tinyurl.com/nujuj4
http://tinyurl.com/lcnlc4

Here are some March 2008 photos. The related site is no longer working.
http://tinyurl.com/n6uvgj

Here is a larger view of the photo posted on 1/31/05:
http://tinyurl.com/n88vbc

Here is another 1983 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/n4z529

Here is a November 1955 ad from the Tribune:
http://tinyurl.com/n9w7ly

Here is a November 1956 ad from the same source:
http://tinyurl.com/mfp4sv

Here is a circa 1932 photo from the Irvin Glazer theater collection:
http://tinyurl.com/lseo6w

Here is a December 2008 ad from the Quincy Valley Post-Register:
http://tinyurl.com/m7mprm

I didn’t know they wrote laws now. Are they overturning the fair use doctrine?

I don’t mean to be sarcastic, but other people besides you have raised the copyright issue without any clue as to how the law protects limited reproduction, as long as the intent is not to profit off of the likeness. There’s a lot of case law on this. Even if the likeness holder were to take some sort of action, like an injunction, they would probably lose as they would not be able to prove damages. So whether the likeness holder agrees or disagrees, legally it doesn’t make any difference.It’s very unlikely that the holder of the image would take any action unless there was a clearcut attempt to profit from the likeness.

So all the posts with thumbnails should be removed, since none of those images were posted with permission.

Here is a July 2008 ad from the Shelton-Mason County Journal:
http://tinyurl.com/mhqs9n