Leaked ‘Iron Man’ Photo Now Subject of Lawsuit

Rick Marshall

Rick Marshall was Online Managing Editor for ComicMix before joining MTV's SplashPage. Previously, he was Online Content Manager for Wizard Entertainment. He has written for several daily newspapers, alternative weekly newspapers, trade magazines and online media, and was named "Writer of the Year" by the New York Press Association in 2005.

You may also like...

12 Responses

  1. Michael Davis says:


    • Rick Marshall says:

      I do! Otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. ;) And according to the site's traffic, I'm far from the only person, too… *shrug*In the end, I am merely a servant to the readership, sir.

      • Michael Davis says:

        Rick-crazy lawsuits me me NUTS!!!! My ire was at the people suing over this not you for posting it.

        • mike weber says:

          Sue not, lest ye be judged.Expensively.

        • Rick Marshall says:

          No worries, Michael – I took no offense whatsoever. Crazy lawsuits drive me bat-shite loony, too. I'm not sure how I feel about this one, as I didn't agree with IESB getting shut down over the photo to begin with, but the photog's claims aren't exactly easy to digest, either.It's one of those "everybody's wrong" scenarios, as far as i'm concerned.If i were the presiding judge, they'd be forced to watch "Elektra" and David Hasselhoff's "Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD" over and over until they agreed to play nice. But that's just me.

          • Mike Gold says:

            Well, here's textbook damning with faint praise, but Hasselhoff's Fury was nowhere near as bad as Elektra. Or Catwoman. Or at least two of the Batman movies. Or at least three of the Superman movies. Or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.Actually, it would have been a perfectly fine teevee movie… if it were, oh, 1974.

          • Luciano Pimentel says:

            LXG – worse than Hasselhoff's turn as Fury?!? You may want to substitute that awful JLA movie for the LXG – and have it be "TV fare vs TV fare" from about the same time period too…But if you'd persist in being intemporal in your comparisons, I'd then raise you with a Casino Royale (the one with David Niven and Peter Sellers!) being a far worse mish-mash of characters and perversion of the source material than League of Extraordinary Gentlemen ever could be deemed to be…!Plus, LXG has the real James Bond in it! ;)

    • Alan Coil says:

      YOU DO, Michael. It's called intellectual property rights. The guy took the picture. The Marvel movie used the picture without permission. Looks like an identical picture to me, perhaps with the color altered a bit to make it brighter. I hope the guy wins several thousand.

  2. Russ Rogers says:

    I think it's poetic justice. The photograph used in the movie doesn't look to be the same, just a recreation of the illegally released image. Then again, for some, "A swipe is a swipe."I don't think the suing photographer has a leg to stand on. But I'm not a lawyer

  3. Karl Cramer says:

    Win or lose, if the studio's smart they'll use the case to have the paparazzi document how he found out about the shoot and how he got the photo. For future defense.

    • mike weber says:

      They know how he got the pic – it was one of several he shot from a neighbouring roof – it's in the original article this post references.And notice that they didn't try to sue the photographer – because they couldn't. He was operating within his rights when he took it, and it had news value, so they couldn't do anything to him for selling it to the blog (or giving it, or whatever).A good summary of photographers' rights – by an attorney – can be found here. Notice that, even if you are trespassing, you can photograph anything/anyone who does not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" – and an outdoor movie shoot in an urban area definitely qualifies as *not* having that.