Best quality picture of Jerry Kramer carrying Vince Lombardi

[fcs]

Hi fellow Cheeseheads,

My name is Peter and I live in Denmark, a small country in northern Europe. Last year, I was fortunate to meet Jerry Kramer and get his autograph on a jersey. I have finally ordered a frame for the jersey and it just arrived. In the frame, there is room for two 8*10 photos. I really want one of the two photos to be the one of Jerry carrying Vince off the field. I have found the picture attached to this post online, but the image quality is not good enough for an 8*10 print (the file is only 93KB). I have searched online to find it in a better quality, but without success, so now I am hoping that you guys can help. Do any of you know where I can find that picture in a higher resolution anywhere?

Thanks for your help in advance.

GO PACK GO from Denmark

 

[Mondio]

It's probably owned media and you'd have to find a place to purchase the print. I doubt you'd have much luck finding a printable file

 

[fcs]

It's probably owned media and you'd have to find a place to purchase the print. I doubt you'd have much luck finding a printable file

Thanks. Do you know where I might be able to purchase the print?

 

[Pkrjones]

I believe Sports Illustrated owns the rights to this pic, so you may need to contact them for high resolution purchase. https://www.si.com/vault/issue/40772/toc

Not sure if you'd be interested in a copy of the entire 1/22/68 edition of that SI magazine, but here's one for sale. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vince-Lomb...616720?hash=item23c3c97b10:g:HLUAAOSwmrJdWVpq

 

[gopkrs]

Wow! A Packer fan in Denmark. Very cool!

 

[fcs]

I believe Sports Illustrated owns the rights to this pic, so you may need to contact them for high resolution purchase. https://www.si.com/vault/issue/40772/toc

Not sure if you'd be interested in a copy of the entire 1/22/68 edition of that SI magazine, but here's one for sale. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vince-Lomb...616720?hash=item23c3c97b10:g:HLUAAOSwmrJdWVpq

Thanks for the suggestion - it gave me a few ideas to pursue

 

[fcs]

Wow! A Packer fan in Denmark. Very cool!

Yes - we do actually exist

 

[weeds]

Yes - we do actually exist

Just southeast of Green Bay, you'll find Denmark, Wisconsin. Lots of Packers fans there too. Just sayin'.

 

[Mondio]

Ha, I was just there yesterday picking up some bunk beds someone was making for the kids

 

[HardRightEdge]

Hi fellow Cheeseheads,

My name is Peter and I live in Denmark, a small country in northern Europe. Last year, I was fortunate to meet Jerry Kramer and get his autograph on a jersey. I have finally ordered a frame for the jersey and it just arrived. In the frame, there is room for two 8*10 photos. I really want one of the two photos to be the one of Jerry carrying Vince off the field. I have found the picture attached to this post online, but the image quality is not good enough for an 8*10 print (the file is only 93KB). I have searched online to find it in a better quality, but without success, so now I am hoping that you guys can help. Do any of you know where I can find that picture in a higher resolution anywhere?

Thanks for your help in advance.

PS: Can we borrow your Prime Minister for about a year and a half?

 

[El Guapo]

PS: Can we borrow your Prime Minister for about a year and a half?

Why borrow when we can outright buy?

 

[fcs]

Just southeast of Green Bay, you'll find Denmark, Wisconsin. Lots of Packers fans there too. Just sayin'.

Yeah, I saw that a couple of years ago when driving through. Funny to see that

 

[weeds]

Why borrow when we can outright buy?

I don't think their Prime Minister is for sale neither. A concept our guy can't understand.

 

[longtimefan]

Many of us know where Denmark is, more now than a week ago. You turn right at Greenland. I cribbed that from John Lennon who deadpanned, "

PS: Can we borrow your Prime Minister for about a year and a half?

Do people read the rules ever?


Posting Getty Images:
This Policy is extremely simple: DO NOT USE IMAGES FROM GETTY IMAGES. Anyone can do simple searches through Google Images and find a suitable replacement. The previous owner was hit was a C&D from their attorney.

 

[Mondio]

Though I'm sure not worth the hassle, I thought it's been hashed out in court that web operators are not liable for the content their members might share or post? I mean they have people using forums to plan and celebrate mass murder and their fairly untouchable, I'd tell the Getty lawyer to take a bite

But that's me and i'm not a forum owner. They would probably make it more of a hassle than it's worth, but I always like to fight the man when I can

Though you never have to worry about me using an image from that place, not a fan of them or how they treat photographers.

 

[longtimefan]

Though I'm sure not worth the hassle, I thought it's been hashed out in court that web operators are not liable for the content their members might share or post? I mean they have people using forums to plan and celebrate mass murder and their fairly untouchable, I'd tell the Getty lawyer to take a bite

But that's me and i'm not a forum owner. They would probably make it more of a hassle than it's worth, but I always like to fight the man when I can

Though you never have to worry about me using an image from that place, not a fan of them or how they treat photographers.

Rules explain it all

 

[Mondio]

Rules explain it all

I know, i'm not arguing the rules of the forum, just stating, the lawyer doesn't have much to stand on. That doesn't mean he couldn't make things difficult for a moment, but he has nothing to fall back on. Web owners are not liable for posts by their members. That's been established.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Though I'm sure not worth the hassle, I thought it's been hashed out in court that web operators are not liable for the content their members might share or post? I mean they have people using forums to plan and celebrate mass murder and their fairly untouchable, I'd tell the Getty lawyer to take a bite

While it may be true that web operators remain not technically liable for the content of their members you'd have to be blind to not see the Congressional sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.

The most notrious sponsor of planners and celebrators of mass murder got booted by their web host. I'm guessing they might find another host in some dark corner and eventually get booted off that one as well once the word gets out. Facebook has hired thousands of human bodies to scrub the garbage off their platform under Congressional scrutiny even if they are the Dutch boy with one finger in the ****. Youtube has been taking down tons of stuff and, like Facebook, is chucking nefarious accounts left and right, be they racists or Russians or other nefarious entities.

It may be a futile attempt to hold back an overwhelming tide, but it is an attempt nonetheless.

Of course the obvious solution is to treat these platforms for what they are: media companies. But Congress would never contemplate that, killing a trillion dollar sub-sector of stock market. Instead, that sword put over their heads is anti-trust breakups, even though these are natural near-monopolies with anti-competitive practice pretty scant.

It's funny how when these platforms scrub stuff and get answered with, "you are violating free speech!", they don't answer with a direct, "We're a private company, we can decide what we allow on our platform. If you don't like our editorial policy, tough." Those would be the words of a media company, which were they legally so designated would be their death knell.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the question at hand: copyright infringement. But as Congress inches a bit closer to treating these outfits as media companies, even if they are oblique half (or tenth) measures, it's increasingly worth erring on the side of caution.

 

[Mondio]

My eyesight is failing. I'm not talking about free speech. i don't care if they allow the getty images or not. I'm fine with not, i don't care about getty at all really. But the web host is not trying to profit by it, and neither is the poster. This is nothing more than a lawyer swinging a psuedo stick.

 

[HardRightEdge]

My eyesight is failing. I'm not talking about free speech. i don't care if they allow the getty images or not. I'm fine with not, i don't care about getty at all really. But the web host is not trying to profit by it, and neither is the poster. This is nothing more than a lawyer swinging a psuedo stick.

Yeah, it is all kinda about free speech, what you can and can't publish freely. Copyrights are a form of restraint on free speech. So, what's the risk/reward in this case? The risk is at the very least spending money on a lawyer to tell the other guy to go jump (or to tell you to do nothing), at worse being a test case on grounds of willful negligence. What's the reward? Next to nothing. What is the principle you want to uphold when there is no virtue in sponsoring pirated material?

There is an argument to be made here its that the info I posted was effectively an advertisement for Getty, not the pirating of an image. Who would complain about a link to their web site, where the page linked is freely available to anybody who cared to look for it? But as I explained to Shaggy and the gang, given this sites sensitivity to past events, I would not make that argument, and I apologized.

Again, upholding principles is always easier with somebody else's money.

 

[Mondio]

I never said they should, and also said that’s me, and I’m not the forum owner.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I never said they should, and also said that’s me, and I’m not the forum owner.

That's the thing. Mondio. If you actually owned a web site I think you'd be singing a different tune.

 

[Mondio]

That's the thing. Mondio. If you actually owned a web site I think you'd be singing a different tune.

maybe, maybe not. I can bill a few thousand in a day and took the day off 2 separate times just to appear in court for some deadbeat tenants, call all their bluffs and add one more judgment to their list. After we found them, they were sued 7 times by other landlords looking for them. Principles matter.

I put the purchase of a house on hold for the 1 and only mark on my credit report 15 years ago for 300 bucks sent to collections for a medical bill I refused to pay. I'm not a complete ***** when it comes to sacrificing for principles.

I pick my battles, i'm married, happily and have learned to do at least that much.

Just saying, web owners are not liable for what their members post and it likely isn't worth their time or money, which is what I said to begin with.

 

[HardRightEdge]

maybe, maybe not. I can bill a few thousand in a day and took the day off 2 separate times just to appear in court for some deadbeat tenants, call all their bluffs and add one more judgment to their list. After we found them, they were sued 7 times by other landlords looking for them. Principles matter.

Yeah, well how much blood did all those plaintiffs get from those particular stones? If principle is justly ruining somebody's credit rating, go for it. In civil court, its about "show me the money" and it best be more than what you spend to get it. Princples should be exercised when there is a chance of punative damages.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I sense a thread lock is coming, and I wouldn't protest that either.