"Photo Illustration" of a generic photo from who-knows-where is one thing. Changing the words on a sign being held by people who could be your subscribers is quite another. It would be interesting to hear the publisher respond to a more specific charge of "putting words on the signs of subscribers" without their permission. These are people who are likely to be recognizable by other subscribers. It isn't merely a "photo illustration" when the people are local and recognizable.
"You should host seminars on how to behave on opposing fan forums. Charge a pretty penny toward that Bison tailgating rig. " from Milkman 1/6/2016
Just when you think the Forum can't get any worse.
They make the entire city/state look bad.
This space for rent. DM for rates.
Wow, that is really bad. Basically, let's just make stuff up.
I misspelled "Kitten Mittens." The product is "Kitten Mittons." I blame the Forum.
The mistake of trying to hide behind it being an "illustration" is that 95-99% of the population would never look to see whether it was an illustration or an actual undoctored photo. As per the rules posted of another newspaper, they needed to make it blatantly obvious or use a hand drawn cartoon if they wanted to use an illustration.
All this proves is that UND needs a $150 million School of Ethics building.
The strange thing is why go to the trouble? If they thought those signs were too strange or offensive or something, why not get one of many, many other photos of Bison fans at the Championship games? There are 4 (recent) years of material to work with?!?