This is why kitten-heels are (relatively) great! One can add a little glam on occasion, but at only an inch high, they don't cause as much damage. Of course, flats are the preferred shoe for daily wear.

@Jaymeekae

If it was part of a news story, they are covered under fair use, in this case because the clip directly illustrated an aspect of the topic they were covering.

I just want to let boingboingers in on something rather uncool about this blog...

Yesterday, I tried to post four well-intentioned and thoughtful comments to the wronged blogger's site, but each comment was rejected because I disagreed with the blogger's own perspective.

To be clear - my comments were not spam, and they were not trollish. Each comment contained useful advice that might have helped others in a similar situation (although I did tell her to calm down and take some deep breaths).

But no matter how I phrased it she didn't publish. So after my fourth try not showing up, I sent a test post -- a 100% positive comment under the user name "Charlotte" -- and it was posted immediately.

So just be aware if you go to her actual blog and read the comments, they do not represent reality. She is deceiving her readers into thinking that almost all the comments she gets on this issue support suing FOX, and that isn't the case.

Anyway - here was my original advice (I'll post it here, since I know boingboing welcomes dialogue, and it may really help someone else):

Most television stations and broadcasters have Errors and Ommissions insurance and permissions departments that clear rights for things after the fact. It's very likely that a holiday fill-in cg or other low-level designer (or intern) pinched her photo on deadline.

Rather than jumping into some legal morass right off the bat, she should first handle it the way a professional would, by sending them an invoice for use of the photo. One copy should go to the accounts payable department for the unit that produced that program, and another copy should go to the errors and ommissions folks for FOX.

Starting a cover letter with "It has come to my attention that...." and charging an extra fee for usage of the material before the rights were cleared is a good first step.

If FOX doesn't pay for some reason, she can go on from there.

FOX has enough money to cover the cost of using the pic as a legitimate expense. It also has a budget set aside for times when it makes an error like this, specifically because stupid people do stupid things on deadline.

So while it's ironic that FOX did this, it's not the kind of violation that would result if say, FOX kidnapped her actual dog and held it for ransom on tv.