Messages in thread: 10.
| Digital ads entangle - 4/13/2002 - by Jim Roepcke BigSmallScreen | ||
|
CNET: Digital ads entangle "Spider-Man" "The suit, which spends three pages describing Reply |
| Re: Digital ads entangle - 4/13/2002 - by Brian Carnell BigSmallScreen | ||
|
At 02:04 AM 4/13/2002 -0400, Jim wrote: >CNET: Digital ads entangle "Spider-Man" Reply |
| Re: Digital ads entangle - 4/13/2002 - by Jim Roepcke BigSmallScreen | ||
|
On Saturday, April 13, 2002, at 12:02 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: > I suspect in Reply |
| RE: Digital ads entangle - 4/13/2002 - by Greg Pierce BigSmallScreen | ||
|
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:52:28 -0400, Jim Roepcke wrote: >It doesn't matter. It's Reply |
| Re: Digital ads entangle - 4/13/2002 - by Jim Roepcke BigSmallScreen | ||
|
On Saturday, April 13, 2002, at 03:02 PM, Greg Pierce wrote: > On Sat, 13 Apr Reply |
| Re: Digital ads entangle - 4/14/2002 - by Bill Kearney BigSmallScreen | ||
|
But I could also see where some jackass would try to sue because the billboard WAS Reply |
| Re: Digital ads entangle - 4/14/2002 - by Pete Jansson BigSmallScreen | ||
|
One exception to this of which I'm aware is that you can't film in NYC without having Reply |
| RE: Digital ads entangle - 4/13/2002 - by Brian Carnell BigSmallScreen | ||
|
At 05:52 PM 4/13/2002 -0400, Jim wrote: >It doesn't matter. It's fiction... art. Reply |
| Re: Digital ads entangle - 4/13/2002 - by Jim Roepcke BigSmallScreen | ||
|
On Saturday, April 13, 2002, at 06:30 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: > At 05:52 PM Reply |
| RE: Digital ads entangle - 8/6/2002 - by Jim Roepcke BigSmallScreen | ||
|
Thankfully, the judge in the case regarding whether or not the Spider-Man movie Reply |




