When an actor plays a role in a film they sign a release allowing use of their image in that film, but the argument here is that the contract was misleading as to the nature of the film and thus invalid, making the user of her image copyright infringement.
This is a dangerous precedent for Hollywood. Suppose I am a character actor in a major motion picture and my parts mostly end up the floor in the first release of the print. I could now go to court to stop the distribution on copyright grounds because I was mislead as to the extent of my screen time? Any one of the cast could hold the whole movie hostage under this ruling.
a lot of people across Europe are not fond of Google's obvious disregard of them as unimportant enough to not even be negotiated with.
In general, most European nations have a tradition that these things are negotiated on. US/UK tradition is in direct conflict with this, and is more of posturing and ultimatums.
Bullshit. European tradition is to have a monarch dictate policy. US tradition is to argue everything out because we got rid of our King, so we had to vote on policy.
Permanent? Ouch. "If erection lasts for more than 4 hours..."
Do not Google "necrotic penis"
In Star Trek women aren't uniformly attractive; it's simply that the ones who aren't attractive don't get promoted into the "important" ranks who get all the screen-time. Does it still seem so far-fetched?
No, they just get beamed out on a transporter with the biofilter set to "hotness".
Has the author seen the incoming Congress?