Slashdot Mirror

Or drop the Obama since Garcia is not the official whitehouse photographer, which might be construed as the Obama Photographer because the whitehouse photographer mostly photographs the president in interesting places meeting interesting people.

Yup, real media never have problems with reporters making stuff up, or plagiarism, or using DoD Propaganda as articles or even using altered photographs. Yup, every single person in the professional traditional media holds to the finest standards of journalism.

If the forum does not have any copyright rules (as I mentioned) then the author's posting of the code in an open and public forum intended as an example without any explicit limitations would be considered by a "reasonable man" to be intended to be used by any readers for any purpose.

Courts are not about reason, they are about the law. If there are no copyright rules in the forum, then the author retains all rights to the code. ALL RIGHTS.

The act of publishing a work, i.e. posting to a forum in this case, implies a grant of a number of rights. If you don't limit those rights at time of publication, then you lose them.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

I suggest you do some reading on the subject. You might find this article useful: http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/copyright.html While it discusses photographs instead of source code, the idea is the same as both are subject to copyright protection. You might find this text particularly illuminating: There is no such thing as an implied copyright waiver, i.e. if a photograph has been used in violation of a copyright, the fact that the copyright holder did not seek to enforce the copyright at the time does not mean s/he waives his copyright. Copyrights must be explicitly waived...

I'm pretty confident that, if given the option between one HERF gun or several real guns for the same amount of cash, the terrrrists would choose real guns. I doubt it'll be a *real* problem in Iraq.

Frankly, I wonder if our brave men and women will prefer the new technology, or stick to murdering unarmed drivers. My hunch is that bullets, being cheaper, will necessitate more brutal murder of innocent civilians in front of their own children.

Precisely, and the NPAA, the the AP and and the nyt (ok, perhaps a bad example ;) agree with you.

All of the above groups have instituted policies that prevent people from changing or editing the content of the photos. Unfortunately, we are now / have been seeing somewhat of a backlash and you have papers who ban all editing of photos beyond cropping. No color touchups, no levels adjustments, nothing. Termination offense too and some people have lost awards because of color corrections (minor ones) too.

What shocks me is that there are a great number of people who actually support these policies. I'm afraid that many of these apologists have little or no knowledge of RAW formats, HDR images (some cameras have basic hdr built in now), color casts, white balance, telephoto compression, the levels tool, or really, anything at all about the printing process or photography. I'm afraid that they are living in their own little dream world.
Now - I realize that you can do a lot with levels - like the oj time cover - but banning any color correction or minor edits on the part of the photographer is just plain stupid.

Here is a story on the OJ photograph with both versions of the TIME magazine cover in question.

Ann Margaret's body back in 1989.

Then there was Time darkening O.J. mugshot

Certainly nothing new.....