Remember the Diablo II players are famous for their acts of stupidity. They regularly get their CD-keys and accounts stolen.
Actually, the issue with D2 and several other games is that people would buy one copy of the game, open it, write down the CD Key, return it to some place like Wal-mart or Best Buy where they only do even exchanges for opened materials and repeat ad infinitum.
The retailers are supposed to report these returned CD Keys, but it never happens.
Soon enough it will be possible to obtain the necessary stem cells without the termination of a pregnancy and it will become a non issue, since this is mainly why certain groups oppose it.
Yeah, I figured that was pretty much implied. Anyway, the point is that the lawyer does not tell them WHAT to do, he tells them how. At least, that's how it should be in most cases. The OP was simply trying to take a quick stab at lawyers, when more than likely someone at Orbitz said "hey, we should stop people linking to us from these sites because they hurt our business in some way." Then the lawyer said, "Well, we would have all of our customers agree to this terms of service stating that they won't link, because it's going to be real difficult to enforce otherwise, etc."
But the lawyer's job is never to make decisions for the client, it is to advise the client in their decisions.
You might have a good idea here; the best thing to do is to use their system against them. So they want us to get permission everytime we link? Then do it. Every possible chance you get. Eventually it will get to the point that they might realize it was a bad idea and modify their statement.
I imagine their goal was to stop robots from other sites grabbing their prices and using them to make money of their own rather than to prevent the casual user from linking to Orbitz.
It would depend on how the courts have construed "adverstisements", "commentaries related to the distribution of such articles", or "commentaries related to the display of such articles in connection with news reports."
I don't think taking a picture qualifies, but as I said, I no idea how the federal courts have construed those statements, or if they even have.
"(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
U.S. Copyright Law specifically limits the scope of archtectural copyrights to allow photographs. There is no such limitation provided for scultpural works. Therefore it could be inferred that because Congress knew how to permit pictorial representations of a particular type of work, they are generally not permitted unless expressly done so (expressio unius est exclusio alterius).
17 USC 120:
"(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.-- The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."
Sorry, but you're wrong. The creator of the work holds the copyright. In copyright law "copy" refers to the original work as well as physical copies of it.
17 USC 101, "The term "copies" includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed."
17 USC 106, "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
And, as another poster pointed out, regardless of who paid for it and how, it's now owned by the public.
It doesn't matter who owns the work of art, the artist still holds the copyright and all exclusive rights granted therein unless he has specifically granted them to another party.
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Better go back and read that Constitution again, sonny. A literal reading of it gives no feeling that slavery would be allowed, except for Article IV Section 2, "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." Note that this could very easily live in harmony with the Fifth Amendment (due process). By its letter, the Constitution had no room for slavery in the form that existed.
Also, keep in mind that it very likely would have been impossible to have the Constitution approved in the first place were that clause left out.
However, since this was changed by a constitutional amendment (XVII, passed in 1913), that means that 2/3rds of the states approved such a reduction in their power.
I don't know anything about French trademark law to comment on the merits of the case, I just want to demonstrate to everyone saying that France cannot assert jurisdiction over Google in this manner that they very easily could have. If a foreign country were trying to invalidly assert power over a United States corporation, you can be certain that the U.S. Government would get involved and there would be a much large deal made out of that issue than the trademark issue. As it stands, Google showed up to court and doesn't appear to have fought jurisdiction at all.
I don't have an opinion on the merits of the case, because I don't know enough about French law in the area.
If a company based in California advertises to Ohio and I call them and order a product from them, they pretty much have made themselves subject to the jurisidiction of Ohio. The actual transaction took place on a phone line, possible crossing through several states and involving bank transactions in others. However, I am a citizen of Ohio, the company in California knows this when they sell their product to me, and therefore they can be sued in the courts of Ohio.
The analogy is not that difficult to see. You can very easily be held liable in a civil action for damages to someone in a foreign country if you ship a product to them or provide some service to them. This is no different.
You're talking about criminal proceedings against individuals.
This is about civil proceedings between two parties, one of whom is a business located in France, the other is a business located in the United States. Google has done more than simply make their website available to people in France, they have engaged in business activity, contractual relationships and other dealings with citizens of France, therefore the French courts can exert jurisdiction over them if they so choose.
I'm not making this up, there have been many court decisions regarding jurisdiction and the Internet over the past several years; however, in Google's case, the fact that the Internet is involved is somewhat secondary to the fact that they are engaged in business with citizens of France, and therefore claims arising out of that relationship can be expect to be brought before French courts. The citizens of France should be afforded the same protection of their courts against foreign companies as they are against domestic ones.
If Google breached a contract they had with a company in France, they could easily expect the case to be heard by a French court.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember the Diablo II players are famous for their acts of stupidity. They regularly get their CD-keys and accounts stolen.
Actually, the issue with D2 and several other games is that people would buy one copy of the game, open it, write down the CD Key, return it to some place like Wal-mart or Best Buy where they only do even exchanges for opened materials and repeat ad infinitum.
The retailers are supposed to report these returned CD Keys, but it never happens.
Soon enough it will be possible to obtain the necessary stem cells without the termination of a pregnancy and it will become a non issue, since this is mainly why certain groups oppose it.
The same goes for paper documents, what's your point?
As opposed to private businesses which have no interest in maximizing profits?
Yeah, I figured that was pretty much implied. Anyway, the point is that the lawyer does not tell them WHAT to do, he tells them how. At least, that's how it should be in most cases. The OP was simply trying to take a quick stab at lawyers, when more than likely someone at Orbitz said "hey, we should stop people linking to us from these sites because they hurt our business in some way." Then the lawyer said, "Well, we would have all of our customers agree to this terms of service stating that they won't link, because it's going to be real difficult to enforce otherwise, etc."
But the lawyer's job is never to make decisions for the client, it is to advise the client in their decisions.
reviewing every little change a lawyer wants to make in these documents.
A lawyer does what the client wants. Or at least, is supposed to.
Blaming the lawyer for the client's policy is like blaming the cashier at Wal-Mart for the company's policies.
You might have a good idea here; the best thing to do is to use their system against them. So they want us to get permission everytime we link? Then do it. Every possible chance you get. Eventually it will get to the point that they might realize it was a bad idea and modify their statement.
I imagine their goal was to stop robots from other sites grabbing their prices and using them to make money of their own rather than to prevent the casual user from linking to Orbitz.
Humans are animals, so what is a "part human part animal"?
If you're correct, why didn't the artist pay the city instead of the city paying the artist?
It would depend on how the courts have construed "adverstisements", "commentaries related to the distribution of such articles", or "commentaries related to the display of such articles in connection with news reports."
I don't think taking a picture qualifies, but as I said, I no idea how the federal courts have construed those statements, or if they even have.
What can be copyrighted?
17 USC 102:
"(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
U.S. Copyright Law specifically limits the scope of archtectural copyrights to allow photographs. There is no such limitation provided for scultpural works. Therefore it could be inferred that because Congress knew how to permit pictorial representations of a particular type of work, they are generally not permitted unless expressly done so (expressio unius est exclusio alterius).
17 USC 120:
"(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.-- The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."
Sorry, but you're wrong. The creator of the work holds the copyright. In copyright law "copy" refers to the original work as well as physical copies of it.
17 USC 101, "The term "copies" includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed."
17 USC 106, "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
If I buy a painting from an artist, I have not bought the copyright along with that painting. I cannot make copies of it and distribute it.
The same goes for a sculpture purchased by a city.
And, as another poster pointed out, regardless of who paid for it and how, it's now owned by the public.
It doesn't matter who owns the work of art, the artist still holds the copyright and all exclusive rights granted therein unless he has specifically granted them to another party.
However, you can't sell pictures of other people's work, including sculpture and architecture, without their permission.
Distribution, regardless of whether a "sale" is involved, is violating the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
Public funds are also used to acquire objects for museums. Are you suggesting that the public owns the copyrights for what they hold in the museum?
Copyright infringement does not require money for it to exist.
17 USC 106 (Copyright holder exclusive rights)
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
allowing slavery in 1793 being the worst
Better go back and read that Constitution again, sonny. A literal reading of it gives no feeling that slavery would be allowed, except for Article IV Section 2, "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." Note that this could very easily live in harmony with the Fifth Amendment (due process). By its letter, the Constitution had no room for slavery in the form that existed.
Also, keep in mind that it very likely would have been impossible to have the Constitution approved in the first place were that clause left out.
However, since this was changed by a constitutional amendment (XVII, passed in 1913), that means that 2/3rds of the states approved such a reduction in their power.
I don't know anything about French trademark law to comment on the merits of the case, I just want to demonstrate to everyone saying that France cannot assert jurisdiction over Google in this manner that they very easily could have. If a foreign country were trying to invalidly assert power over a United States corporation, you can be certain that the U.S. Government would get involved and there would be a much large deal made out of that issue than the trademark issue. As it stands, Google showed up to court and doesn't appear to have fought jurisdiction at all.
I don't have an opinion on the merits of the case, because I don't know enough about French law in the area.
If a company based in California advertises to Ohio and I call them and order a product from them, they pretty much have made themselves subject to the jurisidiction of Ohio. The actual transaction took place on a phone line, possible crossing through several states and involving bank transactions in others. However, I am a citizen of Ohio, the company in California knows this when they sell their product to me, and therefore they can be sued in the courts of Ohio.
The analogy is not that difficult to see. You can very easily be held liable in a civil action for damages to someone in a foreign country if you ship a product to them or provide some service to them. This is no different.
You're talking about criminal proceedings against individuals.
This is about civil proceedings between two parties, one of whom is a business located in France, the other is a business located in the United States. Google has done more than simply make their website available to people in France, they have engaged in business activity, contractual relationships and other dealings with citizens of France, therefore the French courts can exert jurisdiction over them if they so choose.
I'm not making this up, there have been many court decisions regarding jurisdiction and the Internet over the past several years; however, in Google's case, the fact that the Internet is involved is somewhat secondary to the fact that they are engaged in business with citizens of France, and therefore claims arising out of that relationship can be expect to be brought before French courts. The citizens of France should be afforded the same protection of their courts against foreign companies as they are against domestic ones.
If Google breached a contract they had with a company in France, they could easily expect the case to be heard by a French court.