You can't make a jump from that to proving the theory of evolution by natural selection.
well, it could prove that natural selection as a process is successful at doing what evolutionists claim it does -- one of the major arguments is that natural selection simply cannot explain something as complex as a human brain, so showing that it CAN achieve such a complex result doesn't prove it did in fact occur that way in our past, but it means that we cannot dismiss the theory for that reason.
Given that we evolved from primates, why would we lose all of their attributes simply because our brains developed? For example, a primate's feet is very much like their hands. On us, the toes don't do very much.
Watch any young child, and you'll see them using their feet and toes just as unconsciously and finely as any other ape. We lose that as we age partly by culture and partly by disuse -- people born with no arms get by quite well holding pencils in their feet and writing.
That said, we doubtless lost some of the dexterity once we no longer needed climbing ability and instead needed the ability to stand upright for long periods of time. It is much less stable to have a shorter foot arch and longer toes, takes a lot more energy to remain balanced.
How can you trust eyes (created through a series of random events) to see anything correctly? How do you trust your brain's (again, created through a series of random events) interpretation of what your eyes see?
Well, you shouldn't. Anyone who says their eyes are 100% "truth" is wrong.
That said, we can get by because we can. Our eyes are honest enough for day to day use only because if they weren't we would all be dead. That said, don't trust your eyes if they tell you a surface is hot or cold -- you might get burned. You'll be much better off trusting your sense of touch, even though it isn't anywhere near as sensitive as a cat's whiskers (and come to think of it, their eyes are better than ours, too!)...
Let us talk in real dollars here. What is your revenue over the life of a customer from reprints on average? That is how much extra you would have to charge. Don't forget to adjust for the future value of a dollar. Why do I have a feeling we are talking about less than $600?
Several thousand. definitely not $600.
keep in mind that folks on slashdot talking about how easy and profitable it is to be a photographer are about as accurate as photographers talking about how easy and profitable it must be to be a programmer -- "i don't see why it would be so hard to tell a computer how to add up some financial figures!!"
microsoft employer lots and lots of ppl to create things for them (ie software) but the copyright doesn't rest with the individual coders but with the company that employs them, ie m$.
the key word being EMPLOY -- if you are an employee, the work you create is legally made by the company. A guy hiring a photographer is not the photographer's employer, he is the photographer's customer. And customers don't get copyright unless they pay for it!
Actually there are many contractual forms that are legally interpreted as implicitly falling into the "work for hire" category, without explicitly mentioning the transfer of copyright.
Anything that is of that nature would be an employee-employer relationship (in which case the is no transfer of copyright, because the "company" created the work), or would have to explicitly state it is a work-for-hire AND qualify as a work for hire. Many companies have been burned by putting "work for hire" clauses into contracts for things that cannot be a work for hire. Wedding photography would be pretty tough to shoehorn into a work for hire category.
...in the course of your duties while working for someone, or even just using their facilities, IIRC, it is owned by the employer. Regardless of any explicit agreement.
You're talking about an employee-employer relationship. Hiring a photographer for a saturday afternoon doesn't make them your employee. Hiring them for a full-time job as a photographer would make your company (for whom they work) the legal author of the photos.
you're right, it isn't rocket science. there is a difference between hiring an employee (a court reporter) and contracting for a service (getting a photographer to shoot your wedding).
The copyright belongs to the "author" of the work, which is either a person or a company. if you work for a photo company, the shots you take are legally authored by the company. If you hire a photo company to shoot an event, the shots they take are still authored by them. If you don't explicitly purchase the copyright from the author, you don't own it. end of story. this really isn't a gray area.
I will lend her my negatives and she will take them to you to make prints, just like she would do with the pictures she herself took during her vacations.
if you're getting wedding photos done at the same place you get your vacation prints made, i understand why you don't understand dealing with a professional photographer.
The pictures are MINE, I paid you to for your job, and you said they have no intrinsic value for you, anyhow.
You can say that all you like, but the contract with the photographer says differently, and nobody is sneaking this clause in. If you want to negotiate a different deal, go right ahead, but don't expect to find many good photographers willing to sell you negatives for a thousand dollars.
And again, intrinsic value to the photographer has nothing to do with the sale value. I frankly couldn't care less about having a Babe Ruth rookie card, and it's only a fraction of a cent worth of paper and ink, but if I found one i shouldn't have to give it to someone who wants it for free.
I'd gather that almost all wedding photographers make the vast majority of their money for the job and almost nothing from exclusive (ick) reprints years down the road.
You would be wrong -- you don't make anything from shooting the wedding, you make it all from prints over the next few years. If a customer wants to pay for everything up front, they can, but usually what happens is a young couple starting out can't afford to drop as much money as they would like on the photography. In order to have photos of the event, the photographer basically gets you to cover expenses and then you can pay him later through the purchase of prints.
It's actually a good deal for most folks, but if you want to buy all rights up front, nobody will stop you. There are no photo Nazis sneakily taking pictures of unaware brides and grooms and holding the negatives hostage -- you're talking to the photographer months before a wedding, and there shouldn't be any question of what you're getting in return for the checks you're writing.
What I was surprised about is that he didn't get the negatives. I think it's so obvious the negatives belong to the customer
in a vacuum, maybe -- but after 6 hours of conversation about what kind of prints you want to buy, no. I can't imagine somebody walking out of that conversation without understanding they didn't own the negatives (if they did, why would they want to pay a thousand dollars for a set of prints?). It's all spelled out in the contracts, too, which aren't particularly lengthy for this type of work since it's usually a small operation and there isn't any publishing involved.
So the photographer isn't doing any truly creative work, is he? The photographer is a craftsman exerting his skill. He is like a weaver, making a tapestry designed by somebody else. A good photographer will make better pictures than a mediocre one, and a good weaver will make better tapestries. But they aren't creating anything, from the intellectual point of view, so the IP doesn't belong to them.
Well, it's not really a discussion that would go anywhere on/. (suffice it to say I have known more than a handful of technically proficient camera operators who wouldn't be considered artists). But as to "IP" belonging, you're talking about a strictly legal issue, and the IP belongs to the photographer under US (and most international) law.
Since they are customers then they own the images. Simple as that. The photographer wants to have his cake and eat it too. Either they get free prints and the photographer owns the image or the CUSTOMER owns his own fricken images. I certainly will make that clear to any such doing personal work for me.
Simple as that? Fine, but don't be surprised at how much you are charged for labor when you tell the photographer you want your prints for free.
You can negotiate the details all you want, but if you want a professional to show up on some saturday to take pictures of your personal events with expensive equipment he has paid for, you're going to get charged a lot for it.
(1) Don and Lucy's wedding has no intrinsic value for the photographer, or
i made up my mind long ago -- D&L have no intrinsic value to the photographer. Luckily for his business, images of their wedding have a commercial value to D&L, and the photographer is in a position to sell them those images.
If the photographer blows off the wedding to go scuba diving, he hasn't lost anything (other than a customer), but D&L have lost a lot. They'll never have professional photos of their wedding.
It seems to me that the photographers are trying to get the best of both worlds, they want to get fully paid for their work while keeping any additional profit to themselves.
What would be the point of selling photos to Don & lucy of themselves, and then giving them a percentage of the proceeds? Do you just like paying extra taxes? I think D&L would rather that the photographer is able to offer them a cost they can live with than worry about royalty checks every time their mother-in-law orders reprints.
Feel free to negotiate this recursive royalty with YOUR wedding photographer, but I'd rather not waste my time or theirs.
When you're dealing with a person, talk to them and ask questions. When you're dealing with a corporation, you don't usually have that option. This is where a lot of the problems come in. Take advantage of the fact that you are dealing with a person, and talk to them.
I think this hits the nail on the head. my honest first reaction to the story is that i was surprised the guy didn't understand he wouldn't get the negatives or a high-res scan, or didn't ask about them earlier.
in most weddings, you'll literally spend hours with the photographer just discussing what kinds of shots you want, getting engagement photos, getting bridal photos days before the wedding, deciding on a basic package of prints.
Surely at some point, he saw a price sheet and was able to judge whether or not they could provide what he wanted. i don't klnow many creative people who won't be flexible with a customer, but asking after the fact and being disappointed at the price is not a very valid criticism of the business (IMHO)...
eople buy copies of wedding photos because it's Don's wedding, because it's Lucy's wedding, they don't buy photos of some "persons" wedding. Being Don and Lucy has an intrinsic retail value to the photographer.
Okay, to make this clearer -- Cindy Crawford's image has value to the general public.
The wedding couple has value only to the wedding couple and the family (rarely do guests ever buy a wedding photo -- 90% of your money comes from the couple or the bride's family).
Being Don and Lucy has no value to the photographer unless Don and Lucy (or their families) are willing to pay the photographer for their images. Many photographers will take photos of Cindy Crawford's wedding for free, because they know they can sell them to someone other than the Crawford family...
If I go and stand in the same spot, with the same make of camera/film, a second after the initial photographer, chances are that I'll make an indistinguishable copy, to all intents and purposes.
I doubt it. No offense, but there is more to it than pushing the button at the right moment. Sometimes in news photography that is all that is necessary, but for a nature shot? There's a reason Ansel Adams sells more calendars than your sister-in-law. Selling photos to National geographic is one of the hardest gigs possible -- and it isn't because people can't figure out how to stand in front of a lion and push the button.
When you contract someone to do something - whether its writing software or taking a photograph, you own the copyright. The only exception is when you sign a contract giving the copyright to the contractor.
This isn't informative -- it is 100% wrong. Copyright is held by the author of a work by default. Barring a contract that explicitly transfers copyright to the buyer, or an employee-employer relationship, the copyright will be owned by the photographer. Copyright is an asset to be sold or bought just as the negatives and prints are, and each has to be explicitly negotiated for.
Not only this, but paying for an unlimited number is a much fairer way of paying. Does it take twice as much work for the photographer to make 2 prints of the same shot? If not, then why does the photographer get twice as much money?
if you order twice as many photos, i guarantee you won't have to pay twice as much. But if you order one photo today, two photos next week, 2 photos 6 months from now, and 3 photos in a year, YES it does take a heck of a lot more work, and you will be charged accordingly.
If the photographer profits from selling additional copies, then he should do the basic work for free. The low-quality samples provided should be treated as a sales catalog.
this is basically true of how it is done today. Photographers charge a minimal amount to cover expenses, but you don't make money from shooting the wedding, you make money from selling the prints. The proof sheets ARE a catalog.
The couple who got married should be treated as models, they shouldn't have to pay anything for the production, and should get part of the profit from the sale of additional copies.
LOL -- the couple is the customer. They are not models, if they were the photographer could fire them when they act like idiots and cause him to run 4 hours over, or burn expensive film on shots they'll never sell.
Saying Cindy Crawford is famous and her image is worth a lot is not an answer
Yes, it is. The magazine sells more copies because cindy crawford is on the cover, not because a person is on the cover. Being cindy crawford and having her image is of intrinsic retail value.
1)You are a work for hire 2)The sitter owns his image Your copywrong is nixed. "Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition" Not if you don't get past my shotgun.
1) No, I'm not. I have done work for hire, but portraiture is not work-for-hire, by the standards of the IRS or the standards of any normal portraiture contract.
2) Everyone owns the right of exploitation of their image, but that doesn't mean they own everything with their image on it. I can reprint a painting in my "works of" book without the sitters' permission (not that I would), but I can't sell it to be used on the cover of Time Magazine.
"Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition" Not if you don't get past my shotgun.
It's a term in the contract -- if you don't want it, it isn't necessary, but most people who pay for portraits are honored that their portrait will be recognized as a work of art by the public and exhibited. I don't believe many artists would be interested in exhibiting an image if the owner wasn't willing to have it on exhibit.
However, when you commission an artist to do a painting, all rights to that painting belong to you.
eh? I would recommend you review your law books -- when i paint a portrait I'm certainly not selling the copyright to the sitter. If he wants to print it on the cover of his autobiography, or an art book, the publisher had better call me and write a check. You sell the painting, not the copyright. Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition.
I can reprint all of my paintings without anyone's permission (except of course ones for which I have sold reprint rights). The owner of the canvas certainly cannot do it without mine.
Anonymous civil disobedience (even in commercial ventures) is hardly a new thing to the United States. The Boston Tea Party is the most famous example.
There is no requirement in American law than a crowd of protesters sign in at the beginning of their march.
It says that it is street legal, and I don't doubt it. It looks like it has the proper lights on front and back, as well as mirrors and a windshield. That's pretty much all that is required for a vehicle to be street legal int he US -- if he were manufacturing these as an auto dealer he'd probably have to do more safety/impact tests of the body, but as-is, it's legally a Ford Escort.
Slashdot Mirror
So there I was sitting on the group W bench...
(kudos to the great post)
You can't make a jump from that to proving the theory of evolution by natural selection.
well, it could prove that natural selection as a process is successful at doing what evolutionists claim it does -- one of the major arguments is that natural selection simply cannot explain something as complex as a human brain, so showing that it CAN achieve such a complex result doesn't prove it did in fact occur that way in our past, but it means that we cannot dismiss the theory for that reason.
Given that we evolved from primates, why would we lose all of their attributes simply because our brains developed? For example, a primate's feet is very much like their hands. On us, the toes don't do very much.
Watch any young child, and you'll see them using their feet and toes just as unconsciously and finely as any other ape. We lose that as we age partly by culture and partly by disuse -- people born with no arms get by quite well holding pencils in their feet and writing.
That said, we doubtless lost some of the dexterity once we no longer needed climbing ability and instead needed the ability to stand upright for long periods of time. It is much less stable to have a shorter foot arch and longer toes, takes a lot more energy to remain balanced.
How can you trust eyes (created through a series of random events) to see anything correctly? How do you trust your brain's (again, created through a series of random events) interpretation of what your eyes see?
Well, you shouldn't. Anyone who says their eyes are 100% "truth" is wrong.
That said, we can get by because we can. Our eyes are honest enough for day to day use only because if they weren't we would all be dead. That said, don't trust your eyes if they tell you a surface is hot or cold -- you might get burned. You'll be much better off trusting your sense of touch, even though it isn't anywhere near as sensitive as a cat's whiskers (and come to think of it, their eyes are better than ours, too!)...
Let us talk in real dollars here. What is your revenue over the life of a customer from reprints on average? That is how much extra you would have to charge. Don't forget to adjust for the future value of a dollar. Why do I have a feeling we are talking about less than $600?
Several thousand. definitely not $600.
keep in mind that folks on slashdot talking about how easy and profitable it is to be a photographer are about as accurate as photographers talking about how easy and profitable it must be to be a programmer -- "i don't see why it would be so hard to tell a computer how to add up some financial figures!!"
microsoft employer lots and lots of ppl to create things for them (ie software) but the copyright doesn't rest with the individual coders but with the company that employs them, ie m$.
the key word being EMPLOY -- if you are an employee, the work you create is legally made by the company. A guy hiring a photographer is not the photographer's employer, he is the photographer's customer. And customers don't get copyright unless they pay for it!
Actually there are many contractual forms that are legally interpreted as implicitly falling into the "work for hire" category, without explicitly mentioning the transfer of copyright.
Anything that is of that nature would be an employee-employer relationship (in which case the is no transfer of copyright, because the "company" created the work), or would have to explicitly state it is a work-for-hire AND qualify as a work for hire. Many companies have been burned by putting "work for hire" clauses into contracts for things that cannot be a work for hire. Wedding photography would be pretty tough to shoehorn into a work for hire category.
...in the course of your duties while working for someone, or even just using their facilities, IIRC, it is owned by the employer. Regardless of any explicit agreement.
You're talking about an employee-employer relationship. Hiring a photographer for a saturday afternoon doesn't make them your employee. Hiring them for a full-time job as a photographer would make your company (for whom they work) the legal author of the photos.
This isn't rocket science.
you're right, it isn't rocket science. there is a difference between hiring an employee (a court reporter) and contracting for a service (getting a photographer to shoot your wedding).
The copyright belongs to the "author" of the work, which is either a person or a company. if you work for a photo company, the shots you take are legally authored by the company. If you hire a photo company to shoot an event, the shots they take are still authored by them. If you don't explicitly purchase the copyright from the author, you don't own it. end of story. this really isn't a gray area.
I will lend her my negatives and she will take them to you to make prints, just like she would do with the pictures she herself took during her vacations.
if you're getting wedding photos done at the same place you get your vacation prints made, i understand why you don't understand dealing with a professional photographer.
The pictures are MINE, I paid you to for your job, and you said they have no intrinsic value for you, anyhow.
You can say that all you like, but the contract with the photographer says differently, and nobody is sneaking this clause in. If you want to negotiate a different deal, go right ahead, but don't expect to find many good photographers willing to sell you negatives for a thousand dollars.
And again, intrinsic value to the photographer has nothing to do with the sale value. I frankly couldn't care less about having a Babe Ruth rookie card, and it's only a fraction of a cent worth of paper and ink, but if I found one i shouldn't have to give it to someone who wants it for free.
I'd gather that almost all wedding photographers make the vast majority of their money for the job and almost nothing from exclusive (ick) reprints years down the road.
You would be wrong -- you don't make anything from shooting the wedding, you make it all from prints over the next few years. If a customer wants to pay for everything up front, they can, but usually what happens is a young couple starting out can't afford to drop as much money as they would like on the photography. In order to have photos of the event, the photographer basically gets you to cover expenses and then you can pay him later through the purchase of prints.
It's actually a good deal for most folks, but if you want to buy all rights up front, nobody will stop you. There are no photo Nazis sneakily taking pictures of unaware brides and grooms and holding the negatives hostage -- you're talking to the photographer months before a wedding, and there shouldn't be any question of what you're getting in return for the checks you're writing.
What I was surprised about is that he didn't get the negatives. I think it's so obvious the negatives belong to the customer
/. (suffice it to say I have known more than a handful of technically proficient camera operators who wouldn't be considered artists). But as to "IP" belonging, you're talking about a strictly legal issue, and the IP belongs to the photographer under US (and most international) law.
in a vacuum, maybe -- but after 6 hours of conversation about what kind of prints you want to buy, no. I can't imagine somebody walking out of that conversation without understanding they didn't own the negatives (if they did, why would they want to pay a thousand dollars for a set of prints?). It's all spelled out in the contracts, too, which aren't particularly lengthy for this type of work since it's usually a small operation and there isn't any publishing involved.
So the photographer isn't doing any truly creative work, is he? The photographer is a craftsman exerting his skill. He is like a weaver, making a tapestry designed by somebody else. A good photographer will make better pictures than a mediocre one, and a good weaver will make better tapestries. But they aren't creating anything, from the intellectual point of view, so the IP doesn't belong to them.
Well, it's not really a discussion that would go anywhere on
Since they are customers then they own the images. Simple as that. The photographer wants to have his cake and eat it too. Either they get free prints and the photographer owns the image or the CUSTOMER owns his own fricken images. I certainly will make that clear to any such doing personal work for me.
Simple as that? Fine, but don't be surprised at how much you are charged for labor when you tell the photographer you want your prints for free.
You can negotiate the details all you want, but if you want a professional to show up on some saturday to take pictures of your personal events with expensive equipment he has paid for, you're going to get charged a lot for it.
Well, make up your mind. Either:
(1) Don and Lucy's wedding has no intrinsic value for the photographer, or
i made up my mind long ago -- D&L have no intrinsic value to the photographer. Luckily for his business, images of their wedding have a commercial value to D&L, and the photographer is in a position to sell them those images.
If the photographer blows off the wedding to go scuba diving, he hasn't lost anything (other than a customer), but D&L have lost a lot. They'll never have professional photos of their wedding.
It seems to me that the photographers are trying to get the best of both worlds, they want to get fully paid for their work while keeping any additional profit to themselves.
What would be the point of selling photos to Don & lucy of themselves, and then giving them a percentage of the proceeds? Do you just like paying extra taxes? I think D&L would rather that the photographer is able to offer them a cost they can live with than worry about royalty checks every time their mother-in-law orders reprints.
Feel free to negotiate this recursive royalty with YOUR wedding photographer, but I'd rather not waste my time or theirs.
When you're dealing with a person, talk to them and ask questions. When you're dealing with a corporation, you don't usually have that option. This is where a lot of the problems come in. Take advantage of the fact that you are dealing with a person, and talk to them.
I think this hits the nail on the head. my honest first reaction to the story is that i was surprised the guy didn't understand he wouldn't get the negatives or a high-res scan, or didn't ask about them earlier.
in most weddings, you'll literally spend hours with the photographer just discussing what kinds of shots you want, getting engagement photos, getting bridal photos days before the wedding, deciding on a basic package of prints.
Surely at some point, he saw a price sheet and was able to judge whether or not they could provide what he wanted. i don't klnow many creative people who won't be flexible with a customer, but asking after the fact and being disappointed at the price is not a very valid criticism of the business (IMHO)...
eople buy copies of wedding photos because it's Don's wedding, because it's Lucy's wedding, they don't buy photos of some "persons" wedding. Being Don and Lucy has an intrinsic retail value to the photographer.
Okay, to make this clearer -- Cindy Crawford's image has value to the general public.
The wedding couple has value only to the wedding couple and the family (rarely do guests ever buy a wedding photo -- 90% of your money comes from the couple or the bride's family).
Being Don and Lucy has no value to the photographer unless Don and Lucy (or their families) are willing to pay the photographer for their images. Many photographers will take photos of Cindy Crawford's wedding for free, because they know they can sell them to someone other than the Crawford family...
If I go and stand in the same spot, with the same make of camera/film, a second after the initial photographer, chances are that I'll make an indistinguishable copy, to all intents and purposes.
I doubt it. No offense, but there is more to it than pushing the button at the right moment. Sometimes in news photography that is all that is necessary, but for a nature shot? There's a reason Ansel Adams sells more calendars than your sister-in-law. Selling photos to National geographic is one of the hardest gigs possible -- and it isn't because people can't figure out how to stand in front of a lion and push the button.
When you contract someone to do something - whether its writing software or taking a photograph, you own the copyright. The only exception is when you sign a contract giving the copyright to the contractor.
This isn't informative -- it is 100% wrong. Copyright is held by the author of a work by default. Barring a contract that explicitly transfers copyright to the buyer, or an employee-employer relationship, the copyright will be owned by the photographer. Copyright is an asset to be sold or bought just as the negatives and prints are, and each has to be explicitly negotiated for.
Not only this, but paying for an unlimited number is a much fairer way of paying. Does it take twice as much work for the photographer to make 2 prints of the same shot? If not, then why does the photographer get twice as much money?
if you order twice as many photos, i guarantee you won't have to pay twice as much. But if you order one photo today, two photos next week, 2 photos 6 months from now, and 3 photos in a year, YES it does take a heck of a lot more work, and you will be charged accordingly.
If the photographer profits from selling additional copies, then he should do the basic work for free. The low-quality samples provided should be treated as a sales catalog.
this is basically true of how it is done today. Photographers charge a minimal amount to cover expenses, but you don't make money from shooting the wedding, you make money from selling the prints. The proof sheets ARE a catalog.
The couple who got married should be treated as models, they shouldn't have to pay anything for the production, and should get part of the profit from the sale of additional copies.
LOL -- the couple is the customer. They are not models, if they were the photographer could fire them when they act like idiots and cause him to run 4 hours over, or burn expensive film on shots they'll never sell.
Saying Cindy Crawford is famous and her image is worth a lot is not an answer
Yes, it is. The magazine sells more copies because cindy crawford is on the cover, not because a person is on the cover. Being cindy crawford and having her image is of intrinsic retail value.
1)You are a work for hire
2)The sitter owns his image
Your copywrong is nixed.
"Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition"
Not if you don't get past my shotgun.
1) No, I'm not. I have done work for hire, but portraiture is not work-for-hire, by the standards of the IRS or the standards of any normal portraiture contract.
2) Everyone owns the right of exploitation of their image, but that doesn't mean they own everything with their image on it. I can reprint a painting in my "works of" book without the sitters' permission (not that I would), but I can't sell it to be used on the cover of Time Magazine.
"Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition" Not if you don't get past my shotgun.
It's a term in the contract -- if you don't want it, it isn't necessary, but most people who pay for portraits are honored that their portrait will be recognized as a work of art by the public and exhibited. I don't believe many artists would be interested in exhibiting an image if the owner wasn't willing to have it on exhibit.
However, when you commission an artist to do a painting, all rights to that painting belong to you.
eh? I would recommend you review your law books -- when i paint a portrait I'm certainly not selling the copyright to the sitter. If he wants to print it on the cover of his autobiography, or an art book, the publisher had better call me and write a check. You sell the painting, not the copyright. Frequently artists will even retain the right to borrow the painting for purposes such as exhibition.
I can reprint all of my paintings without anyone's permission (except of course ones for which I have sold reprint rights). The owner of the canvas certainly cannot do it without mine.
Anonymous civil disobedience (even in commercial ventures) is hardly a new thing to the United States. The Boston Tea Party is the most famous example.
There is no requirement in American law than a crowd of protesters sign in at the beginning of their march.
fastest...slashdotting...ever...
It says that it is street legal, and I don't doubt it. It looks like it has the proper lights on front and back, as well as mirrors and a windshield. That's pretty much all that is required for a vehicle to be street legal int he US -- if he were manufacturing these as an auto dealer he'd probably have to do more safety/impact tests of the body, but as-is, it's legally a Ford Escort.