"Social norms" don't take precedence over people's human rights, though.
I was assaulted earlier because I was the wrong skin color for the neighborhood
I lived in at the time. I had a right to live there, regardless of any
"social norm".
The first amendment right to free speech says a person can take a photo
in public no matter who objects. Assaulting that person is against the law, and
harrassing them shows a lack of respect for their rights.
ALL serious photographers are harassed and receive complaints for
taking photos, no matter if they got permission in advance or what they are
photographing. I got permission from a U.S. military information officer to
photograph a relief operation, yet another officer still threatened to take
away my camera because he didn't get the memo. The only way to not upset other people is
to never take any photos or video and never write any articles.
Short of that, someone will always be upset, which is why freedom of speech and
of the press is protected.
I was physically chased down by three young men just two days ago when I was taking
pictures for my work in an empty industrial area downtown.
I was assaulted years ago under similar circumstances, and I expected the worst.
Instead, they harrassed me for photographing a buidling they didn't want me to
photograph (a soup kitchen that includes transitional housing for the poor).
They claimed to work there, and were obviously ignorant of laws regarding
photography in public places. I didn't try to
educate them, just kept walking, handed them my card, and was soon picked up by
my driver.
Which type of behavior is more rude, problematic, and socially unacceptable?
Legally operating a camera in a public place (which in my case is necessary for my work),
or a group of strangers confronting you with hostility because they don't like
what you're doing?
News photographers and videographers have been murdered in the line of
duty (it happened twice in Somalia). The greater harm is not documenting
something in public, but verbal/physical assaults on people who do.
This is a regular problem for me no matter how deferential
or considerate I am. I am confronted both in the US and abroad, even by people I'm NOT
photographing because they don't like what I am photographing. The idea that permission
is either legally required or "socially necessary" should be dispelled.
Having said that, candid photography is better when you don't get the a subject's consent, and
posed photography is better with the subject's consent, but this is more about good photography
than good manners.
This is true for beliefs which are unverifiable, such as "God's name is Steve". I can believe it
if I want, and say so, without hurting anyone. But for verifiably true or false events, we are obligated to a reasonable "standard of proof".
What if I tell all my neighbors, and the local police, that someone is a pedophile who molested my daughter? Later it turns out I have no living daughter or other facts, it's just my "belief"? This is extremely harmful, and is in fact a crime. What if the next time you fly, someone on the plane says it will be blown up by a bomb. It turns out this is only there "belief", based on no facts whatsoever, but you're flight was still cancelled. Would you say it's OK, because they are entitled to their beliefs?
I do agree with you people can believe whatever they want in terms of THINKING whatever they want. But speaking and acting change the formula. The above are just two examples of the problems created by making IRRESPONSIBLE statements, which are in fact criminal in the sense of false police reports and defamation.
I agree. There's a difference between the legal definition of "theft"
and the general use of the term. We might say someone "stole my seat",
"stole my girlfriend", "stole my joke", "stole
my job", or "stole my song". None of these imply the criminal definition of theft, that
someone broke into your house and ran off with your joke or your girlfriend.
It's kind of inflamatory, and it's certainly rhetoric to call unauthorized use
"theft". But it's meaningless to point out it's not really "theft" under the law
(which is a state law and can vary from state to state anyway).
Judge Mark Wernick of Minnesota District Court ruled as such in a lawsuit
filed against me for calling a corporation's use of my photo in their phone book
ad "intellectutal property theft". They claimed defamation because they didn't
break into my house and steal the photo (they just swiped it from my website).
They did not prevail on that point, although the case isn't resolved yet
(Vilana Financial's
copyright infringement).
After significant research, I decided the "parody" fair-use exception to copyright infringement applied to my use of the Waldo character to parody the situation with Michael Zubitskiy. The parody exception is widely exercised in the media, and my Waldo graphic is not for commercial gain.
Note that I allow others to use my photos free of charge for non-commercial web use (see the licensing terms page on my website for details), so there is consistency in my conduct.
It's common to say a person stole your joke or stole your song. It's understood this does not mean they broke into your house and stole it, or you can no longer use the joke/song. The phrase "intellectual property theft" is likewise understood this way.
I would like to fix the problem, but I'm stumped -- I developed it with Firefox under Linux (which has been my default browser for ~2 years). Can you tell me if "view->source" gives you the raw HTML (and not a blank page)?
I've learned the threshold is soo high, courts will essentially do nothing. I'm in the second year defending myself against a defamation lawsuit over a webpage I wrote saying one of my photos was published without my permission. The party suing me (Vilana Financial) filed (with their complaint) a sales agreement showing they bought the photo from Michael Zubistkiy, who they claim under oath is the true photographer.
I have proof the photo is mine, including the certificate of copyright registration. Also, there is no Michael Zubitskiy. They claim they paid him in cash, but did not get his contact information and lost the photo he gave them (and all copies). My investigator and their investigator cannot find anyone in the USA by that name -- no address, credit record, work history, or even welfare history or an unlisted phone number.
I have a certificate of copyright registration, the original digital file, out-takes from the same photo shoot, proof of prior publication on my website, and proof I sold the photo to a local magazine prior to their use of the image. They have nothing but this sales agreement with a signature. Knowing all this, the other party claimed, under oath, that the photo is not mine, but Michael Zubitskiy is the true photographer.
They supposedly met him at a health club, and upon subpoena, the club said they have no record of Zubitskiy. It's clear this is a fictional person, but what's more, even if he did exist, he did not take the photo -- I did. So I filed a motion for sanctions with all of the above evidence 15 months ago; the judge cancelled the hearing, saying it was premature and should wait until after the trial is over. Full story: www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html
So I would not count on the courts to spot even an obviously absurd and improper claim. Everyone knows it's my photo, yet I'm 18 months into this litigation.
Yes, I called their bluff and they sued me. A photo from my website was published in the Twin Cities phone book inside cover. The corporation that used it refused to pay a licensing fee, and I wrote about it on my website. They threatened to sue me for defamation, arguing the photo was not mine, but taken by Michael Zubitskiy (a fictional person). I have a certificate of copyright registration for the photo, and did not remove the webpage. They sued me for defamation, and it's safe to say it's blown up in their face.
I later brought my own action for copyright infringement in federal court, trial is set for November. They first sued me in August of 2005, and I was in court just yesterday (I'm litigating "pro se", representing myself). Yesterday's hearing was because they wanted email between myself and an attorney I hired to get legal advice from, which is obviously protected by lawyer-client confidentiality.
That's a logical argument, but copyright law (in the US) has strict liability -- if you infringed, you infringed. Although there is an allowance for "innocent infringement" (you genuinely didn't know you were infringing), that affects the amount of damages...but not the fact you infringed.
So if you told someone in 2005 they were infringing, and they continued anyway, and you waited to sue until 2007, you take away their ability to reduce the damages by claiming innocent infringement.
I believe copyright infringement, in this regard, is comparable to the theft of physical property -- if someone is stealing gold bars from your garage for many years, and you overlooked it for years before you sued, they still owe you for everything they stole. If you believe there is a different legal standard, I would be interested in your source. I'm the Plaintiff in a copyright case over a photograph of mine right now.
I'm a photographer with a copyright suit against a corporation who has counterclaimed defamation
(see my website's page about Vilana Financial).
Part of their counterclaim was over insulting comments posted on my website by third parties.
This came up in oral arguments when they sought a preliminary injuction to remove my website.
The federal judge (Ann D. Montgomery, District of Minnesota) was already aware, without any
input from me, Vilana could not make a claim against me over comments posted by a third party.
They tried to shoe-horn it in by saying I allowed the comments, or I had a "supervisory role".
The judge didn't give that any merit.
On the other hand, I'm still spending two years in court to defend saying something long-since
proven to be true -- that Vilana published my photos in the phone book without my knowledge or
permission.
Like it or not, the only reason we have anything to fear from Islamic terrorists is because we've spent decades interfering with their politics.
And the reason for Islamic terrorism against other muslims is -- ? In Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Morocco and Algeria, Muslim on Muslim terrorist violence (sectarian or otherwise) represents a gaping hole in your logic.
Islamic terrorists target Western interests and local interests. Your argument seeks to blame the victim, saying that Westerners murdered by terrorsts "deserve it".
America interfered in Vietnam and Somalia, in the latter case to try and save starving muslims...those contries are not responded by engaging in terrorist campaigns against the US. The reasons are complex and go beyond American simply deserving to have it's citizens murdered (as if the U.S. is the only country to have misguided or selfish foriegn policies...should we be sending Americans to Germany to conduct terrorist attacks in retaliation for WWII?)
Yes, $20.00 would help, if I combine it with money from other donors. I will email if I can arrange that and I create a PayPal account. I may not be able to arrange it this time going over, but I will eventually.
The only physical delivery of aid after Yoyang (Dec. of 2004) was by U.S. Marine helicopter, I was there to document it and took hundreds of photos:
Public opinion in China and the Philippines, that they were victimized by Japan and not the USA in WWII, is not based on historical ignorance, but what those victims personally witnessed and experienced themselves -- being brutalized by Japan, their loved ones being murdered.
Japan's WWII agression in the Pacific was not merely a few degrees worse than American conduct, that characterization is an insult to those victims (such as civilians in Nanjing and Manila, and POWs in Bataan). They experienced something wholely diffent at the hands of the Japanese than they did the US, this is a historical fact (e.g. American soldiers were not trained that anyone who surrenders is not a human being, and it's OK to kill them). There were profound differences in national goals, the soldier's mindset, and resulting conduct. The Chinese still occasionally protest over Japanese WWII atrocities, not American WWII atrocities.
My wife lived as a foriegn worker in Japan for three years, working in a factory 12 hours a day, 6 days a week (no overtime pay was required by Japanese labor laws), living in a company-provided apartment with 11 others. She learned that a Filipina who marries a Japanese is not able to become a Japanese citizen (racism?). Those and other policies don't make it seem like Japan has reformed it's traditional belief in racial superiority (by way of comparison, Americans, not being homogonous, cannot have a collective national belief in racial superiority if they wanted to).
I'm familiar with the history of the Philippines. I've lived there, been to an American military cemetery, and watched U.S. Marines deliver food aid after typhoon Yoyang in 2004. I kept wondering, "where's the aid workers from Japan? Where's the aid from China? Where's the aid from Taiwan? Where's ANY OTHER COUNTRY AT ALL?". Nobody was there except the USA.
When the U.S. returned to liberate the Philippines from Japan in WWII, the Filipinos did not take Japan's side, they choose the U.S. side. When my wife (a Filipina) was going to work in Japan, her parents were afraid for her safety, and warned her the Japanese were dangerous (they had shot and killed a family member, after all). They did not have this attitude about the U.S., and they were glad she was going to marry an American. This is a fair characterization of attitudes there.
I've been to the inside of the US Embassy in Manila and the Japanese Embassy in Manila...the first was wall-to-wall Filipinos, the other almost empty. People were trying to get to the U.S., not so much Japan.
If you believe American has victimized the Philippines (for example), and this matters to you (you care), are you willing to help the Philippines? Siteo Pader elementary school in Angeles City (Pampanga, a province in Luzon) asked me to raise money for them...all my money goes to my in-laws, so I can't help that school much, but if you actually care about the Philippines could do something constructive -- they need new doors for the bathrooms, and a streetlight outside the school. Email me (chris@cgstock.com) and I can suggest how to arrange it...there are photos of that school on my website.
Some of my in-laws were killed by Japanese soldiers who invaded the Philippines.
It's offensive to dismiss Japan (or any country)'s racially-motivated invasion and brutalization of it's neighbors as "only slightly more evil than..." (the USA or any other force which clearly did not do this).
Your historicaly account is a mis-characterization: the US granted independence to the Philippines in 1936, restoring their soveriegnty at a time when Japan was taking over it's neighbors. American public opinion wanted to get out of the Philippines (and other possessions), while Japan believed in a divine right for them to rule the world. These two stances are not comparable, but are significantly different.
A defamation lawsuit can server to deter others from speaking up, even if the Plaintiff looses the suit. This strategy is called a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)...making Free speech (against them) cost money.
As a personal example, photos of mine were published in the local phone book (in a corporate advertisement) without my permission. When the corporation refused to compensate me, I wrote about it on my website. They then sued me for defamation.
Do I have the certificate of copyright registration for my photos? Yes. Then why would they sue? If nothing else, it means public criticism against them will cost you years in court. This case is very simple, I've long since proven the photos they published are mine, yet the case has been in court for 18 months now. See:
Vilana Financial.
He's a mortgage originator, and he forged a sales agreement, and I'm warning others about him on my website (e.g. consumer speech). He dropped an earlier claim of defamation (what I wrote about his is true), but he's raising the same objection as you -- I can't publish his photo without permission. I disagree.
Who gets to decide what I publish? For the most part, me, and it is a difficult decision. How could someone else make that decision for me better than me?
I would agree it's morally wrong (not legally wrong) to publish someone's photo (with their name) without permission WHEN you have no reason (it's not newsworthy) AND you suspect they object. Many people, myself included, have no objection, and society can't suspend the freedom of the press to avoid offending those who want to keep their faces and names off the web. Keeping names off the web runs contrary to information wanting to be free. It sounds like a giant high-school yearbook, or a giant phone book that has photos...in other words, there may be some problems, but it doesn't sound overly troublesome.
I had a substitute teacher who's name was a four digit number. I was in junior high, and it was around 1982 (the year, not the guy's name).
He didn't teach the subject he was substituting for, but instead gave a morality lesson on lying, which wasn't bad. He never told us about his name, I heard about it later from various students and teachers (he had it changed as a social protest against something).
This was in Minneapolis. The story I heard repeatedly was that he wrote a check for over the amount in the cafetria, and the school briefly thought they had been taken when they saw the name on the check was a number.
Since it's 4-1, I'll clarify this is a true account. Someone else may have better info than me.
I've always thought the credit report system was unwieldly and ripe for various and abuses. It seems like corporations want to give consumers credit easily and pass on the cost of the inevitable fraud to those consumers who do pay. Identity theft victims are a side-effect.
Identity theft is often an inside job. So when a car salesman is closing a sale and asks for enough info to run a credit check, a consumer might logically refuse to give it, as a precaution against identify theft -- which would ruin the good credit which the salesperson is attempting to check (vicious circle).
As a thought experiment, imagine a "creditor check" the customer does in conjuction with the merchant's credit check. In the same example of buying a car, the customer might tell the car salesman "I'm sorry, I would like to buy this car from you, but you have a bad CREDITOR record. I realize it might be innacurate, but that's for you to straighten out. If you locate the customers who have made negative reports, prove to them you are innocent (or pay them what they feel they are owed) I would be glad to return and buy this car."
As a second experiment, imagine if one's crimal record was as vulnerable as one's credit record; others could commit rape or robbery, and if caught, just give the cops your name? After they jump bail, the cops round you up and make you stand trial in the perpetrator's place...oh, wait -- they use BIOMETRICS (fingerprints).
Until something better comes along, meta name="keywords" content="blah" seems necessary for webpages with photographs as their primary content.
I publish a photo gallery and have relied upon keywords to describe what's pictured but not necessarily mentioned in a photo's caption. This appears to work with Google from what I can tell. The same keywords are used by my site's internal search engine, so I have to think of and store them anyway. I would be happy to change if there's a better way.
Slashdot Mirror
"Social norms" don't take precedence over people's human rights, though. I was assaulted earlier because I was the wrong skin color for the neighborhood I lived in at the time. I had a right to live there, regardless of any "social norm".
The first amendment right to free speech says a person can take a photo in public no matter who objects. Assaulting that person is against the law, and harrassing them shows a lack of respect for their rights.
ALL serious photographers are harassed and receive complaints for taking photos, no matter if they got permission in advance or what they are photographing. I got permission from a U.S. military information officer to photograph a relief operation, yet another officer still threatened to take away my camera because he didn't get the memo. The only way to not upset other people is to never take any photos or video and never write any articles. Short of that, someone will always be upset, which is why freedom of speech and of the press is protected.
I was physically chased down by three young men just two days ago when I was taking pictures for my work in an empty industrial area downtown. I was assaulted years ago under similar circumstances, and I expected the worst. Instead, they harrassed me for photographing a buidling they didn't want me to photograph (a soup kitchen that includes transitional housing for the poor).
They claimed to work there, and were obviously ignorant of laws regarding photography in public places. I didn't try to educate them, just kept walking, handed them my card, and was soon picked up by my driver.
Which type of behavior is more rude, problematic, and socially unacceptable? Legally operating a camera in a public place (which in my case is necessary for my work), or a group of strangers confronting you with hostility because they don't like what you're doing?
News photographers and videographers have been murdered in the line of duty (it happened twice in Somalia). The greater harm is not documenting something in public, but verbal/physical assaults on people who do.
This is a regular problem for me no matter how deferential or considerate I am. I am confronted both in the US and abroad, even by people I'm NOT photographing because they don't like what I am photographing. The idea that permission is either legally required or "socially necessary" should be dispelled.
Having said that, candid photography is better when you don't get the a subject's consent, and posed photography is better with the subject's consent, but this is more about good photography than good manners.This is true for beliefs which are unverifiable, such as "God's name is Steve". I can believe it if I want, and say so, without hurting anyone. But for verifiably true or false events, we are obligated to a reasonable "standard of proof".
What if I tell all my neighbors, and the local police, that someone is a pedophile who molested my daughter? Later it turns out I have no living daughter or other facts, it's just my "belief"? This is extremely harmful, and is in fact a crime. What if the next time you fly, someone on the plane says it will be blown up by a bomb. It turns out this is only there "belief", based on no facts whatsoever, but you're flight was still cancelled. Would you say it's OK, because they are entitled to their beliefs?
I do agree with you people can believe whatever they want in terms of THINKING whatever they want. But speaking and acting change the formula. The above are just two examples of the problems created by making IRRESPONSIBLE statements, which are in fact criminal in the sense of false police reports and defamation.
I agree. There's a difference between the legal definition of "theft" and the general use of the term. We might say someone "stole my seat", "stole my girlfriend", "stole my joke", "stole my job", or "stole my song". None of these imply the criminal definition of theft, that someone broke into your house and ran off with your joke or your girlfriend.
It's kind of inflamatory, and it's certainly rhetoric to call unauthorized use "theft". But it's meaningless to point out it's not really "theft" under the law (which is a state law and can vary from state to state anyway).
Judge Mark Wernick of Minnesota District Court ruled as such in a lawsuit filed against me for calling a corporation's use of my photo in their phone book ad "intellectutal property theft". They claimed defamation because they didn't break into my house and steal the photo (they just swiped it from my website). They did not prevail on that point, although the case isn't resolved yet (Vilana Financial's copyright infringement).
Minnesota defies it's stereotype. It's not that bad of a stereotype, though, so I won't argue. And like many stereotypes, it's based on some truth.
After significant research, I decided the "parody" fair-use exception to copyright infringement applied to my use of the Waldo character to parody the situation with Michael Zubitskiy. The parody exception is widely exercised in the media, and my Waldo graphic is not for commercial gain.
Note that I allow others to use my photos free of charge for non-commercial web use (see the licensing terms page on my website for details), so there is consistency in my conduct.
Thanks. That's a problem. The browser isn't rendering the page wrong, though -- it's not receiving the html at all. I'm stumped as to why, though.
It's common to say a person stole your joke or stole your song. It's understood this does not mean they broke into your house and stole it, or you can no longer use the joke/song. The phrase "intellectual property theft" is likewise understood this way.
I would like to fix the problem, but I'm stumped -- I developed it with Firefox under Linux (which has been my default browser for ~2 years). Can you tell me if "view->source" gives you the raw HTML (and not a blank page)?
Sappy or not, I appreciate the sentiment.
I've learned the threshold is soo high, courts will essentially do nothing. I'm in the second year defending myself against a defamation lawsuit over a webpage I wrote saying one of my photos was published without my permission. The party suing me (Vilana Financial) filed (with their complaint) a sales agreement showing they bought the photo from Michael Zubistkiy, who they claim under oath is the true photographer.
I have proof the photo is mine, including the certificate of copyright registration. Also, there is no Michael Zubitskiy. They claim they paid him in cash, but did not get his contact information and lost the photo he gave them (and all copies). My investigator and their investigator cannot find anyone in the USA by that name -- no address, credit record, work history, or even welfare history or an unlisted phone number.
I have a certificate of copyright registration, the original digital file, out-takes from the same photo shoot, proof of prior publication on my website, and proof I sold the photo to a local magazine prior to their use of the image. They have nothing but this sales agreement with a signature. Knowing all this, the other party claimed, under oath, that the photo is not mine, but Michael Zubitskiy is the true photographer.
They supposedly met him at a health club, and upon subpoena, the club said they have no record of Zubitskiy. It's clear this is a fictional person, but what's more, even if he did exist, he did not take the photo -- I did. So I filed a motion for sanctions with all of the above evidence 15 months ago; the judge cancelled the hearing, saying it was premature and should wait until after the trial is over. Full story: www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html
So I would not count on the courts to spot even an obviously absurd and improper claim. Everyone knows it's my photo, yet I'm 18 months into this litigation.
Yes, I called their bluff and they sued me. A photo from my website was published in the Twin Cities phone book inside cover. The corporation that used it refused to pay a licensing fee, and I wrote about it on my website. They threatened to sue me for defamation, arguing the photo was not mine, but taken by Michael Zubitskiy (a fictional person). I have a certificate of copyright registration for the photo, and did not remove the webpage. They sued me for defamation, and it's safe to say it's blown up in their face.
I later brought my own action for copyright infringement in federal court, trial is set for November. They first sued me in August of 2005, and I was in court just yesterday (I'm litigating "pro se", representing myself). Yesterday's hearing was because they wanted email between myself and an attorney I hired to get legal advice from, which is obviously protected by lawyer-client confidentiality.
The full story is here:
http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html
That's a logical argument, but copyright law (in the US) has strict liability -- if you infringed, you infringed. Although there is an allowance for "innocent infringement" (you genuinely didn't know you were infringing), that affects the amount of damages...but not the fact you infringed.
So if you told someone in 2005 they were infringing, and they continued anyway, and you waited to sue until 2007, you take away their ability to reduce the damages by claiming innocent infringement.
I believe copyright infringement, in this regard, is comparable to the theft of physical property -- if someone is stealing gold bars from your garage for many years, and you overlooked it for years before you sued, they still owe you for everything they stole. If you believe there is a different legal standard, I would be interested in your source. I'm the Plaintiff in a copyright case over a photograph of mine right now.
I'm a photographer with a copyright suit against a corporation who has counterclaimed defamation (see my website's page about Vilana Financial). Part of their counterclaim was over insulting comments posted on my website by third parties.
This came up in oral arguments when they sought a preliminary injuction to remove my website. The federal judge (Ann D. Montgomery, District of Minnesota) was already aware, without any input from me, Vilana could not make a claim against me over comments posted by a third party. They tried to shoe-horn it in by saying I allowed the comments, or I had a "supervisory role". The judge didn't give that any merit.
On the other hand, I'm still spending two years in court to defend saying something long-since proven to be true -- that Vilana published my photos in the phone book without my knowledge or permission.
And the reason for Islamic terrorism against other muslims is -- ? In Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Morocco and Algeria, Muslim on Muslim terrorist violence (sectarian or otherwise) represents a gaping hole in your logic.
Islamic terrorists target Western interests and local interests. Your argument seeks to blame the victim, saying that Westerners murdered by terrorsts "deserve it".
America interfered in Vietnam and Somalia, in the latter case to try and save starving muslims...those contries are not responded by engaging in terrorist campaigns against the US. The reasons are complex and go beyond American simply deserving to have it's citizens murdered (as if the U.S. is the only country to have misguided or selfish foriegn policies...should we be sending Americans to Germany to conduct terrorist attacks in retaliation for WWII?)
Yes, $20.00 would help, if I combine it with money from other donors. I will email if I can arrange that and I create a PayPal account. I may not be able to arrange it this time going over, but I will eventually.
The only physical delivery of aid after Yoyang (Dec. of 2004) was by U.S. Marine helicopter, I was there to document it and took hundreds of photos:
Public opinion in China and the Philippines, that they were victimized by Japan and not the USA in WWII, is not based on historical ignorance, but what those victims personally witnessed and experienced themselves -- being brutalized by Japan, their loved ones being murdered.
Japan's WWII agression in the Pacific was not merely a few degrees worse than American conduct, that characterization is an insult to those victims (such as civilians in Nanjing and Manila, and POWs in Bataan). They experienced something wholely diffent at the hands of the Japanese than they did the US, this is a historical fact (e.g. American soldiers were not trained that anyone who surrenders is not a human being, and it's OK to kill them). There were profound differences in national goals, the soldier's mindset, and resulting conduct. The Chinese still occasionally protest over Japanese WWII atrocities, not American WWII atrocities.
My wife lived as a foriegn worker in Japan for three years, working in a factory 12 hours a day, 6 days a week (no overtime pay was required by Japanese labor laws), living in a company-provided apartment with 11 others. She learned that a Filipina who marries a Japanese is not able to become a Japanese citizen (racism?). Those and other policies don't make it seem like Japan has reformed it's traditional belief in racial superiority (by way of comparison, Americans, not being homogonous, cannot have a collective national belief in racial superiority if they wanted to).
I'm familiar with the history of the Philippines. I've lived there, been to an American military cemetery, and watched U.S. Marines deliver food aid after typhoon Yoyang in 2004. I kept wondering, "where's the aid workers from Japan? Where's the aid from China? Where's the aid from Taiwan? Where's ANY OTHER COUNTRY AT ALL?". Nobody was there except the USA.
When the U.S. returned to liberate the Philippines from Japan in WWII, the Filipinos did not take Japan's side, they choose the U.S. side. When my wife (a Filipina) was going to work in Japan, her parents were afraid for her safety, and warned her the Japanese were dangerous (they had shot and killed a family member, after all). They did not have this attitude about the U.S., and they were glad she was going to marry an American. This is a fair characterization of attitudes there.
I've been to the inside of the US Embassy in Manila and the Japanese Embassy in Manila...the first was wall-to-wall Filipinos, the other almost empty. People were trying to get to the U.S., not so much Japan.
If you believe American has victimized the Philippines (for example), and this matters to you (you care), are you willing to help the Philippines? Siteo Pader elementary school in Angeles City (Pampanga, a province in Luzon) asked me to raise money for them...all my money goes to my in-laws, so I can't help that school much, but if you actually care about the Philippines could do something constructive -- they need new doors for the bathrooms, and a streetlight outside the school. Email me (chris@cgstock.com) and I can suggest how to arrange it...there are photos of that school on my website.
It's offensive to dismiss Japan (or any country)'s racially-motivated invasion and brutalization of it's neighbors as "only slightly more evil than..." (the USA or any other force which clearly did not do this).
Your historicaly account is a mis-characterization: the US granted independence to the Philippines in 1936, restoring their soveriegnty at a time when Japan was taking over it's neighbors. American public opinion wanted to get out of the Philippines (and other possessions), while Japan believed in a divine right for them to rule the world. These two stances are not comparable, but are significantly different.
As a personal example, photos of mine were published in the local phone book (in a corporate advertisement) without my permission. When the corporation refused to compensate me, I wrote about it on my website. They then sued me for defamation.
Do I have the certificate of copyright registration for my photos? Yes. Then why would they sue? If nothing else, it means public criticism against them will cost you years in court. This case is very simple, I've long since proven the photos they published are mine, yet the case has been in court for 18 months now. See: Vilana Financial.
The correct URL is: www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html
I am being sued in federal court for publishing a man's photo (along with his name). See:
www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html
He's a mortgage originator, and he forged a sales agreement, and I'm warning others about him on my website (e.g. consumer speech). He dropped an earlier claim of defamation (what I wrote about his is true), but he's raising the same objection as you -- I can't publish his photo without permission. I disagree.
Who gets to decide what I publish? For the most part, me, and it is a difficult decision. How could someone else make that decision for me better than me?
I would agree it's morally wrong (not legally wrong) to publish someone's photo (with their name) without permission WHEN you have no reason (it's not newsworthy) AND you suspect they object. Many people, myself included, have no objection, and society can't suspend the freedom of the press to avoid offending those who want to keep their faces and names off the web. Keeping names off the web runs contrary to information wanting to be free. It sounds like a giant high-school yearbook, or a giant phone book that has photos...in other words, there may be some problems, but it doesn't sound overly troublesome.
He didn't teach the subject he was substituting for, but instead gave a morality lesson on lying, which wasn't bad. He never told us about his name, I heard about it later from various students and teachers (he had it changed as a social protest against something).
This was in Minneapolis. The story I heard repeatedly was that he wrote a check for over the amount in the cafetria, and the school briefly thought they had been taken when they saw the name on the check was a number.
Since it's 4-1, I'll clarify this is a true account. Someone else may have better info than me.
Identity theft is often an inside job. So when a car salesman is closing a sale and asks for enough info to run a credit check, a consumer might logically refuse to give it, as a precaution against identify theft -- which would ruin the good credit which the salesperson is attempting to check (vicious circle).
As a thought experiment, imagine a "creditor check" the customer does in conjuction with the merchant's credit check. In the same example of buying a car, the customer might tell the car salesman "I'm sorry, I would like to buy this car from you, but you have a bad CREDITOR record. I realize it might be innacurate, but that's for you to straighten out. If you locate the customers who have made negative reports, prove to them you are innocent (or pay them what they feel they are owed) I would be glad to return and buy this car."
As a second experiment, imagine if one's crimal record was as vulnerable as one's credit record; others could commit rape or robbery, and if caught, just give the cops your name? After they jump bail, the cops round you up and make you stand trial in the perpetrator's place...oh, wait -- they use BIOMETRICS (fingerprints).
I publish a photo gallery and have relied upon keywords to describe what's pictured but not necessarily mentioned in a photo's caption. This appears to work with Google from what I can tell. The same keywords are used by my site's internal search engine, so I have to think of and store them anyway. I would be happy to change if there's a better way.
I use Vim to edit content from a MySQL
t xt
:Edit page_name edits a
:Save re-saves it.
database with the help of a vim script I've posted here:
http://www.phototour.minneapolis.mn.us/pages.vim.
webpage stored in a database table, and