(a)Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.
(1)A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.
That being said, the entire area of Right of Privacy law is fascinating. I was reading through this website and there's some really good meat there for discussion.
Ah maybe its just a language thing then - when I read "drop out" it suggests that they've pulled out completely, abandoned the attempt, and washed their hands of the whole thing. Kinnda like when you drop out of college, you don't traditionally appear back at classes 3 weeks later ready to tackle new material.
Read the part right before that - it says While setting up a position by the Senate - the guy is specifically asking for a pause in the negotiations until his review panels get their say, that is not the same as dropping out.
First.- The Senate agreed to form a Plural Working Group to follow up the negotiations for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, known as ACT (for its initials in English Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) in order to assist in the transparency of the multilateral negotiations and ensure that the provisions of this Agreement are in accordance with the guarantees and fundamental rights that our Constitution provides for Federal
Second.- The Senate agreed to hold, through the Working Group Plural provided in resolving previous public forums and consultations with officials, academics, experts and interested parties in order to build a position on it, and its case, to form an agenda and an alternate route to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), in order to prepare and submit bills related to the Internet, the industrial property rights and copyrights, as well as freedom of expression and the right to privacy.
Third.- While setting up a position by the Senate on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), requesting the owner of the Federal Executive, Mr. Felipe Calderón Hinojosa , stop the process of negotiations for our country to sign the international convention.
This says nothing about dropping out at all. It is asking for negotiations to be paused while they set up internal discussion and review groups. The tone of the entire thing supports the general need for something like ACTA but is against the secrecy of the negotiations. The healine there is misleading.
Have a look at the big guys' recruitment pages and click through to all the game specific roles. There's EA and Activision to start with, and a bunch of smaller places around - check the listings on the most recent metacritic game reviews to find company names if you're drawing a blank. The job-ads are going to give you a far better idea than most of what we can come up with.
Master’s degree in Computer
Science, Computer Engineering, Mathematics, Physics, or related field. In the alternative, we will accept a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Mathematics, Physics, or related field, plus five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the job offered, or as Software Develope
as well as a variety of random experience and specific programming knowledge.
So it's a little of column A and a little of column B really - portfolio and degree combined.
Then there's the problem of deliberate choice versus innocent mistake. How many of us really know how old the person on the screen actually is? I know I rely on the disclaimers that claim the site is in compliance, but that's hardly the most reliable of all protections. And no protection at all in strict liability jurisdictions. That's where it starts getting plain scary, if you happened to jerk off to a Traci Lords vid' there's a chance you're having a tug to illegal stuff. Same goes for Brent Corrigan.
Very interesting point, I hadn't considered the contractual aspects.
However, surely there are better legislative tools available to restrict that kind of commercial behaviour t? If you're not permitted to make a financial gain from the images of people under a certain age, and may be prosecuted for doing such, it would have generally the same outcome. Restricting the ability of under-18’s to form contracts to create pay-for-porn. Or you could have a double system in place whereby under 18’s can have sex with each-other, no pictures or movies permitted, and the over-18s get everything else. It's the combined system that seems to be the problem. If I can have a 16 year old girlfriend, or boyfriend, and am able to have sex freely with them then why can’t I create records for my own consumption? If you're not producing images for a commercial purpose, perhaps taking a picture of yourself and your perfectly legal girlfriend in bed, then it seems obtuse to in violation of the law.
While I agree with the general logic of your statement - separating the age of military service and drinking seems to lack any sensible reasoning - I think the situation is different. There seems to be a qualitative similarity between sexual activity and the production of sexual materials – pictures, movies, whatever – that is missing when you make the alcohol/service argument.
If they're old enough to have a penis put in them legally, what is the qualitative difference between that and having a picture of the same event. Both seem to involve the capacity to make decisions about the use of your own body and the repercussions thereby incurred. If a young man is legally deemed competent to decide if he wants to risk STDs, pregnancy, complicated relationships and all of that...how is he not similarly legally competent to decide if he wants to show his bits to the wider world? If we're worried about exploitation and the ability to make rational choices and assess danger and all that...well the two situations don't seem all that different.
I did some more research and it's pretty pervasive - Canada, Australia are the same way for instance. It's rather shocking really, I knew that was the situation in the US but had presumed that everyone else had a different approach - guess that was a bit stupid really on second thoughts. Checking the world age-of-concent map shows that most places allow sex before 18, although I'm sure certain caveats apply. Makes you wonder about the reasoning behind the law as it currently stands.
Huh, I was all ready to throw some facts at you about the age of concent in the UK being 16 and how it would be insane for child porn to include those who can have sex legally.
Then I read the law and, shockingly enough, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 changed the age of adult from 16 to 18.
his clause redefines a "child" for the purposes of the Protection of Children Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act") as a person under 18 years, rather than under 16 years, of age. This change means the offences under that Act of taking, making, permitting to take, distributing, showing, possessing with intent to distribute, and advertising indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children will now also be applicable where the photographs concerned are of children of 16 or 17 years of age. The same change applies to the offence of possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child at section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (section 160(4) applies the 1978 Act definition of "child").
There are loads of laws that are applicable. Trademark and obscenity are likely to be the ones you run into most - try registering Fucking Microsoft for instance - but there's also a bunch of regulations controlling the use of characters, abbreviations, and all of that. I did a quick search and found a great list of British restrictions on specific terms including
Accredited, Auditor General for Wales, Bank, British, House of Lords, University,
and so on. A general rule of thumb - if it has the potential to mislead you probably need to get some permission.
Copyright doesn't have that effect at all. Infact the Digital Millenium Copyright Act specifically creates the option for libraries and archives to create copies for preservation. Check out the actual law which includes
it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if—
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are
(i) open to the public, or
(ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.
(b) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to three copies or phonorecords of an unpublished work duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security or for deposit for research use in another library or archives of the type described by clause (2) of subsection (a), if—
(1) the copy or phonorecord reproduced is currently in the collections of the library or archives; and
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.
If you're referencing personal preservation rights then you should read this article from the Standford Libraries on copyright and fairuse.
I was merely saying that the article explicity addressed using light to contract muscles, that was all. Using the method as described in the article, without some refinement as you described, wouldn't do the job as far as I know. Clearly I should have been clearer with the point I was making and if there was an edit button I'd be clicking it pretty hard right now. Thanks for pointing out the mistake though, it's always cool hearing from someone with actual direct knowledge.
Huh, pretty interesting idea though - and certainly better than flooding the body with drugs. Bit of creative material use in luminous condoms combined could be well rewarded. Thanks for that post; it’s exactly the kind that keeps me coming back to Slashdot.
Don't forget that the relaxation is only half the equation - there is still a need for massive dilation in the veins delivering blood and a restriction in those removing it.
How would this tech' be applied to relaxing muscles? I thought it was more complicated to stimulate relaxation than contraction, at least without the use of drugs.
Won't work. Erections are based on blood flowing into spongy erectile tissues allowing them to become engorged and causing stiffening and hopefully lengthening. This procedure allows muscular contraction, a completely different system.
Have a read of TFA, the really fascinating part isn't addressed in the summary at all. This light-based system replaces an electric-stimulation system, the development and reasons for shifting from one to the other makes for a pleasant read.
TFA makes a point that invalidates yours though - they specifically mention the fact that if you're tagged in an image your boss is contacted. At that point it doesnt matter if you're rational...every single person in your social network, no matter how extraneous, is having their discretion and rationality tested. Go to a party and have a couple of pictures taken and tagged of you messing around, harmlessly, and forwarded to a boss who perhaps disapproves of heavy drinking/smoking/you kissing guys/stupid pictures of people pretending the Eiffel tower is between their palms...pretty much anything really, and you run the risk of disciplinary action.
At that point the only rational choice is to not participate online at all, or allow pictures to be taken, comments to be made, anything that relates to you. What a sad life that seems.
I come to Slashdot for the comments. The story-summaries are usually questionable but the articles themselves tend to be rather interesting (and Idle is awesome for my despair-about-humanity-emo-rants) however the real treasure tends to lie down below when everyone piles on. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of pure rubbish festering around the place, but I usually leave a comments threat benefitting from a well argued perspective or a link to some resource I didn't know existed. I've used Slashdot as a research tool many-a-time, mining the comments for data or at least the beginning of a search for data, hasn't let me down yet.
Slashdot Mirror
My girlfriend always said it's not the size of the genome that counts, its what you do with it.
That being said, the entire area of Right of Privacy law is fascinating. I was reading through this website and there's some really good meat there for discussion.
Ah maybe its just a language thing then - when I read "drop out" it suggests that they've pulled out completely, abandoned the attempt, and washed their hands of the whole thing. Kinnda like when you drop out of college, you don't traditionally appear back at classes 3 weeks later ready to tackle new material.
Read the part right before that - it says While setting up a position by the Senate - the guy is specifically asking for a pause in the negotiations until his review panels get their say, that is not the same as dropping out.
Dammit, sorry I bolded the third proposal there instead of putting in a space, my apologies.
This says nothing about dropping out at all. It is asking for negotiations to be paused while they set up internal discussion and review groups. The tone of the entire thing supports the general need for something like ACTA but is against the secrecy of the negotiations. The healine there is misleading.
I clicked through to a random Bioware position and they were asking for
as well as a variety of random experience and specific programming knowledge.
So it's a little of column A and a little of column B really - portfolio and degree combined.
Yeah and Pamela Anderson just had a pair of breasts. For those of us who live on Earth, those things are pretty run of the mill.
Then there's the problem of deliberate choice versus innocent mistake. How many of us really know how old the person on the screen actually is? I know I rely on the disclaimers that claim the site is in compliance, but that's hardly the most reliable of all protections. And no protection at all in strict liability jurisdictions. That's where it starts getting plain scary, if you happened to jerk off to a Traci Lords vid' there's a chance you're having a tug to illegal stuff. Same goes for Brent Corrigan.
Very interesting point, I hadn't considered the contractual aspects.
However, surely there are better legislative tools available to restrict that kind of commercial behaviour t? If you're not permitted to make a financial gain from the images of people under a certain age, and may be prosecuted for doing such, it would have generally the same outcome. Restricting the ability of under-18’s to form contracts to create pay-for-porn. Or you could have a double system in place whereby under 18’s can have sex with each-other, no pictures or movies permitted, and the over-18s get everything else. It's the combined system that seems to be the problem. If I can have a 16 year old girlfriend, or boyfriend, and am able to have sex freely with them then why can’t I create records for my own consumption? If you're not producing images for a commercial purpose, perhaps taking a picture of yourself and your perfectly legal girlfriend in bed, then it seems obtuse to in violation of the law.
While I agree with the general logic of your statement - separating the age of military service and drinking seems to lack any sensible reasoning - I think the situation is different. There seems to be a qualitative similarity between sexual activity and the production of sexual materials – pictures, movies, whatever – that is missing when you make the alcohol/service argument.
If they're old enough to have a penis put in them legally, what is the qualitative difference between that and having a picture of the same event. Both seem to involve the capacity to make decisions about the use of your own body and the repercussions thereby incurred. If a young man is legally deemed competent to decide if he wants to risk STDs, pregnancy, complicated relationships and all of that...how is he not similarly legally competent to decide if he wants to show his bits to the wider world? If we're worried about exploitation and the ability to make rational choices and assess danger and all that...well the two situations don't seem all that different.
I did some more research and it's pretty pervasive - Canada, Australia are the same way for instance. It's rather shocking really, I knew that was the situation in the US but had presumed that everyone else had a different approach - guess that was a bit stupid really on second thoughts. Checking the world age-of-concent map shows that most places allow sex before 18, although I'm sure certain caveats apply. Makes you wonder about the reasoning behind the law as it currently stands.
Then I read the law and, shockingly enough, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 changed the age of adult from 16 to 18.
and so on. A general rule of thumb - if it has the potential to mislead you probably need to get some permission.
If you're referencing personal preservation rights then you should read this article from the Standford Libraries on copyright and fairuse.
I was merely saying that the article explicity addressed using light to contract muscles, that was all. Using the method as described in the article, without some refinement as you described, wouldn't do the job as far as I know. Clearly I should have been clearer with the point I was making and if there was an edit button I'd be clicking it pretty hard right now. Thanks for pointing out the mistake though, it's always cool hearing from someone with actual direct knowledge.
Huh, pretty interesting idea though - and certainly better than flooding the body with drugs. Bit of creative material use in luminous condoms combined could be well rewarded. Thanks for that post; it’s exactly the kind that keeps me coming back to Slashdot.
Don't forget that the relaxation is only half the equation - there is still a need for massive dilation in the veins delivering blood and a restriction in those removing it.
How would this tech' be applied to relaxing muscles? I thought it was more complicated to stimulate relaxation than contraction, at least without the use of drugs.
Depends on the chap really, some rather like a little grass on the pitch.
Won't work. Erections are based on blood flowing into spongy erectile tissues allowing them to become engorged and causing stiffening and hopefully lengthening. This procedure allows muscular contraction, a completely different system.
Have a read of TFA, the really fascinating part isn't addressed in the summary at all. This light-based system replaces an electric-stimulation system, the development and reasons for shifting from one to the other makes for a pleasant read.
That's my point, we don't live pre-'95 anymore and the richness of the online experience has become integral to our modern lives.
TFA makes a point that invalidates yours though - they specifically mention the fact that if you're tagged in an image your boss is contacted. At that point it doesnt matter if you're rational...every single person in your social network, no matter how extraneous, is having their discretion and rationality tested. Go to a party and have a couple of pictures taken and tagged of you messing around, harmlessly, and forwarded to a boss who perhaps disapproves of heavy drinking/smoking/you kissing guys/stupid pictures of people pretending the Eiffel tower is between their palms...pretty much anything really, and you run the risk of disciplinary action.
At that point the only rational choice is to not participate online at all, or allow pictures to be taken, comments to be made, anything that relates to you. What a sad life that seems.
I come to Slashdot for the comments. The story-summaries are usually questionable but the articles themselves tend to be rather interesting (and Idle is awesome for my despair-about-humanity-emo-rants) however the real treasure tends to lie down below when everyone piles on. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of pure rubbish festering around the place, but I usually leave a comments threat benefitting from a well argued perspective or a link to some resource I didn't know existed. I've used Slashdot as a research tool many-a-time, mining the comments for data or at least the beginning of a search for data, hasn't let me down yet.
And all the goatse links a man could ever want.