I am going to guess this case will test copyright and the ability of artists to put their works in the public domain. If she can still claim ownership after releasing works to the PD then you are right. If putting a work in to the public domain is revocable then it means the public domain in this sense means nothing.
Look I know there are some actual lawyers here, any of you want to chime in and explain what rights may be kept when a work enters the public domain in this way (meaning the work does not just time out but the creator states that she wants it to be in the public domain).
Subject to P&P policy on copying, which prohibits photocopying of the original color photographs.
I believe this policy (note it is a policy of the Print and Photographs Reading Room at the LoC, not because of anything Ms Highsmith as stipulated) is more for the protection of the original prints stored at the LoC.
"Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist." This relates to the fact that the artworks she photographed may still be under copyright by the respective artists not her.
In no way am I defending Getty, I am just making the claim that she may have lost standing to sue for damages.
"Sometimes people wish for a piece of their own work to be freely available to everyone to use with no strings attached, and put the work in the public domain. This isn't very hard to do — the copyright holder merely has to make a statement that they release all rights to the work. Once this irrevocable act is complete they no longer have any power over how the work is used since it is then owned by the public as a whole." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't get this argument against my assertion. I have shown irrefutable evidence that her works are in the public domain. Unless you think the Library of Congress is lying.
In Germany Moral rights cannot be abandoned, That is not the case in the US.
"In the United States[edit]
Moral rights[14] have had a less robust tradition in the United States. Copyright law in the United States emphasizes protection of financial reward over protection of creative attribution.[4]:xiii The exclusive rights tradition in the United States is inconsistent with the notion of moral rights as it was constituted in the Civil Code tradition stemming from post-Revolutionary France. When the United States acceded to the Berne Convention, it stipulated that the Convention's "moral rights" provisions were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, such as laws covering slander and libel.[4]:30"
Yes her works were protected by copyright until she relinquished them to the public domain.
"Sometimes people wish for a piece of their own work to be freely available to everyone to use with no strings attached, and put the work in the public domain. This isn't very hard to do — the copyright holder merely has to make a statement that they release all rights to the work. Once this irrevocable act is complete they no longer have any power over how the work is used since it is then owned by the public as a whole." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
" I don't know where Samsung stands on innovation" -
Well they make the displays for everyone's phones (except LG, LG like Samsung makes displays for everyone) think OLED, They make and develop memory, They have their own ARM SoC as well as having the ability to fab their own chips.
In 2014 Samsung was the #2 spender on R&D in the world, just a hair behind VW. They spent over $14 Billion USD on R&D in 2015. Compare that to Apple who spent $8.5 Billion.
In other words, he will pander for votes like every other politician. You don't make wishy washy statements about these things, you either believe it is the right thing to do or you don't.
Corporations exist to provide legal protection to the officers. So who would the corporation be conspiring with? Itself? maybe you could make the point by grouping them with LCS.
The next line "Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist." means that the artists of the sculpture or other works may still be covered by THEIR copyright not hers.
Maybe you should dig harder. Instead of going to random sites, get your info from the source.
"Publication and other forms of distribution: Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain. (See P&P Collection Files.) Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist." https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...
According to the LoC her work is very much in the public domain.
No she is not, she has relinquished her claim of copyright.
"Publication and other forms of distribution: Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain. (See P&P Collection Files.) Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist." - LoC site
By declaring her works to be in the public domain she no longer has any say what is done with them.
I am not sure she has standing anymore.
The idea we see here, that she licensed her work to the LoC, does not seem to be accurate. According to the LoC it seems that she has relinquished her rights and intentionally placed her works in the public domain. This would mean that the works can be used for any purpose, commercial or private, without her having any say. This does not excuse the false copyright claim but it would also remove any standing she would have had.
From the LoC site.
"Publication and other forms of distribution: Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain. (See P&P Collection Files.) Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist."
According to the LoC she actually has relinquished her rights.
"Publication and other forms of distribution: Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain. (See P&P Collection Files.) Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist."
RICO? Who did they conspire with? What organization are they a part of? I am very confused as to how RICO could apply in this situation. RICO is about the ability of all members of an organization to be charged for a criminal act performed by one.
Vizio was a "good" source of tvs. I always saw them as the also ran to Samsung and LG. Weren't they the first to start data mining their customers tv usage to sell to advertisers
http://www.networkworld.com/ar...
Slashdot Mirror
I am going to guess this case will test copyright and the ability of artists to put their works in the public domain. If she can still claim ownership after releasing works to the PD then you are right. If putting a work in to the public domain is revocable then it means the public domain in this sense means nothing.
Look I know there are some actual lawyers here, any of you want to chime in and explain what rights may be kept when a work enters the public domain in this way (meaning the work does not just time out but the creator states that she wants it to be in the public domain).
Subject to P&P policy on copying, which prohibits photocopying of the original color photographs.
I believe this policy (note it is a policy of the Print and Photographs Reading Room at the LoC, not because of anything Ms Highsmith as stipulated) is more for the protection of the original prints stored at the LoC.
What do you think the public domain means?
"Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist." This relates to the fact that the artworks she photographed may still be under copyright by the respective artists not her.
In no way am I defending Getty, I am just making the claim that she may have lost standing to sue for damages.
"Sometimes people wish for a piece of their own work to be freely available to everyone to use with no strings attached, and put the work in the public domain. This isn't very hard to do — the copyright holder merely has to make a statement that they release all rights to the work. Once this irrevocable act is complete they no longer have any power over how the work is used since it is then owned by the public as a whole."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't get this argument against my assertion. I have shown irrefutable evidence that her works are in the public domain. Unless you think the Library of Congress is lying.
If the work is in the public domain then EVERYONE has the right.
You make the claim now prove it. In the US. I know the moral rights issue in Europe, but we are talking US law here.
In Germany Moral rights cannot be abandoned, That is not the case in the US.
"In the United States[edit] Moral rights[14] have had a less robust tradition in the United States. Copyright law in the United States emphasizes protection of financial reward over protection of creative attribution.[4]:xiii The exclusive rights tradition in the United States is inconsistent with the notion of moral rights as it was constituted in the Civil Code tradition stemming from post-Revolutionary France. When the United States acceded to the Berne Convention, it stipulated that the Convention's "moral rights" provisions were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, such as laws covering slander and libel.[4]:30"
According to the LoC her works are in the public domain.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...
Yes her works were protected by copyright until she relinquished them to the public domain.
"Sometimes people wish for a piece of their own work to be freely available to everyone to use with no strings attached, and put the work in the public domain. This isn't very hard to do — the copyright holder merely has to make a statement that they release all rights to the work. Once this irrevocable act is complete they no longer have any power over how the work is used since it is then owned by the public as a whole."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
" I don't know where Samsung stands on innovation" -
Well they make the displays for everyone's phones (except LG, LG like Samsung makes displays for everyone) think OLED, They make and develop memory, They have their own ARM SoC as well as having the ability to fab their own chips.
In 2014 Samsung was the #2 spender on R&D in the world, just a hair behind VW. They spent over $14 Billion USD on R&D in 2015. Compare that to Apple who spent $8.5 Billion.
Take memory, they are the first to produce 10nm ddr4 memory. https://news.samsung.com/globa...
When it comes to innovation Samsung is the biggest spender in Tech.
In other words, he will pander for votes like every other politician. You don't make wishy washy statements about these things, you either believe it is the right thing to do or you don't.
You forgot to say "I don't even own a tv"
Corporations exist to provide legal protection to the officers. So who would the corporation be conspiring with? Itself? maybe you could make the point by grouping them with LCS.
The next line "Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist." means that the artists of the sculpture or other works may still be covered by THEIR copyright not hers.
Maybe you should dig harder. Instead of going to random sites, get your info from the source.
"Publication and other forms of distribution: Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain. (See P&P Collection Files.) Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist."
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...
According to the LoC her work is very much in the public domain.
No she is not, she has relinquished her claim of copyright.
"Publication and other forms of distribution: Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain. (See P&P Collection Files.) Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist." - LoC site
By declaring her works to be in the public domain she no longer has any say what is done with them.
I am not sure she has standing anymore.
The idea we see here, that she licensed her work to the LoC, does not seem to be accurate. According to the LoC it seems that she has relinquished her rights and intentionally placed her works in the public domain. This would mean that the works can be used for any purpose, commercial or private, without her having any say. This does not excuse the false copyright claim but it would also remove any standing she would have had.
From the LoC site.
"Publication and other forms of distribution: Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain. (See P&P Collection Files.) Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist."
my source:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...
According to the LoC she actually has relinquished her rights.
"Publication and other forms of distribution: Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain. (See P&P Collection Files.) Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist."
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...
This may cause problems with her standing to sue.
RICO? Who did they conspire with? What organization are they a part of? I am very confused as to how RICO could apply in this situation. RICO is about the ability of all members of an organization to be charged for a criminal act performed by one.
Nope she is suing for 400 Million, a previous case allows for treble damages because Getty has a history of pulling this crap.
They need a warrant, whether or not you get notified is irrelevant as your key won't work after the lock has been drilled.
Host file won't help. Telemetry bypasses internal firewall and the hosts file. You need standalone firewall to block it.
At least here in America.
The Constitution is the law above treaties. No treaty can take away your right to free speech.
Vizio was a "good" source of tvs. I always saw them as the also ran to Samsung and LG. Weren't they the first to start data mining their customers tv usage to sell to advertisers http://www.networkworld.com/ar...