I don't know if China would really beat us in the back to the moon race, but if it does, it would have a very positive impact on America.
Not at all. Most Americans will just shrug, say 'we were there first' and then sit down to watch Oprah. Americans don't care what's happening outside their borders. Any positive impact will have to come from within.
Why should you have to get release forms from eveyone in the scene when many of the uses possible, some perhaps which could be considered commercial, would not require releases? Shouldn't it be up to the person making the use which needs the realease to be sure they have it?
Because there are other licenses that disallow commercial use that the photographer could have chosen. By deliberately using a license that allows commercial use you're implying, if not saying outright, that the material is not rights encumbered. Now a court may agree with you, but that may be an expensive journey. As an artist the best way to protect yourself is to only use a commercial use license when you're 100% sure you own all the rights.
OT: Have you read the new SL TOS? It appears to require content providers provide LL and all other users with a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, transferable, irrevocable, royalty-free and perpetual license. It might pay to be the photographer after all =).
The CC clause doesn't release the photographer from their duty of care. By using a licence that allowed commercial use when they clearly did not possess those rights may be deemed fraudulent and deceptive behaviour. That might be enough leverage. It certainly should make them think twice about what they've gotten themselves into. The only winners, as usual, are going to be the lawyers no matter how this goes.
I agree. The photographer has to take some responsibility here for allowing the work to be licensed with rights he didn't obtain. It's a conscious and deliberate act to make a flickr photo CC-BY. The default is All Rights Reserved. He mislead any potential users of the photo.
I suspect this is will be the primary point of failure for the lawsuit. If Virgin choose to fight this, then a counter suit against the photographer for failing in their duty of care to get a model release while offering the photo to be licensed for commercial use will bring some serious pressure upon him. The family may even win their suit, but not without causing their friend a great deal of harm in the process.
This has been already examined as a legal case study (about half-way down the page). Its conclusion is that Virgin was wrong but will probably get away with it because the photographic subjects were shot outside of Australia.
Uploading the video with no modifications to just earn money is lame (although, still allowed by the license).
I agree and I have to say I've never seen anyone do that with video. It has always been modified. Audio, on the other hand, I've seen used without modification. In fact it is becoming quite common within certain sections of the industry.
This also might be a way that they can fight the pending lawsuits by the studios. If you want to be paid for content you upload then YouTube will need certain details so they can pay you. They can then of course pass those details along to the relevant authorities if they come calling about a copyright violation. Let the uploader and the MPAA/studios slug it out.
It's not stopping producers from using the works and won't until a judge awards significant damages to the licensee. How many of them do you think can afford to sue?
What CC license did you release it under? Non-commercial? I know video producers that have made several hundred thousand dollars by using CC-BY (by attribution) music and video in their works. All they did was drop in a credit. All perfectly legal.
Oz did away with 1c and 2c pieces in the early 90s. If bought here your $1.96 item would actually be cheaper at $1.95 because we round to the nearest 5c.
Just why would I bother to save them when the first they did when I subscribed to the magazine was to onsell both my snailmail and email addresses (email was unique to them) to spammers? I only received my first magazine after many phone calls to them and six months after the first spam arrived.
Despite his normal appearance and behavior, he was still gunned down in cold blood by men who face no consequences.
Yes, but he was Brazillian and the English were still sour about going out to them in 2002. I certainly wouldn't want to be Portuguese living there now.
I wonder if we'll see a ring of dwarves thrusting hauberks at the heroes. Or whether the 'good' priest will disappear for a while just like in the books, where even the authors found him so dull that they forgot to include him for several chapters.
I'm not the GGP, but I can still answer your questions.
First thing you do is make sure your kid knows wrong from right (according to your particular ethos). If you do that well enough you get rid of most of the problem. The kid doesn't want to watch something they're not supposed to.
Second, the advisories are exactly that. They're not hard and fast rules. Everyone's view of what is acceptable is different. They're just one information point. Ask your friends and family. Check the web. Get as much information as you can, then decide.
Third, don't panic. Kids are resilient. They'll run around, fall over, cry a bit then laugh and want to run around again. Same goes with their ethical well-being. Exposure to one radical or unacceptable idea or concept won't corrupt them permanently. The best thing you can do is live the example you want for them, set the limits, be consistent and abide by them, and give them loads of love and attention. That's going to have a more lasting effect upon them than any film, song or book ever will.
Being a parent is tough, but it's the best job in the world.
However, I'm sure he offers his advice in how parents should control their unruly kids in public.However, I'm sure he offers his advice in how parents should control their unruly kids in public.
Son, we used to call it discipline in my day. Seems a foreign concept today however.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if China would really beat us in the back to the moon race, but if it does, it would have a very positive impact on America.
Not at all. Most Americans will just shrug, say 'we were there first' and then sit down to watch Oprah. Americans don't care what's happening outside their borders. Any positive impact will have to come from within.
Why should you have to get release forms from eveyone in the scene when many of the uses possible, some perhaps which could be considered commercial, would not require releases? Shouldn't it be up to the person making the use which needs the realease to be sure they have it?
Because there are other licenses that disallow commercial use that the photographer could have chosen. By deliberately using a license that allows commercial use you're implying, if not saying outright, that the material is not rights encumbered. Now a court may agree with you, but that may be an expensive journey. As an artist the best way to protect yourself is to only use a commercial use license when you're 100% sure you own all the rights.
OT: Have you read the new SL TOS? It appears to require content providers provide LL and all other users with a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, transferable, irrevocable, royalty-free and perpetual license. It might pay to be the photographer after all =).
The CC clause doesn't release the photographer from their duty of care. By using a licence that allowed commercial use when they clearly did not possess those rights may be deemed fraudulent and deceptive behaviour. That might be enough leverage. It certainly should make them think twice about what they've gotten themselves into. The only winners, as usual, are going to be the lawyers no matter how this goes.
I agree. The photographer has to take some responsibility here for allowing the work to be licensed with rights he didn't obtain. It's a conscious and deliberate act to make a flickr photo CC-BY. The default is All Rights Reserved. He mislead any potential users of the photo.
I suspect this is will be the primary point of failure for the lawsuit. If Virgin choose to fight this, then a counter suit against the photographer for failing in their duty of care to get a model release while offering the photo to be licensed for commercial use will bring some serious pressure upon him. The family may even win their suit, but not without causing their friend a great deal of harm in the process.
This has been already examined as a legal case study (about half-way down the page). Its conclusion is that Virgin was wrong but will probably get away with it because the photographic subjects were shot outside of Australia.
I'm surprised there's no mention of haptics. Secondlife: now with real gyrating motion.
proble.ms
Uploading the video with no modifications to just earn money is lame (although, still allowed by the license).
I agree and I have to say I've never seen anyone do that with video. It has always been modified. Audio, on the other hand, I've seen used without modification. In fact it is becoming quite common within certain sections of the industry.
This also might be a way that they can fight the pending lawsuits by the studios. If you want to be paid for content you upload then YouTube will need certain details so they can pay you. They can then of course pass those details along to the relevant authorities if they come calling about a copyright violation. Let the uploader and the MPAA/studios slug it out.
It's not stopping producers from using the works and won't until a judge awards significant damages to the licensee. How many of them do you think can afford to sue?
What CC license did you release it under? Non-commercial? I know video producers that have made several hundred thousand dollars by using CC-BY (by attribution) music and video in their works. All they did was drop in a credit. All perfectly legal.
Oz did away with 1c and 2c pieces in the early 90s. If bought here your $1.96 item would actually be cheaper at $1.95 because we round to the nearest 5c.
African or Asian elephant?
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
-- Sinclair Lewis
I think it's time to sell my domain name. Bidding starts at $100,000.
Just why would I bother to save them when the first they did when I subscribed to the magazine was to onsell both my snailmail and email addresses (email was unique to them) to spammers? I only received my first magazine after many phone calls to them and six months after the first spam arrived.
I wonder if we'll see a ring of dwarves thrusting hauberks at the heroes.
Or whether the 'good' priest will disappear for a while just like in the books, where even the authors found him so dull that they forgot to include him for several chapters.
I'm not the GGP, but I can still answer your questions.
First thing you do is make sure your kid knows wrong from right (according to your particular ethos). If you do that well enough you get rid of most of the problem. The kid doesn't want to watch something they're not supposed to.
Second, the advisories are exactly that. They're not hard and fast rules. Everyone's view of what is acceptable is different. They're just one information point. Ask your friends and family. Check the web. Get as much information as you can, then decide.
Third, don't panic. Kids are resilient. They'll run around, fall over, cry a bit then laugh and want to run around again. Same goes with their ethical well-being. Exposure to one radical or unacceptable idea or concept won't corrupt them permanently. The best thing you can do is live the example you want for them, set the limits, be consistent and abide by them, and give them loads of love and attention. That's going to have a more lasting effect upon them than any film, song or book ever will.
Being a parent is tough, but it's the best job in the world.
Or never be reliable, trustworthy or competent. It's always worked for me.
However, I'm sure he offers his advice in how parents should control their unruly kids in public.However, I'm sure he offers his advice in how parents should control their unruly kids in public.
Son, we used to call it discipline in my day. Seems a foreign concept today however.
And yes I am a parent.
but at least it's not the music business.
Yeah, in the music business you can at least try busking to pay for your cigarettes.
Silver jumpsuits and purple wigs.