Being a film and television producer who deals with this kind of stuff on a regular basis, I should point out the errors in your post. If what you're claiming were true every paparazzo would be up to their necks in litigation, since making money off unauthorized photos is their business.
What you are thinking about in your post is what's called a "model release". It's a little wrinkle in copyright law.
It isn't part of copyright law at all: people's faces are not subject to copyright (and if they were, the rights to your face would be owned by your parents, since they commissioned the work, so to speak).
It says that even though I own the copyright to anything I create, I can't use that photo commercially if there is a person who can be identified in the photo unless that person gives permission.
Care to cite the clause in copyright legislation or case law that says that?
Copyright doesn't restrict the use of an image by the rights holder in any way at all (where do people keep getting the word "commercial" from? Copyright ownership is neither enhanced or diminished by commercial exploitation). However, if the image is used in a defamatory manner, attributes fake product endorsements or otherwise misrepresents the individual, or violates a reasonable expectation of privacy the individual can sue. A release form is simply an agreement not to sue, and as such falls under contractual law.
Example 1: the NBC "Today" show can do their weather report outside the studio because the assembled audience have no reasonable expectation of privacy (Rockerfeller Plaza is a public space). No release forms required, even though individuals are clearly identifiable in a commercial broadcast.
Example 2: watch any news report about obesity that uses footage shot in public, and you'll see people from the neck down. This is because it is apparently defamatory to identify a lard-arse as "fat" (unless they've signed a release like the contestants on "The Biggest Loser").
Example 3: an actor plays a character in a film, but then refuses to sign a release. Does that prevent the film being released? No, because an actor invited onto a film set has no expectation of privacy, and by playing a character they aren't representing themself, thereby eliminating the question of misrepresentation or defamation. The actor could sue claiming that the editing was done in such a way as to make them look incompetent, but then they risk having the unedited footage presented in court and their incompetence proven (BTW, all this is paraphrased from my response to a genuine nastygram I received from an agent, based on advice from two entertainment industry specialist lawyers and a professor of legal studies. No, I don't mess around; getting it wrong could cost me thousands of dollars). Again, copyright doesn't enter into it.
If I take a picture of you, I can display it wherever I want (including my webpage), as long as I'm not using it commercially, without your permission.
Copyright law does not distinguish between commercial and non-profit use in this regard; whoever owns the rights owns the rights, period. If I make money off a photo of you without your permission you may have a basis to sue if I'd expressly said the photo wasn't for commercial use, but again that's contractual law, not copyright (and even then you only have a claim if your identity is central to the image and you weren't in a public area at the time).
This is why the newspaper can post your picture in an article, even if you object to it. It's called an "editorial" work.
There's no law protecting aesthetic sensibilities, so there is no basis for litigation if anyone publishes a legitimately acquired image you find objectionable. "Public interest" is a fair use defence for publication of unauthorised material which must be argued in court if challenged, so wherever possible news outlets try to avoid it.
You were initially right in saying "whoever creates a work owns the
Considering Lost has a suspiciously large number of similarities to an old show called "The New People", perhaps Abrams is the right person to resurrect the spirit of another show from the sixties.
Since he is displaying the Apple Universal Binary logo on his site, I suspect he's in violation of the logo licence agreement
Apple wants developers to use the logo, so they make the licencing quick and painless. What makes you suspect he didn't take the 5 minutes to fill out the form?
afaics, piracy exists mostly due to price gouging by greedy businesses
While I wouldn't dispute that for some software (I'm looking at you, Adobe), the fact that cheap shareware is also pirated proves that there is no price low enough.
It's always funny reading the Apple forums - people who know Jack Shit about computers give advice to people who know less and trying to sound all authoritative....said the AC in an authoritative voice.
Slashdot Mirror
Being a film and television producer who deals with this kind of stuff on a regular basis, I should point out the errors in your post. If what you're claiming were true every paparazzo would be up to their necks in litigation, since making money off unauthorized photos is their business.
What you are thinking about in your post is what's called a "model release". It's a little wrinkle in copyright law.
It isn't part of copyright law at all: people's faces are not subject to copyright (and if they were, the rights to your face would be owned by your parents, since they commissioned the work, so to speak).
It says that even though I own the copyright to anything I create, I can't use that photo commercially if there is a person who can be identified in the photo unless that person gives permission.
Care to cite the clause in copyright legislation or case law that says that?
Copyright doesn't restrict the use of an image by the rights holder in any way at all (where do people keep getting the word "commercial" from? Copyright ownership is neither enhanced or diminished by commercial exploitation). However, if the image is used in a defamatory manner, attributes fake product endorsements or otherwise misrepresents the individual, or violates a reasonable expectation of privacy the individual can sue. A release form is simply an agreement not to sue, and as such falls under contractual law.
Example 1: the NBC "Today" show can do their weather report outside the studio because the assembled audience have no reasonable expectation of privacy (Rockerfeller Plaza is a public space). No release forms required, even though individuals are clearly identifiable in a commercial broadcast.
Example 2: watch any news report about obesity that uses footage shot in public, and you'll see people from the neck down. This is because it is apparently defamatory to identify a lard-arse as "fat" (unless they've signed a release like the contestants on "The Biggest Loser").
Example 3: an actor plays a character in a film, but then refuses to sign a release. Does that prevent the film being released? No, because an actor invited onto a film set has no expectation of privacy, and by playing a character they aren't representing themself, thereby eliminating the question of misrepresentation or defamation. The actor could sue claiming that the editing was done in such a way as to make them look incompetent, but then they risk having the unedited footage presented in court and their incompetence proven (BTW, all this is paraphrased from my response to a genuine nastygram I received from an agent, based on advice from two entertainment industry specialist lawyers and a professor of legal studies. No, I don't mess around; getting it wrong could cost me thousands of dollars). Again, copyright doesn't enter into it.
If I take a picture of you, I can display it wherever I want (including my webpage), as long as I'm not using it commercially, without your permission.
Copyright law does not distinguish between commercial and non-profit use in this regard; whoever owns the rights owns the rights, period. If I make money off a photo of you without your permission you may have a basis to sue if I'd expressly said the photo wasn't for commercial use, but again that's contractual law, not copyright (and even then you only have a claim if your identity is central to the image and you weren't in a public area at the time).
This is why the newspaper can post your picture in an article, even if you object to it. It's called an "editorial" work.
There's no law protecting aesthetic sensibilities, so there is no basis for litigation if anyone publishes a legitimately acquired image you find objectionable. "Public interest" is a fair use defence for publication of unauthorised material which must be argued in court if challenged, so wherever possible news outlets try to avoid it.
You were initially right in saying "whoever creates a work owns the
LOAD "*",8 ,1
You'll find it in the Start menu, but it's just a shortcut to Minesweeper.
Symantec: more full of bugs than a frog on a binge.
Here is a casual suggestion to lose a minute of your life for every 20 Web sites you visit, so that you can make background tasks go faster.
Ah, the irony of hearing someone complain about losing a few seconds per website on Slashdot.
You can already do online video editing in java.
...depending on your life expectancy.
you just want an excuse to buy a high end Mac, the colour goes with
2 0060807.png
your stash of cocaine.
Since when does cocaine come in aluminium?
http://images.apple.com/macpro/images/index_tower
Photoshop Elements!
I tried, but I can't find the periodic table pulldown. Hell, I can't even specify "Cobalt Blue" in the colour picker...
Woo, isn't NASA supposed to be a millionaire?
No air in space, so it would be more accurate to say NASA is a millionvacuum.
Has the community come up with ways to make UAC useful?
Yes. I can now easily condition people to incessantly push a button without having to resort to all those messy endorphins.
Considering Lost has a suspiciously large number of similarities to an old show called "The New People", perhaps Abrams is the right person to resurrect the spirit of another show from the sixties.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063935/plotsummary
So...serious?
run linux?
Don't you dare imagine a Beowulf cluster of F-22s...
At least they avoided a BSOD (Blue Sea of Death).
How piracy managed to get in the dictionary with respect to copyright infringement, I'll never know.
n gement#Examples_of_use_of_the_word_pirate_or_pirac y_in_this_context
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Copyright_infri
Interestingly, the first reference predates both the term "copyright" and the first English dictionary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_Alphabeticall
If Microsoft did that (destructive action) they might start loosing existing customers.
Steve Ballmer: "Loose the existing cutomers! Fly, my pretties!"
Since he is displaying the Apple Universal Binary logo on his site, I suspect he's in violation of the logo licence agreement
e ments/pdf/universal_logo_license_agreement.pdf
Apple wants developers to use the logo, so they make the licencing quick and painless. What makes you suspect he didn't take the 5 minutes to fill out the form?
http://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agre
afaics, piracy exists mostly due to price gouging by greedy businesses
While I wouldn't dispute that for some software (I'm looking at you, Adobe), the fact that cheap shareware is also pirated proves that there is no price low enough.
He could have focused on what he likes about other distributions, rather than what he doesn't like elsewhere.
I wasn't aware operating systems suffer from self-esteem problems if they get negative feedback.
But I suppose it explains why Windows has grown up to be a sociopathic monster...
Australian for lightbulb.
You should see how we spell beer.
http://www.xxxx.com.au/
We'll wait until 3 weeks before it hits to do something about it!
More like we'll wait until three weeks after it hits.
What if someone else violated the license and made a stripped version of Epic Movie available, without any references to the original author?
It'd still be awful, but we wouldn't know who to blame.
You don't want quantum computers anywhere near the Slashdot front page: it'll only lead to more accusations of spin.
And how do you know I'm not getting paid to say bad things about Dell every chance I get ?-)
No company would waste their money hiring a professional to do it when there are so many willing amateurs.
It's always funny reading the Apple forums - people who know Jack Shit about computers give advice to people who know less and trying to sound all authoritative. ...said the AC in an authoritative voice.
Why is ok to talk sh*t about Christians and not Muslims? The left in this country are bunch of bigots!
As opposed to the Right, who talk shit about everyone who isn't Christian?
Therefore, the ground adapter fixed it for him. SO, why is this front page on Slashdot?
The Slashdot front page is full of groundless stories.