Um, you may want to re-read the article we are talking about here because the 9th circuit says you're wrong:
In Wednesday’s ruling, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, writing for the majority, makes a series of unusual copyright arguments to explain why Garica has rights in the film. While actors typically don’t have an independent copyright in their performances, Kozinski states that Garcia’s role was not a work for hire. The opinion also states that Garcia had given the producer an implied license to use her performance, but that his subsequent conduct went beyond the terms of the license — meaning that she ultimately retained the copyright and could use it against YouTube.
The actors don't have a copyright unless rights are granted by the film maker.
Not true. The actors have copyright over their individual performance as an artistic work. Normally this is assigned to the producers via their contract, but if the contract is voided, it reverts to them. Similar to the situation a record label would be in if their contract with a band was thrown out.
But actors have publicity rights. If their employment contract is declared invalid, they maintain the right to their publicity. That means the producer is distributing the film without legal standing in violation of copyright law.
Has nothing to do with copyright and only applies to marketing/endorsement, not use in an artistic work.
Second is the long-standing interpretation of copyright law saying that people own copyright on their own appearance. Finally, there's the DMCA's takedown provisions.
Typically, when making a movie or taking pictures of a person, you need the actors' or models' permission*. This is a pretty standard part of the release contracts, which are indeed covered under contract law. However, in this case it seems the producers didn't make the release contract in good faith. That means the contract is thrown out, so the actress still owns copyright on her likeness as used in the movie, so she has legal standing to issue a DMCA takedown request.
No no no no no no no. This is totally false and thrown around on here all the time as truth.You do NOT own copyright to your own appearance. You have certain publicity rights that prevent using your likeness for marketing/endorsement purposes without your permission. For example, I can photograph you in public, make giant 20 foot tall prints, exhibit and sell them at a gallery all without your permission. I cannot, however, use them to market the gallery show in advertising. You also have an expectation of privacy when you are not in public but just the act of knowingly allowing yourself to be filmed (vs covertly) would cancel that out. In this case the actress does own copyright to her performance as an artistic work, even in the context of a part of a bigger artistic work. This is where you start to need to make sure you have a contract. It becomes the same sort of situation as a band producing an album for a record label.
I'm really curious (but not enough to go looking, obviously) what in the contract that the 9th felt they violated. Generally these contracts are pretty generic and favor the producer. I doubt it had a "no muslim hate" clause (but hey, who knows).
I figure they would go vertical, with a bunch of those glass and steel highrise buildings that everyone loves and that add so much character to an old city.
Needless to say, this small company wants someone to take their system into the modern age, which means re-design/new architecture, implementation, maintenance, team lead, etc
Be vary wary of this line. I've had friends do this exact same jump and it is usually followed by heart-break and another job search. Many small companies say that this is what they want, but what usually happens is that the established culture just will not change and you end up as "that guy" who steps on everyone's egos and ends up not "being the right fit after all".
Increased awareness, new federal laws holding manufacturers responsible for meeting the marking of their items, etc. I suspect it's still a problem though, just not as widespread as it once was. There is a good pdf guide from the gov on counterfeit bolts and other hardware items (I love the completely cosmetic gas cutoff valve on pg. 32)
Why haven't the workers taken over and socialized the means of production yet? Why is our destiny as a species tied to the whims of a handful of super-wealthy idle parasites?
Because in the end most humans are still greedy chimps at the core. Give us power and we will abuse it, and we will do anything we can to not share it. It's just human nature.
And are you looking to make apps for it? If not, then wait. It's early days for this type of tech and you will probably kick yourself in 12-18 months for blowing that $1500 on glass. You can still be an early adopter and probably get a better device at a better price by waiting a short while. Heck, even if you are dead set on getting Google Glass, everyone expects the commercial version to be released this year (possibly within the next few months) at a much lower price. Why by now? It would be like buying last year's [insert favorite smartphone here] when you know the new one is just around the corner.
So basically, ban everything that can be used to augment and improve the human memory beyond what is feasible without instrumentality unless it is visible?
What does that do for people who will some day have chips installed in their brains? The first generation of which will doubtlessly be for medical purposes, such as perhaps preventing dementia in old age, but as the technology advances, such implants would likely ultimately end up offering a mnemonic advantage over unassisted memory.
If you think that future is too far away to worry about, you are probably mistaken. I give it maybe as much as 20 years. Tops.
If it can record and play back, yes. As for how? I already covered that: See "Forehead tattoo".
They wouldn't necessarily concealed... just not necessarily obvious.
And the reason for their inobviousness would have far less to do with actually wanting to hide that one is using them and much more to do with simple comfort and ergonomics... something that a person can be comfortable with wearing them an entire day, probably putting it on in the morning and taking it off at night, like clothes.
The reason doesn't matter. You simply ban them if they are not obvious or have some pre-defined feature to make people aware you are using them (i.e. for contacts red iris color, or a forehead tattoo, something like that). The police state does NOT want citizens to have always on cameras when they interact with officers of the law. So your privacy is saved by the all seeing, all wise government overlords.
We'll pass laws to prevent the sale to the general public if they lack a anti-concealment feature (light, color, shape, whatever). Police, of course, will be free to use them. So don't worry about that.
The Eclipse? Doesn't look like their anti-paparazzi system works all that well. I've got a couple of nice shots of it. Of course, my camera doesn't have all that auto focus, auto exposure nonsense that the aforementioned laser system is likely to interfere with.
Didn't say it was good, just expensive and available!
Slashdot Mirror
"The work also fingers a possible culprit" Anthropomorphic Global Warming? (not a troll, just a funny, vote me down if you will)
Don't be stupid. It was obviously caused by US Navy sonar. Yes, our sonar is THAT powerful.
In Wednesday’s ruling, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, writing for the majority, makes a series of unusual copyright arguments to explain why Garica has rights in the film. While actors typically don’t have an independent copyright in their performances, Kozinski states that Garcia’s role was not a work for hire. The opinion also states that Garcia had given the producer an implied license to use her performance, but that his subsequent conduct went beyond the terms of the license — meaning that she ultimately retained the copyright and could use it against YouTube.
The actors don't have a copyright unless rights are granted by the film maker.
Not true. The actors have copyright over their individual performance as an artistic work. Normally this is assigned to the producers via their contract, but if the contract is voided, it reverts to them. Similar to the situation a record label would be in if their contract with a band was thrown out.
But actors have publicity rights. If their employment contract is declared invalid, they maintain the right to their publicity. That means the producer is distributing the film without legal standing in violation of copyright law.
Has nothing to do with copyright and only applies to marketing/endorsement, not use in an artistic work.
It seems that every time extremists resort to threats and violence, they have gotten the censorship they were seeking.
Many newspapers are now self-censoring for fear of violence. Is this really where we are headed?
If we don't let the terrorists win, the terrorists win.
Second is the long-standing interpretation of copyright law saying that people own copyright on their own appearance. Finally, there's the DMCA's takedown provisions.
Typically, when making a movie or taking pictures of a person, you need the actors' or models' permission*. This is a pretty standard part of the release contracts, which are indeed covered under contract law. However, in this case it seems the producers didn't make the release contract in good faith. That means the contract is thrown out, so the actress still owns copyright on her likeness as used in the movie, so she has legal standing to issue a DMCA takedown request.
No no no no no no no. This is totally false and thrown around on here all the time as truth.You do NOT own copyright to your own appearance. You have certain publicity rights that prevent using your likeness for marketing/endorsement purposes without your permission. For example, I can photograph you in public, make giant 20 foot tall prints, exhibit and sell them at a gallery all without your permission. I cannot, however, use them to market the gallery show in advertising. You also have an expectation of privacy when you are not in public but just the act of knowingly allowing yourself to be filmed (vs covertly) would cancel that out. In this case the actress does own copyright to her performance as an artistic work, even in the context of a part of a bigger artistic work. This is where you start to need to make sure you have a contract. It becomes the same sort of situation as a band producing an album for a record label.
I'm really curious (but not enough to go looking, obviously) what in the contract that the 9th felt they violated. Generally these contracts are pretty generic and favor the producer. I doubt it had a "no muslim hate" clause (but hey, who knows).
10 acres? Googles bathrooms are larger than that.
I figure they would go vertical, with a bunch of those glass and steel highrise buildings that everyone loves and that add so much character to an old city.
Needless to say, this small company wants someone to take their system into the modern age, which means re-design/new architecture, implementation, maintenance, team lead, etc
Be vary wary of this line. I've had friends do this exact same jump and it is usually followed by heart-break and another job search. Many small companies say that this is what they want, but what usually happens is that the established culture just will not change and you end up as "that guy" who steps on everyone's egos and ends up not "being the right fit after all".
So which 10 acres of downtown would you like Google to demolish to build their urban campus?
Also, I thought gentrification was a bad thing? Now they want to bring MORE people into the city to drive up the rent even higher?
Or just their wishful thinking...
Increased awareness, new federal laws holding manufacturers responsible for meeting the marking of their items, etc. I suspect it's still a problem though, just not as widespread as it once was. There is a good pdf guide from the gov on counterfeit bolts and other hardware items (I love the completely cosmetic gas cutoff valve on pg. 32)
Why haven't the workers taken over and socialized the means of production yet? Why is our destiny as a species tied to the whims of a handful of super-wealthy idle parasites?
Because in the end most humans are still greedy chimps at the core. Give us power and we will abuse it, and we will do anything we can to not share it. It's just human nature.
I don't think tattooing the elderly is going to go over particularly well.
If we don't the terrorists will win.
This is slashdot, obviously it's in hex! So that would make this the 45th biggest in decimal.
And are you looking to make apps for it? If not, then wait. It's early days for this type of tech and you will probably kick yourself in 12-18 months for blowing that $1500 on glass. You can still be an early adopter and probably get a better device at a better price by waiting a short while. Heck, even if you are dead set on getting Google Glass, everyone expects the commercial version to be released this year (possibly within the next few months) at a much lower price. Why by now? It would be like buying last year's [insert favorite smartphone here] when you know the new one is just around the corner.
0.8 degrees Celsius is in fact about 1 degree Celsius.
Well, +/- 20%
So basically, ban everything that can be used to augment and improve the human memory beyond what is feasible without instrumentality unless it is visible?
What does that do for people who will some day have chips installed in their brains? The first generation of which will doubtlessly be for medical purposes, such as perhaps preventing dementia in old age, but as the technology advances, such implants would likely ultimately end up offering a mnemonic advantage over unassisted memory.
If you think that future is too far away to worry about, you are probably mistaken. I give it maybe as much as 20 years. Tops.
If it can record and play back, yes. As for how? I already covered that: See "Forehead tattoo".
Because they started it. The whole "CCTV everywhere" crap.
Well, they do like their reality TV.
They wouldn't necessarily concealed... just not necessarily obvious.
And the reason for their inobviousness would have far less to do with actually wanting to hide that one is using them and much more to do with simple comfort and ergonomics... something that a person can be comfortable with wearing them an entire day, probably putting it on in the morning and taking it off at night, like clothes.
The reason doesn't matter. You simply ban them if they are not obvious or have some pre-defined feature to make people aware you are using them (i.e. for contacts red iris color, or a forehead tattoo, something like that). The police state does NOT want citizens to have always on cameras when they interact with officers of the law. So your privacy is saved by the all seeing, all wise government overlords.
We'll pass laws to prevent the sale to the general public if they lack a anti-concealment feature (light, color, shape, whatever). Police, of course, will be free to use them. So don't worry about that.
considers manners and politeness to be passe', and where bureaucratic rules and regulations are the norms.
Wait, why are we dragging Britain into this?
The Eclipse? Doesn't look like their anti-paparazzi system works all that well. I've got a couple of nice shots of it. Of course, my camera doesn't have all that auto focus, auto exposure nonsense that the aforementioned laser system is likely to interfere with.
Didn't say it was good, just expensive and available!
Which is why the best home security system is still the kind with four paws and a loud bark.
I dunno about that. Mine has two steel feet and a pair of vulcan cannons and I feel pretty secure.
Just tell the owner to pull out their wallet. Of course, it better be a really big wallet. World’s Largest Private Yacht Features a Laser-based Anti-Photo Shield
"Its size makes it unlikely that humans will be able to check and confirm the proof."
I thought that's what grad students were for: endless mind-numbing labor. "Here, check this and have it back to me in 30 years or so."