You need a model release if you are going to use the picture commercially, and not even the person saying "you can take my picture" is going to waive that.
News, fine art, and similar aren't considered commercial, so (at least in America), I could take your picture on the street and sell a fine art print of that. I just couldn't use it in advertising.
Those companies have no right to ask you to delete photos.
You don't even have to show them the pictures you took, since photography when you aren't trespassing isn't a crime. (Secure areas of military installations and nuclear facilities aside.)
If you are allowed to be there, you aren't committing a crime until they ask you to leave and you don't. They can say "Stop taking pictures or leave" if you are on private property and that is said by a representative of the property you are on. In public, you can photograph pretty much anything, especially police and other security personnel.
IANAL, and laws might be different in your state, but here is a lawyer talking about this, and a nice little pamphlet he made about this.
It's like signs at malls saying "no guns". Like some nutjob is going to see that and decide not to go kill a bunch of people. Real terrorists aren't going to make jokes.
Those signs reduce safety. They are basically "massacre zone" signs, where someone who wants to kill people is pretty sure of getting the fewest number of people legally carrying guns.
I wish that if a business that was open to the public wanted to post those signs, they would have to have a certain number of armed guards per square feet at all times during normal business hours. Basically, have people provide their own security, or don't allow that and pay for it.
How would this system help the car being push-started?
No engine running to generate power, and a dead battery means no power to run the radar, do computations, and activate the brakes, nor any power brake assisting.
So someone could start a service pointing a user to where they can legally download MP3s? That would work in this case, since Capitol Records is distributing the MP3s themselves.
A lot of people in cold climates have backup (or even primary) wood stoves for heat.
In Colorado, the only kind of wood stoves that I have seen that use electricity are pellet stoves, whereas wood stoves don't need any power at all. You just put logs in, get them burning, and that is it. Are you talking about a wood burning whole house furnace with forced air? That isn't exactly a "wood stove".
My family primarily uses wood to heat the house, with trees we cut down from the neighbors property. The forest here is significantly overpopulated, so a lot of the trees need cutting down anyways.
An issue that I have with washing keyboards is calcium from hard water shorting out stuff in the keyboard, so that it doesn't matter how long I dry the keyboard for.
I had to take the keyboard apart and clean it with water run through a purifier.
If the child is above 13 then the pictures in question could be a free speech issue.
Agreed. If the act itself isn't a crime, then taking a picture of it, especially with the knowledge of everyone involved, should never be a crime. If it was in public, then taking a picture should never be a crime. (Otherwise, you can do some act in front of a security camera and sue the owner of that camera.) IMO, photography in public and security cameras should be treated the same.
Under the age of 13, then the pictures should be destroyed and the child in question should be informed that this is inappropriate for someone of their age.
That might be appropriate, but it would be a bad precident. Private property shouldn't be destroyed or confiscated except as punishment from a successful lawsuit or criminal conviction of the owner of that property. Civil Asset Forfeiture is similar to what you are saying, where something is confiscated because it is "evil" or tainted, ignoring the rights of the owner. Allowing police or courts the legal ability to destroy stuff without any recourse or having to get a conviction of the owner is bad, but we are pretty much there already.
But then this is really a gray area to me and the law.
IANAL, but in general, the age of the photographer doesn't matter, nor does it matter if the photographer is the subject being photographed or legally able to have sex with the subject. So, 40 year old or 16 year old boyfriend could get the same sentence for taking a picture of a consenting 16 year old girl.
Only way I'd consider even paying for this service is if they gave me some option to listen in my car, but with the same user preferences as my PC, automatically determining which artists I like listening to, rather than selecting a certain genre specific radio station like Sirius.
http://slacker.com/ does something similar. You choose artists, and based on that it chooses similar artists to play. They offer a portable that does a good job of recreating that experience on the go.
IANAL, but can they sue over a derived software product from a copyright registration for a previous version? How close does the newer version have to be to the older version?
I really don't think it would work in the reverse, registering a newer version to get the increased protection for an older version of the software.
The GP said "It's true that if Apple didn't register a copyright, they can't sue for damages in the US."
So, if Apple hasn't registered the OSX copyright, they couldn't sue until they register the copyright, and then they can only sue for "actual damages and profits..." if it has been longer than 3 months since the specific version was published.
So, if Pystar is right, Apple would be wrong in suing in this case, but Pystar could still be liable for damages. I don't know what the damages could be, since Pystar bought a copy of OSX for each machine.
Not trying to flame, but by this argument, the Berne Convention should render the GPL null and void.
No, the GPL has most of its power because copyrights are automatic. The GPL is an optional license that you can use to copy the program. If you don't obey the license, it is a copyright violation, since copyrights are automatic.
The blinking (I don't see it as flickering at all) is caused by PWM at a low frequency like 120Hz, with a 50% duty cycle, so it turns on 60 times a second.
If I was making the lights, there would be a nice big capacitor filtering the output of the PWM stage, creating a nice "warming up" effect.
The problem is that Gillig and Cadillac are cheap, and don't give a shit at all.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on your point of view.
Wrong.
You need a model release if you are going to use the picture commercially, and not even the person saying "you can take my picture" is going to waive that.
News, fine art, and similar aren't considered commercial, so (at least in America), I could take your picture on the street and sell a fine art print of that. I just couldn't use it in advertising.
You don't even have to show them the pictures you took, since photography when you aren't trespassing isn't a crime. (Secure areas of military installations and nuclear facilities aside.)
If you are allowed to be there, you aren't committing a crime until they ask you to leave and you don't. They can say "Stop taking pictures or leave" if you are on private property and that is said by a representative of the property you are on. In public, you can photograph pretty much anything, especially police and other security personnel.
IANAL, and laws might be different in your state, but here is a lawyer talking about this, and a nice little pamphlet he made about this.
You should be backing up everything that you don't want to lose anyways in case that the online service provider isn't backing stuff up.
It doesn't even have to be malicious, Journalspace is a good example of people who didn't know what a backup was and lost a bunch of data.
Those signs reduce safety. They are basically "massacre zone" signs, where someone who wants to kill people is pretty sure of getting the fewest number of people legally carrying guns.
I wish that if a business that was open to the public wanted to post those signs, they would have to have a certain number of armed guards per square feet at all times during normal business hours. Basically, have people provide their own security, or don't allow that and pay for it.
That is one reason why mirroring isn't a backup, and why backups should ideally be off-line.
How would this system help the car being push-started?
No engine running to generate power, and a dead battery means no power to run the radar, do computations, and activate the brakes, nor any power brake assisting.
I use the hand-brake as an ABS override. The disadvantage is it only gets the rear wheels, but that is better than all 4 wheels refusing to stop.
The person tailgating gets a ticket for following too closely, reckless driving (not wreckless driving, though).
What do you have against eyes, fingernails, toenails and hair?
What, pictures of babies eating is harmful to children?
Eating babies maybe, but why babies eating?
So someone could start a service pointing a user to where they can legally download MP3s? That would work in this case, since Capitol Records is distributing the MP3s themselves.
In Colorado, the only kind of wood stoves that I have seen that use electricity are pellet stoves, whereas wood stoves don't need any power at all. You just put logs in, get them burning, and that is it. Are you talking about a wood burning whole house furnace with forced air? That isn't exactly a "wood stove".
My family primarily uses wood to heat the house, with trees we cut down from the neighbors property. The forest here is significantly overpopulated, so a lot of the trees need cutting down anyways.
An issue that I have with washing keyboards is calcium from hard water shorting out stuff in the keyboard, so that it doesn't matter how long I dry the keyboard for.
I had to take the keyboard apart and clean it with water run through a purifier.
Agreed. If the act itself isn't a crime, then taking a picture of it, especially with the knowledge of everyone involved, should never be a crime. If it was in public, then taking a picture should never be a crime. (Otherwise, you can do some act in front of a security camera and sue the owner of that camera.) IMO, photography in public and security cameras should be treated the same.
That might be appropriate, but it would be a bad precident. Private property shouldn't be destroyed or confiscated except as punishment from a successful lawsuit or criminal conviction of the owner of that property. Civil Asset Forfeiture is similar to what you are saying, where something is confiscated because it is "evil" or tainted, ignoring the rights of the owner. Allowing police or courts the legal ability to destroy stuff without any recourse or having to get a conviction of the owner is bad, but we are pretty much there already.
IANAL, but in general, the age of the photographer doesn't matter, nor does it matter if the photographer is the subject being photographed or legally able to have sex with the subject. So, 40 year old or 16 year old boyfriend could get the same sentence for taking a picture of a consenting 16 year old girl.
Unless they were taken by that same minor, as a self-portrait.
Then prosecuting possession of that picture as a felony hurts the "victim".
That happens when the future is now.
http://slacker.com/ does something similar. You choose artists, and based on that it chooses similar artists to play. They offer a portable that does a good job of recreating that experience on the go.
If the copyright is for "1.5", then how could it be valid for "1.5.4", or are they claiming a copyright on versions of OSX that haven't been made yet?
OSX 1.5.4 is available as a separate package from Apple, for purchase separate from anything else.
That is what I want to know too.
Maybe you are right and it doesn't matter.
But this is for published versions.
IANAL, but can they sue over a derived software product from a copyright registration for a previous version? How close does the newer version have to be to the older version?
I really don't think it would work in the reverse, registering a newer version to get the increased protection for an older version of the software.
To make the lawyers rich.
Isn't that why anyone sues anyone?
Although, I am sure that there was at least one case of "John Doe Vs. John Doe LLC", or someone suing their own sole-proprietorship.
What if Pystar is using OSX 1.5.4, released on 30 June 2008?
That copyright is for 1.5.0, and I didn't see one for 1.5.1 or 1.5.4 in the database.
Does each published version need to be copyrighted?
The GP said "It's true that if Apple didn't register a copyright, they can't sue for damages in the US."
So, if Apple hasn't registered the OSX copyright, they couldn't sue until they register the copyright, and then they can only sue for "actual damages and profits..." if it has been longer than 3 months since the specific version was published.
So, if Pystar is right, Apple would be wrong in suing in this case, but Pystar could still be liable for damages. I don't know what the damages could be, since Pystar bought a copy of OSX for each machine.
No, the GPL has most of its power because copyrights are automatic. The GPL is an optional license that you can use to copy the program. If you don't obey the license, it is a copyright violation, since copyrights are automatic.
The blinking (I don't see it as flickering at all) is caused by PWM at a low frequency like 120Hz, with a 50% duty cycle, so it turns on 60 times a second.
If I was making the lights, there would be a nice big capacitor filtering the output of the PWM stage, creating a nice "warming up" effect.
The problem is that Gillig and Cadillac are cheap, and don't give a shit at all.