most people didn't even know about it until recently.
Meh, submitting to wikileaks is simply about getting it out there, not about wikileaks profile. The rest of the worlds media organizations knew about wikileaks, and would pick up the ball if Wikileaks put the information out there.
Now imagine that you've just walked away with gigabytes of diplomatic cables. What do you do, if you want to make them publically available? Do you offer them to some relatively unknown upstart without much of a history, or to a well known and respected news organization?
I honestly wouldn't know where to begin to leak something like that to CNN. WikiLeaks tells you you how.
Honestly, I don't think it makes much sense to assume that Wikileaks is the only (or even the first) organization that has or was offered this data. They're probably just the first to have the balls to publish it.
Basically, mythbusters can only confirm a myth. Busting a myth requires far more rigor than they have time for. You can confirm a statement of there exists such and such with an example. You can't disprove a statement of "there exists such and such" by showing a counter example or two... or even 100.
Most of the verdicts of busted can be challenged by proposing additional / alternate parameters. But its entertainment, at the end of the day its still about blowing things up more than science.
Not that it matters. What, exactly, does that change? Is there some mystical essence of American-ism that children are endowed with in their first ten seconds of life outside of mommy? The fact that this was an issue at all is beyond absurd.
As you might not know, It matters because you have to be born in the united states to be eligible to be president. Its not "important" in any practical sense, but its in the "rules".
Perhaps ironically, John McCain actually wasn't born in the United States either, although not much fuss was ever made about this. He was born in the canal zone in Panama, and at the time of his birth was not a natural born citizen of the United States. Subsequent laws retroactively granted people born in the Canal zone citizenship. Whether that actually qualifies as "natural born citizen" is arguable.
Its my understanding that if a pregnant American couple (both born in America, both residing in America, both American citizens) were to visit friends in Canada, and ended up giving birth in Canada, the child would be recognized as an American citizen, but would not qualify to be president / vice president.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but WikiLeaks isn't "the press" is it?
It qualifies by any reasonable definition of press I've ever heard.
I don't know any government that has told the media that they can publish whatever government secrets they want.
If Fox News or CNN or the New York Times got a hold of a bunch of newsworthy diplomatic cables between Pakistan and Iran do you really think they'd keep them under wraps because the Pakistan and/or Iran government consider them secret? Of course not.
How is wikileaks any different, being a foreign organization releasing information about the states? And at the end of the day, even Fox/CNN/NYT are reporting on the wikileaks leaks. How do you feel about that?
I'm attempting to say it's not fair to pretend that WikiLeaks does the same thing a given journalist does. Maybe they overlap at times, sure.
As much as I hate the canard about "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide", there is a valid corollary: "If you've done nothing wrong, you won't get caught".>
Of course that's tempered by:
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
You can easily get caught on things you didn't do. Not having done them is a useful defense, but these days the accusation is as damaging as the conviction. Just ask anyone wrongfully accused of sexual harrassment or child abuse.
Its possible to get creative - but it doesnt matter how many polygons NG smartphones can push - a touch screen is not a good interface for Doom 3 for example.
the world in idiocracy would have collapsed long before the amusing point we see it at. something else would have taken our place.
Agreed, but the point is that evolution selects for reproductive success... nothing more, nothing less.
Idiocracy makes a valid point that that right now we are not selecting for intelligence. Being good with tools, being a successful hunter and farmer, managing your resources... these things used to directly lead to reproductive success and the survival of your offspring.
That isn't really true now. And if anything, the opposite is true. The least educated, least successful, least competent... are outbreeding the more educated, successful, competent by a wide margin. (At least within north america)
However, that takes the crack back to instead of trying to modify or defeat the validation process, or modify the result of validation process --- fool it in an undetectable way instead.
Absolutely, but its virtually impossible to know whether you actually succeeded at fooling it if it doesn't obviously let on whether its been fooled.
If I take a "risk" on a new restaurant, all I'm risking is one single meal potentially not being too good. But the potential for gain is much greater, cause I just might be surprised to discover that this restaurant is even better than any I've been to before.
You perhaps missed that that restaurants started here as a metaphor for sexual partners?
When you take a risk on a new restaurant you aren't just risking a bad meal. You are risking that your favorite restaurant bans you. Their is a potential that the new restaurant will be more to your taste... but you are gambling on losing access to your favorite restaurant.
Copy protection is generally a module that's linked into the system, gets called at start up, does some validation / checksumming / decryption etc. Crackers tend to attack the validation so that it returns 'all good' even when its not. Or they wait until the relevant bits are decrypted and then copy those in and bypass the validation/decryption entirely.... its more complicated than that, but that's sort of the gist of it.
Crackers attack the copy protection, and then once its defeated release the cracks/cracked copies.
This piracy detection is essentially a separate redundant anti-piracy module, with the same sort of detection/validation stuff as the primary one. However it doesn't get activated at start up. It gets activated later, sometimes much later,and instead of throwing up a "not a valid copy" it instead modifies the game rules or parameters slightly.
The idea is that the crackers won't find it. They are attacking the primary copy protection which inevitibaly falls... but often they are only interested in cracking the game, and being the releaser; they often aren't actually all that interested in playing the game itself. So once the protection appears defeated and they appear to be able to play the game they release.
However the 2ndary copy protection is still intact, and messes with players who actually try to complete the game.
Its not really any harder to defeat than the primary copy protection; if anything its usually easier. But since it gets missed its gets to mess with pirate copy players for a few months while it gets identified, defeated, and then new cracks are released. Meanwhile there are now bunches of people running the old cracks who might never figure it out... especially if the impact is subtle.
The main problem with these copy protections is that like any copy protection, some times it doesn't work and legitmate customers are affected. This can be particularly troubling if the impact is subtle... so they come to think the game is just defective (which I guess it is).
I suggest you start your own set of people who band together and pay towards the common goal of getting health care paid for.
A band of people? How about a republic? That ought to be a big enough band of people.
But you don't have the right to tell me how I get my health care.
Says the guy living in a country that has the right to put him him in prison for growing a plant, and has the right to squeeze his balls before he can get on an aeroplane...
They have the right to do that, but health care is the one you are going to draw the line on.
God forbid they actually save a life or two.
Oh, we already have that, its called *health insurance* just like you rail against.
Except not everyone is covered. And many more can't get coverage. Or suddenly lose it when they become unemployed. Or have it, but find out it isn't adequate after they need it, and go destitute...
Only you're arguing the government is the best/most efficient provider.
I honestly don't really care if its the most "efficient" provider. I want it to be good more than I want it to be cheap... like the military.
Although empirically american's pay more per capita and have lower overall health care, so apparently we aren't getting good or cheap right now. What exactly is it about the status quo worth keeping?
And of course, you realize that Germany, France, England, Spain, Italy, Greece and all the examples you could cite are simply cutting back on what they offer for health care.
I'm curious what you think would have happened to people's life insurance if AIG hadn't been "rescued from bankruptcy by the state". Who would pay the insurance claims? Anyone?
We also provide emergency room service to people who need it, because we don't want them to bleed to death by the side of the road.
Between insurance company bailouts and emergency services we -already- have socialized health care. We're just doing it in the stupidest most expensive way possible.
Your better solution is what?
And of course, being the government and all socialized and stuff, I don't have the ability to switch health care providers? That would be unfair, I guess.
What exactly would be stopping you from getting additional private insurance?
more exciting than a typical sex act with a committed partner.
More exciting yet not as good at the same time.
Once you've found a good restaurant with a fantastic menu and great service, it becomes a gamble to go somewhere else. Far more often than not the food is bland by comparison, and every now and then you go home disgusted.
Of course, that all changes if you aren't happy with your favorite restaurant... but then its a bit of an oxymoron to call it your favorite restaurant if you'd rather eat somewhere else all the time. Probably time to choose a new favorite...
Evolutionarily, if lots of women want to have sex with you it would be stupid to say no.
See Idiocracy if you haven't. Evolution favors successful reproduction and little else.
Setting aside the fate of the species... their are numerous species that reproduce and then die, or are killed by their mates. It would be "stupid to say no" to sex from a reproductive standpoint, but what about from a "quality of life" standpoint. Humans have a bit more freedom, but "stupid to say no" does jack up your odds of picking up STDs, destroying relationships you care about, and even finding yourself at the wrong end of a gun / baseball bat / tire iron in the hands of a jealous boyfriend/husband.
Once you use the software your intent is no longer a factor.
My decision to use the software is predicated on the circumstances that led me to it. There is no lost/denied sale because there is no realistic circumstance that would have led to a sale.
I know I can get antivirus for 0$ that I am happy with. If I pirate avast, I gain the use of it for 0$. If any circumstance prevents me from pirating avast, I'd have downloaded something else.
Isn't it ironic that for all of the screaming about Republicans ignoring rules and laws and that its the Democrats that are the worst offenders?
Its not ironic. Its not even true.
All you've observed is that the rules get broken by the group in power, while group without power doesn't. Big revelation. Had McCain/Palin been handed power, they would have been the ones breaking the rules.
The only question is which group will be worse. Personally, given the options, I think we got the right one. (And all you 3rd party advocates out there, your right... there are more than 2 options but I'm glad none of those other nutters got elected too.)
Also, this lays to rest the myth that Republicans are bought and sold by big business.
How so?
They may well be,
Wait, even you acknowledge the "myth" might be true? What was that nonsense of laying it to rest then?
but its now clear Democrats have been bought and sold by the same people.
Well duh. But I like socialized health care, believe its cheaper in the long run, and feel it aligns with my morals better than the "pay up or we let you die in a ditch free market alternative". I'm confident people making 200k+ a year can afford a few hundred more dollars in taxes. And I don't really see any need for the state to inspect the genitals of two consenting adults before letting them get married and granting them spousal benefits.
So, a painting of a trademarked object, say a Campbell's Soup can, would be a violation?
A violation of what? Trademark law or copyright law? You can generally depict a trademarked object in an art piece without running afoul of trademark law. As for copyright, sure the artwork of the can itself is copy protected...
Campbells could absolutely have launched a suit based on copyright. But unlike trademark which they have some obligations to defend, copyright enforcement is discretionary.
As it happens, apparently Campbell's sent him some campbell's soup rather than a cease and desist.
Apparently post mortem Campbell's and the foundation responsible for licensing Warhol's work have formal permssion for the use, and Campbell's apparently the foundation and Campbell's now jointly exercises rights over the Warhol image.
Probably not the answer you were expecting?
How about a painting of a photograph of Mao Tse Tung or Marilyn Monroe?
Copyright applies on Marilyn photos. As for Mao, it depends when the photo was taken; early photos will be in the public domain.
And how accurate would the painting of a photograph have to be before it would be considered a derivative work? If I did an abstract painting of the Mona Lisa, would that be a violation? How about if I did an oil painting of a photograph of the Mona Lisa?
a) up to a court to decide. if you are worried it might be judged a derivative work... then it probably is one.:)
b) an abstract of the Mona Lisa would be safe, because the mona lisa image is in the public domain.
c) depends if it can be discerned that it was derived from the photograph. The photo is protected by copyright; but its subject, the mona lisa isn't. If the painting includes elements particular to the photograph, then it is a derivative work of that photograph.
Copyright of visual media is very tricky. If I do an oil painting of a Paul Klee work, and I tried to pass it off as the Paul Klee work, then I'm an art forger.
Art forgery is entirely separate from copyright. forgery is a form of fraud. Its criminal.
But if I take the Mona Lisa, and do a watercolor of it, then it's an interpretation (and transgressive) and clearly would not be a violation.
If you knowingly tried to pass it off as an original da Vinci then it would still be fraud. But you are right that you can't violate copyright.
As for Paul Klee, his early work should be entering the public domain now, I think.
If I do a cubist interpretation of a photograph by Ansel Adams, is it less of a violation than if I did a hyperrealist painting of it? So if a cubist interpretation is at one end of the scale, and a hyperrealist painting of the Ansel Adams landscape is at the other end, how do we decide at what point it's too close?
See point a) above.
Here's my answer: It only becomes a violation if I try to pass the "derivative" work off as the work of the other guy. As long as I say, "This is my watercolor version of an Ansel Adams landscape, and sign my name, then it cannot be considered a violation of copyright.
Er...You seem to conflate forgery with copyright infringement. They are entirely separate.
I realize that this is not the way the intellectual property racket or the RIAA or the MPAA see it, but this is just a theoretical conversation here.
In your theoretical world: a) you could write a novel. I could translate it to French, add some illustrations and sell it as "my interpretation of your novel", and give you nothing.
b) you could write a play. I could perform it, and pay you nothing. For the performance is my intepretation of your play.
c) Carry that line of though... you could perform a play, and I could show up with a camera and record it, press it to disc and sell it as "my recording of your play", and give you nothing, and of course give nothing to the person who wrote the play.
Current copyright law ensures the original authors and performers retain rights of those derivatives. I think this is generally a good thing.
If we accept that a photo is covered by copyright. (And legally this is absolutely the case), then a a painting of a photo is clearly a derivative work.
This presents two problems. The first is with anonymity, i.e. creating and maintaining a fictional person who is really one of the richest people in the world just doesn’t work.
Say what now? An immortal fictional person who is one of the richest people in the world doesn't work? Have they not heard of Exxon Mobil?
A privately held corporation, and a few shell corporations, holding companies, scattered internationally... maintaining an immortal fictional entity with stupid amounts of wealth is essentially a solved problem.
I'd say their immortals just need some better lawyers.:p
Graduate students should also refrain from visiting foreign countries, lest their patriotism be questioned... especially countries like China,...and Canada. Those 'C' ones are the worst.
They should refrain from visiting Vegas for a weekend of recreational gambling lest their grasp of statistics and good judgment is called into question.
And they should stay the hell out of churches... lest their loyalties be questioned... Are they working for their boss or for church elders/pope/...
And they should make damned sure they go to church every sunday to help reaffirm that they have good morals, and have faith in God.
You are right of course, that if the person reviewing you cares about any such nonsense its good advice. Its still asinine though.
Slashdot Mirror
most people didn't even know about it until recently.
Meh, submitting to wikileaks is simply about getting it out there, not about wikileaks profile. The rest of the worlds media organizations knew about wikileaks, and would pick up the ball if Wikileaks put the information out there.
Now imagine that you've just walked away with gigabytes of diplomatic cables. What do you do, if you want to make them publically available? Do you offer them to some relatively unknown upstart without much of a history, or to a well known and respected news organization?
I honestly wouldn't know where to begin to leak something like that to CNN. WikiLeaks tells you you how.
Honestly, I don't think it makes much sense to assume that Wikileaks is the only (or even the first) organization that has or was offered this data. They're probably just the first to have the balls to publish it.
I disagree.
Basically, mythbusters can only confirm a myth. Busting a myth requires far more rigor than they have time for. You can confirm a statement of there exists such and such with an example. You can't disprove a statement of "there exists such and such" by showing a counter example or two... or even 100.
Most of the verdicts of busted can be challenged by proposing additional / alternate parameters. But its entertainment, at the end of the day its still about blowing things up more than science.
Not that it matters. What, exactly, does that change? Is there some mystical essence of American-ism that children are endowed with in their first ten seconds of life outside of mommy? The fact that this was an issue at all is beyond absurd.
As you might not know, It matters because you have to be born in the united states to be eligible to be president. Its not "important" in any practical sense, but its in the "rules".
Perhaps ironically, John McCain actually wasn't born in the United States either, although not much fuss was ever made about this. He was born in the canal zone in Panama, and at the time of his birth was not a natural born citizen of the United States. Subsequent laws retroactively granted people born in the Canal zone citizenship. Whether that actually qualifies as "natural born citizen" is arguable.
Its my understanding that if a pregnant American couple (both born in America, both residing in America, both American citizens) were to visit friends in Canada, and ended up giving birth in Canada, the child would be recognized as an American citizen, but would not qualify to be president / vice president.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but WikiLeaks isn't "the press" is it?
It qualifies by any reasonable definition of press I've ever heard.
I don't know any government that has told the media that they can publish whatever government secrets they want.
If Fox News or CNN or the New York Times got a hold of a bunch of newsworthy diplomatic cables between Pakistan and Iran do you really think they'd keep them under wraps because the Pakistan and/or Iran government consider them secret? Of course not.
How is wikileaks any different, being a foreign organization releasing information about the states?
And at the end of the day, even Fox/CNN/NYT are reporting on the wikileaks leaks. How do you feel about that?
I'm attempting to say it's not fair to pretend that WikiLeaks does the same thing a given journalist does. Maybe they overlap at times, sure.
Please expand on this.
Having played Doom 1 on my first-gen iPod Touch, I must say that it works fine
Having played doom 1 on my first gen ipod, and iphone 3G I must disagree.
The first couple levels were playable.
The later levels at advanced difficulty were not playable because the controls were too limited.
I must say that Apple is free to enter and to not enter into contracts as they please.
Yes, and we're also free to publicly ridicule them, take them to court, and even to pass laws describing what can and cannot be put into a contract.
Apple is free to do try to make the world the way it sees fit, but the rest of the world is free to try to change that world as they see fit too.
As much as I hate the canard about "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide", there is a valid corollary: "If you've done nothing wrong, you won't get caught".>
Of course that's tempered by:
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
You can easily get caught on things you didn't do. Not having done them is a useful defense, but these days the accusation is as damaging as the conviction. Just ask anyone wrongfully accused of sexual harrassment or child abuse.
3) Labyrinth - a game that lets you control a ball through mazes with the accelerometer - can't do that on a PSP.
But we have been doing it on the Wii for a couple years now. Although obviously not on our lunchbreaks at work.
There is no unreleasing, but there is releasing of "the one that works" torrents, labeled as such. Some people may even want the two versions.
Yep, except, as often as not, it doesn't. So then there is the "the one that really works"...
How many times do have you seen a torrent that says "title... the one that works" commented with "it still doesn't work"...
Its possible to get creative - but it doesnt matter how many polygons NG smartphones can push - a touch screen is not a good interface for Doom 3 for example.
Its not even much good for Doom 1.
the world in idiocracy would have collapsed long before the amusing point we see it at. something else would have taken our place.
Agreed, but the point is that evolution selects for reproductive success... nothing more, nothing less.
Idiocracy makes a valid point that that right now we are not selecting for intelligence. Being good with tools, being a successful hunter and farmer, managing your resources ... these things used to directly lead to reproductive success and the survival of your offspring.
That isn't really true now. And if anything, the opposite is true. The least educated, least successful, least competent... are outbreeding the more educated, successful, competent by a wide margin. (At least within north america)
That seems highly unlikely - days, maybe weeks, at best.
The chaos lasts for months, because once the torrents and cracks are out, there's no unreleasing them... so they are floating around out there.
However, that takes the crack back to instead of trying to modify or defeat the validation process, or modify the result of validation process --- fool it in an undetectable way instead.
Absolutely, but its virtually impossible to know whether you actually succeeded at fooling it if it doesn't obviously let on whether its been fooled.
If I take a "risk" on a new restaurant, all I'm risking is one single meal potentially not being too good. But the potential for gain is much greater, cause I just might be surprised to discover that this restaurant is even better than any I've been to before.
You perhaps missed that that restaurants started here as a metaphor for sexual partners?
When you take a risk on a new restaurant you aren't just risking a bad meal. You are risking that your favorite restaurant bans you. Their is a potential that the new restaurant will be more to your taste... but you are gambling on losing access to your favorite restaurant.
Copy protection is generally a module that's linked into the system, gets called at start up, does some validation / checksumming / decryption etc. Crackers tend to attack the validation so that it returns 'all good' even when its not. Or they wait until the relevant bits are decrypted and then copy those in and bypass the validation/decryption entirely. ... its more complicated than that, but that's sort of the gist of it.
Crackers attack the copy protection, and then once its defeated release the cracks/cracked copies.
This piracy detection is essentially a separate redundant anti-piracy module, with the same sort of detection/validation stuff as the primary one. However it doesn't get activated at start up. It gets activated later, sometimes much later,and instead of throwing up a "not a valid copy" it instead modifies the game rules or parameters slightly.
The idea is that the crackers won't find it. They are attacking the primary copy protection which inevitibaly falls... but often they are only interested in cracking the game, and being the releaser; they often aren't actually all that interested in playing the game itself. So once the protection appears defeated and they appear to be able to play the game they release.
However the 2ndary copy protection is still intact, and messes with players who actually try to complete the game.
Its not really any harder to defeat than the primary copy protection; if anything its usually easier. But since it gets missed its gets to mess with pirate copy players for a few months while it gets identified, defeated, and then new cracks are released. Meanwhile there are now bunches of people running the old cracks who might never figure it out... especially if the impact is subtle.
The main problem with these copy protections is that like any copy protection, some times it doesn't work and legitmate customers are affected. This can be particularly troubling if the impact is subtle... so they come to think the game is just defective (which I guess it is).
You have that right
Aw shucks, thanks.
I suggest you start your own set of people who band together and pay towards the common goal of getting health care paid for.
A band of people? How about a republic? That ought to be a big enough band of people.
But you don't have the right to tell me how I get my health care.
Says the guy living in a country that has the right to put him him in prison for growing a plant, and has the right to squeeze his balls before he can get on an aeroplane...
They have the right to do that, but health care is the one you are going to draw the line on.
God forbid they actually save a life or two.
Oh, we already have that, its called *health insurance* just like you rail against.
Except not everyone is covered. And many more can't get coverage. Or suddenly lose it when they become unemployed. Or have it, but find out it isn't adequate after they need it, and go destitute...
Only you're arguing the government is the best/most efficient provider.
I honestly don't really care if its the most "efficient" provider. I want it to be good more than I want it to be cheap... like the military.
Although empirically american's pay more per capita and have lower overall health care, so apparently we aren't getting good or cheap right now. What exactly is it about the status quo worth keeping?
And of course, you realize that Germany, France, England, Spain, Italy, Greece and all the examples you could cite are simply cutting back on what they offer for health care.
I'm curious what you think would have happened to people's life insurance if AIG hadn't been "rescued from bankruptcy by the state". Who would pay the insurance claims? Anyone?
We also provide emergency room service to people who need it, because we don't want them to bleed to death by the side of the road.
Between insurance company bailouts and emergency services we -already- have socialized health care. We're just doing it in the stupidest most expensive way possible.
Your better solution is what?
And of course, being the government and all socialized and stuff, I don't have the ability to switch health care providers? That would be unfair, I guess.
What exactly would be stopping you from getting additional private insurance?
All the animals are the same...
No. Some of them are willfully ignorant.
more exciting than a typical sex act with a committed partner.
More exciting yet not as good at the same time.
Once you've found a good restaurant with a fantastic menu and great service, it becomes a gamble to go somewhere else. Far more often than not the food is bland by comparison, and every now and then you go home disgusted.
Of course, that all changes if you aren't happy with your favorite restaurant... but then its a bit of an oxymoron to call it your favorite restaurant if you'd rather eat somewhere else all the time. Probably time to choose a new favorite...
Evolutionarily, if lots of women want to have sex with you it would be stupid to say no.
See Idiocracy if you haven't. Evolution favors successful reproduction and little else.
Setting aside the fate of the species... their are numerous species that reproduce and then die, or are killed by their mates. It would be "stupid to say no" to sex from a reproductive standpoint, but what about from a "quality of life" standpoint. Humans have a bit more freedom, but "stupid to say no" does jack up your odds of picking up STDs, destroying relationships you care about, and even finding yourself at the wrong end of a gun / baseball bat / tire iron in the hands of a jealous boyfriend/husband.
Once you use the software your intent is no longer a factor.
My decision to use the software is predicated on the circumstances that led me to it.
There is no lost/denied sale because there is no realistic circumstance that would have led to a sale.
I know I can get antivirus for 0$ that I am happy with.
If I pirate avast, I gain the use of it for 0$. If any circumstance prevents me from pirating avast, I'd have downloaded something else.
(As it happens I use MSE.)
because it's easier to crack the game with the apps than it is to type in the keys I bought.
I could cope with typing a key in during the install. I do it because I hate fetching the CD to play the game.
Isn't it ironic that for all of the screaming about Republicans ignoring rules and laws and that its the Democrats that are the worst offenders?
Its not ironic. Its not even true.
All you've observed is that the rules get broken by the group in power, while group without power doesn't. Big revelation. Had McCain/Palin been handed power, they would have been the ones breaking the rules.
The only question is which group will be worse. Personally, given the options, I think we got the right one. (And all you 3rd party advocates out there, your right ... there are more than 2 options but I'm glad none of those other nutters got elected too.)
Also, this lays to rest the myth that Republicans are bought and sold by big business.
How so?
They may well be,
Wait, even you acknowledge the "myth" might be true? What was that nonsense of laying it to rest then?
but its now clear Democrats have been bought and sold by the same people.
Well duh. But I like socialized health care, believe its cheaper in the long run, and feel it aligns with my morals better than the "pay up or we let you die in a ditch free market alternative". I'm confident people making 200k+ a year can afford a few hundred more dollars in taxes. And I don't really see any need for the state to inspect the genitals of two consenting adults before letting them get married and granting them spousal benefits.
So, a painting of a trademarked object, say a Campbell's Soup can, would be a violation?
A violation of what? Trademark law or copyright law? You can generally depict a trademarked object in an art piece without running afoul of trademark law. As for copyright, sure the artwork of the can itself is copy protected...
Campbells could absolutely have launched a suit based on copyright. But unlike trademark which they have some obligations to defend, copyright enforcement is discretionary.
As it happens, apparently Campbell's sent him some campbell's soup rather than a cease and desist.
Apparently post mortem Campbell's and the foundation responsible for licensing Warhol's work have formal permssion for the use, and Campbell's apparently the foundation and Campbell's now jointly exercises rights over the Warhol image.
Probably not the answer you were expecting?
How about a painting of a photograph of Mao Tse Tung or Marilyn Monroe?
Copyright applies on Marilyn photos. As for Mao, it depends when the photo was taken; early photos will be in the public domain.
And how accurate would the painting of a photograph have to be before it would be considered a derivative work? If I did an abstract painting of the Mona Lisa, would that be a violation? How about if I did an oil painting of a photograph of the Mona Lisa?
a) up to a court to decide. if you are worried it might be judged a derivative work... then it probably is one. :)
b) an abstract of the Mona Lisa would be safe, because the mona lisa image is in the public domain.
c) depends if it can be discerned that it was derived from the photograph. The photo is protected by copyright; but its subject, the mona lisa isn't. If the painting includes elements particular to the photograph, then it is a derivative work of that photograph.
Copyright of visual media is very tricky. If I do an oil painting of a Paul Klee work, and I tried to pass it off as the Paul Klee work, then I'm an art forger.
Art forgery is entirely separate from copyright. forgery is a form of fraud. Its criminal.
But if I take the Mona Lisa, and do a watercolor of it, then it's an interpretation (and transgressive) and clearly would not be a violation.
If you knowingly tried to pass it off as an original da Vinci then it would still be fraud. But you are right that you can't violate copyright.
As for Paul Klee, his early work should be entering the public domain now, I think.
If I do a cubist interpretation of a photograph by Ansel Adams, is it less of a violation than if I did a hyperrealist painting of it? So if a cubist interpretation is at one end of the scale, and a hyperrealist painting of the Ansel Adams landscape is at the other end, how do we decide at what point it's too close?
See point a) above.
Here's my answer: It only becomes a violation if I try to pass the "derivative" work off as the work of the other guy. As long as I say, "This is my watercolor version of an Ansel Adams landscape, and sign my name, then it cannot be considered a violation of copyright.
Er...You seem to conflate forgery with copyright infringement. They are entirely separate.
I realize that this is not the way the intellectual property racket or the RIAA or the MPAA see it, but this is just a theoretical conversation here.
In your theoretical world:
a) you could write a novel. I could translate it to French, add some illustrations and sell it as "my interpretation of your novel", and give you nothing.
b) you could write a play. I could perform it, and pay you nothing. For the performance is my intepretation of your play.
c) Carry that line of though... you could perform a play, and I could show up with a camera and record it, press it to disc and sell it as "my recording of your play", and give you nothing, and of course give nothing to the person who wrote the play.
Current copyright law ensures the original authors and performers retain rights of those derivatives. I think this is generally a good thing.
If we accept that a photo is covered by copyright. (And legally this is absolutely the case), then a
a painting of a photo is clearly a derivative work.
This presents two problems. The first is with anonymity, i.e. creating and maintaining a fictional person who is really one of the richest people in the world just doesn’t work.
Say what now? An immortal fictional person who is one of the richest people in the world doesn't work? Have they not heard of Exxon Mobil?
A privately held corporation, and a few shell corporations, holding companies, scattered internationally... maintaining an immortal fictional entity with stupid amounts of wealth is essentially a solved problem.
I'd say their immortals just need some better lawyers. :p
Graduate students should also refrain from visiting foreign countries, lest their patriotism be questioned... especially countries like China, ...and Canada. Those 'C' ones are the worst.
They should refrain from visiting Vegas for a weekend of recreational gambling lest their grasp of statistics and good judgment is called into question.
And they should stay the hell out of churches... lest their loyalties be questioned... Are they working for their boss or for church elders/pope/...
And they should make damned sure they go to church every sunday to help reaffirm that they have good morals, and have faith in God.
You are right of course, that if the person reviewing you cares about any such nonsense its good advice. Its still asinine though.