There is absolutely explicit consent given when the image is created. Unless the party is claiming they didn't consent at the time, consent was given.
Usage rights are not the same thing as ownership and copyright.
However, personal private usage rights to any photograph a photographer creates is always a given, regardless of any other usage rights. The photographer has a right to keep that in his personal collection. He may not be allowed to display it publicly, use it commercially, or even hang it in his house, but having the image sitting on a hard drive is absolutely within his rights.
Unless the subject has a written "work for hire" contract in most jurisdictions, the photographs are copyright and owned by the photographer. Changing your mind later because of a personal relationship doesn't somehow trump hundreds of years of law surrounding art.
That's why nude models have contracts. Often there is a clause that lets them back out later, but only if they compensate the artist.
No they do not.
That's why they have contracts, because if they get cold feet after the fact the photographer can point to it and say sorry, but you signed off on this, I'm not tossing away all my hard work. I don't know of any standard modelling contracts that include clauses for a model to change her mind later.
Really? Because I note that there has been a crack down on revenge porn sites in the US.
Yes, and what's that all about? Is the crackdown about consent to the creation of the photograph or usage?
They consented to having the image created at the time. They would admit as much by taking it to court to revoke their consent. It doesn't really matter how they consented, both parties are in agreement that consent was given at the time to create the photo. Once an image is created you can only talk about usage rights regarding any public usage of the photo. They certainly can't build a time machine and go back and revoke the consent they gave to actually take the picture at the time.
They may not want the photographer to be able to use the image by publicly displaying it going forward, but those are usage rights, that has nothing to do with the consent given when the photograph was taken. The artistic ownership and control of the image belongs to the author of the photo which the subject is not.
A photographer has copyright by virtue of being the author of a creative work. That's it. You do not need a release to own copyright. Model releases are not about copyright. They are about usage rights.
The fucking stupid coming out of you is just mind boggling.
While that may apply to future use, if consent is given to take a photo you can't go back and ask them to delete it either. They own the artistic copyright on that image. Whatever the merits may be. The subject consented when it was created. They might disallow further publishing of a photo, prevent it from being seen publicly, but to force someone to delete all traces of it is madness.
There is a lot of retaliatory butthurt behaviour on the internet.
You make one comment someone doesn't like and suddenly it's open season on everything you've ever said, regardless of it's worth. Somewhere like Reddit, someone will go through and downvote your last 40+ comments just because you got the better of them in a debate. Downvoting without commenting is the last vestige of the defeated. They know their argument can't hold water, so rather than concede the point, or move on, they go through and downvote anyone who spoke against them. While some comments are generally stupid enough that they need no reply (or further replies than the ones they've already received), someone who just abandons a discussion in favor of downvoting damages a community.
I can remember one exchange over on reddit, something on Korean language, where a native Korean chimes in as a reply to my comment "This guy is totally 100% right why is this being downvoted?" And it was all because of some other topic where a handful of butthurt children couldn't handle being proven wrong on a point so decided to run around downvoting anything else I'd posted within the last few days.
I've had it happen on Slashdot as well. Not in awhile, because I don't comment here as much as I used to (I used to frequently get mod points, but not that much recently). A few times, almost always after a debate with someone, the other party (I can only assume) would get mod points, and then past posts of mine, like ones over a week old, would suddenly all be moderated down as troll or something like that. I think I even made a post a few years ago about vindictive moderation.
Say what you will about all the access devs have now, but it was that time when things were greatest.
People were still experimenting. Not just with concepts but core mechanics. Interfaces, everything. It was the wild west.
People weren't yet dumbing things down to make them more "Accessible", when you got a game there wasn't going to be another one in 5 minutes. The internet wasn't everywhere. People still had slow connections when it came around. You read magazines, hunted for games and traded with friends.
The early days were really the best for the entirety of computing. Sure, things are flashy, we have such powerful machines now. Those were the days of great games and great indie games.
Because being free isn't a pass on criticism. I'm not sure when that happened. Yes all the people who have devoted time and effort and money on Linux deserve credit for doing so. But for the end consumer there is no real difference between an OS you got for free and one you paid $100 for. They still need to work and they still need to do what you need. Otherwise free doesn't mean anything. In the end they're still providing a product regardless of the cost and the consumer is going to form an opinion on it and give feedback. It's simply just not there yet and the only thing that's really going to get it there, in my opinion, at this point is a huge infusion of cash in exactly the right direction.
Their claim is that it is is and that might be why they don't want it on Linux. Because it is less suitable, less easy, it will cost more to port it over and since they don't yet see a big market for users they won't do it.
It's chicken and the egg. The existence of other apps is immaterial. Other apps might be suited to Linux, they might be easy, cost effective to port and they might be targeting people who might otherwise already use linux.
However, if you get them to do it, the users will come and it will start to snowball. It needs that push to get going and that only comes with money.
Because linux isn't a cohesive platform. That's the problem. As I was googling around one of the staff at adobe mentioned last year that Linux lacked standardized APIs on a forum thread regarding photoshop on Linux.
There is a perception that Linux is a bit like the wild west and in this day and age when you have stable mature platforms like Mac and Windows available, that's risky for developers. Even for big companies.
The intrinsic connection they have is market share and having already been the platform for this programs for a long time. Linux needs to really step up and say "Hey we're ready look at us" but they haven't had that moment yet.
Ubuntu is a step in the right direction. If a company with real money can get behind it and drive it to some kind of consumer ready level like Windows or Mac is, enthusiasts can still sit there and fork and tweak and do as they like, but getting a real ready version there that gets people's attention and wants to make people use it and develop for it is what will drive Linux's success.
It might not be directly Linux's fault that Microsoft doesn't make office for Linux, but they just got office for IOS not that long ago. Who knows what kind of wrangling that took. But if I was someone like Canonical I'd see just how much money it would take to convince Microsoft to make it for linux and make that happen. I'd do the same with programs like Photoshop, and other major programs that have major user bases that are seen as core apps. Valve already seems like they're moving in the direction of taking care of games so I'd make sure I was meeting with them and getting everyone on the same page. They don't have to arrange all the programs. If they do a few core programs that reach a large percentage of the user base, the other programs will start to get ported to linux as user base picks up. For example if they paid to get photoshop and office ported and linux went from the low single digits its sitting around now on the desktop up to 20% or a little higher I think you'd see companies start to take notice and start to focus a little more on it.
"anyone" sounds like a lot of people, but Linux isn't just for coder enthusiasts with the know-how to fix their own problems. If linux is going to really take off on the desktop those things simply need to be already taken care of. With microsoft floundering around with windows 8 and tablets taking off, if someone wanted to really get market share away from microsoft dumping money into Linux like valve is doing here is a good start. Especially if it can be done in such a way that major game studios can easily make their games multiplatform. Games are what keep a lot of dedicated enthusiasts of all ages away from Linux. So are things like photoshop or microsoft office, or etc. A lot of the core products that people need just don't work well or at all. You can carry on about alternatives, but people don't want alternatives for those kinds of things. The OS, which is mostly background to a lot of people is easy to persuade them on, you can make it look and feel like windows. but gimp will never feel and look like photoshop.
There is very little to be done to justify balance in the world. That's a thing most well adjusted individuals accept as fact.
On a number of occasions, you attacked me for saying that a number of rights violations were bad. Forgive me for ever thinking that you were defending them.
No, I attacked you for coming across as mouthbreathing ranting moron, there is a difference. One you can't quite grasp which isn't a surprise.
You've done nothing to justify the specific rights violations you're defending, and indeed, there's nothing you can do to justify them.
Actually I did no such thing. I said such a balance was necessary, i never said we had the right balance now. You only assumed I did because you haven't figured out that your nose was put on your face as a passage for air. In your completely unhinged knee-jerk reaction you failed to actually read anything and decided to launch into your latest manifesto. I expect we'll be seeing you up a clock tower before long.
It is you who's too far gone; you despise freedom.
No, like most grown-ups I realize I'm part of a society and that the world doesn't revolve around me and my delusions. That building a functioning society requires everyone to work together. That means give and take. I realize that's probably hard for you to understand but I'll see if I can't work it into some kind of puppet show so you can wrap your warped little mind around it.
No, I just don't want the government to violate people's basic rights; that's all. You, however, would be better served by living in North Korea.
Yes because acknowledging a need for a balance between competing rights is just like being in North Korea. You know you're an idiot right? You should probably start working on your next tinfoil hat. You're just that far gone.
Cool, but no one is swinging their fists. You're talking about imaginary rights that simply shouldn't exist, unlike free speech, which is a fundamental right.
I should have realized that analogies were beyond you. Define imaginary rights? Things which aren't tangible.. things you can't physically grab on to and count and control? You mean like speech. You're talking about a right to free speech, the right to use your speech as you see fit, copyright is simply making sure others can't use that speech in another way.
The legal system *is* government interference, you fool. Copyright itself is an abomination, as I just made clear.
You wouldn't happen to be from Montana would you? I would suggest you probably go separate yourself up a mountain somewhere, away from people. I don't know if what you have is contagious but you should probably wear some kind of mask or something when you go outside of your mother's basement.
Our rights are violated all the time. The TSA, the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, draconian copyright laws, the drug war, etc., all show that. What's your point, other than to state the obvious fact that the government is full of evil thugs who do not care about freedom? It seems that's the way you want it.
Not at all, but it seems like you'd like to create some kind of hippy utopia, good luck with that. Those of us that deal in the real world realize that you must strike a balance between the rights of one and the rights of another. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
You might be okay with that, but I'm not.
Good to have a benchmark for your lunacy.
You don't know what it means to be free. Using your logic, people from China or North Korea have just as much free speech as people in the US; sure, if they say the wrong thing, the government might severely punish them, but they're still technically free to speak.
In those cases the government specifically prohibits certain kinds of speech and directly punishes them, that isn't what we're talking about here.
Hint: If free speech didn't mean being free from government thugs punishing you for your speech, the first amendment would be pointless, and the world would be far more unpleasant than it is now. You people are the ones who don't understand what it means to be free.
Hint: shouldn't they be allowed some measure of control over the things they create? Would it be better that they didn't create because they knew that they would have no control over the product they make?
Now, if by "consequences," you mean normal people forming opinions of you and perhaps criticizing you, then you're right; your speech can have such consequences. However, if you meant government interference, then you're wrong. Free speech is completely different from the mere ability to speak.
the government doesn't interfere. The copyright holder uses the legal system to address your infringing on his rights. When you speak you can make choices about how you speak. You don't live in a freedom bubble getting to pass through the world pissing all over everyone else just because you ride someone else's coattails and can't be bothered to have an original thought of your own.
It has nothing to do with being offended. Free speech is restricted all the time
Hate speech, inciting riots, etc.
You're free to say whatever you want. No one will stop you, but you also have to face the consequences of saying those things. It seems like someone doesn't really understand what freedom of speech actually means. That's typical, most people take the self-centered view that free speech means they can say whatever they want without consequence. That's false and has never been true. Free speech only means that you can say it in the first place. You're free to change warcraft to doorcraft and giggle yourself to sleep with how clever you are, but if you infringe on someone's copyright then you have to face the legal consequences of that.
Freedom of speech has to balance against people's right to protect the things they said and did as well. It's mostly about people being too lazy to create genuine parody because they don't really have anything to say beyond the level of a fart joke.
That's what he says, but the reality is that most of his songs wouldn't be defensible in court. Most of them simply do a funny spin on the name and change the lyrics but the often don't change the lyrics to comment on the song itself or the creator.
I remember one R Kelly song he did clearly commented on the song and R Kelly himself. that one would have been fine, but some of the other ones, like "white and nerdy" awesome song, but doesn't really do much to comment on the original or the performers who made it.
That's not parody. Parody is not simply trying to be funny. This is why Weird Al actually goes out and gets permission to do the songs he does, because despite the popular thought, most of what he does isn't parody. Parody requires that the new work is used in such a way to comment on the original. Replacing a few words or singing something in a funny voice isn't parody in itself. Depending on how the account is being run it may not be parody either. As time goes on, it's easy for people to misunderstand things, like those "in soviet russia" jokes.. it wasn't simply a matter of swapping two things, the jokes were used in a way, with specific things to comment on the government. Nowadays people just swap something in there with no thought and it doesn't make sense.
Likewise people simply think "If I draw something funny, or make a stupid version of the name, it's fine I can do whatever I want". That's not true.
I think you're missing the point. It's something I thought about for a long time, but it is BS. How could such a society function? How could you communicate simple daily tasks by talking in such opaque references? How did those people talk in the first place? Language develops to be function, it was not a functional language. How the fuck could they ever build a spaceship trying to communicate like that?
has there been any movie released on DVD recently that hasn't been released online right away via torrent? Is anyone still stupid enough to think that's slowing anyone down?
Slashdot Mirror
There is absolutely explicit consent given when the image is created. Unless the party is claiming they didn't consent at the time, consent was given.
Usage rights are not the same thing as ownership and copyright.
However, personal private usage rights to any photograph a photographer creates is always a given, regardless of any other usage rights. The photographer has a right to keep that in his personal collection. He may not be allowed to display it publicly, use it commercially, or even hang it in his house, but having the image sitting on a hard drive is absolutely within his rights.
Unless the subject has a written "work for hire" contract in most jurisdictions, the photographs are copyright and owned by the photographer. Changing your mind later because of a personal relationship doesn't somehow trump hundreds of years of law surrounding art.
No they do not.
That's why they have contracts, because if they get cold feet after the fact the photographer can point to it and say sorry, but you signed off on this, I'm not tossing away all my hard work. I don't know of any standard modelling contracts that include clauses for a model to change her mind later.
Yes, and what's that all about? Is the crackdown about consent to the creation of the photograph or usage?
They consented to having the image created at the time. They would admit as much by taking it to court to revoke their consent. It doesn't really matter how they consented, both parties are in agreement that consent was given at the time to create the photo. Once an image is created you can only talk about usage rights regarding any public usage of the photo. They certainly can't build a time machine and go back and revoke the consent they gave to actually take the picture at the time.
They may not want the photographer to be able to use the image by publicly displaying it going forward, but those are usage rights, that has nothing to do with the consent given when the photograph was taken. The artistic ownership and control of the image belongs to the author of the photo which the subject is not.
A photographer has copyright by virtue of being the author of a creative work. That's it. You do not need a release to own copyright. Model releases are not about copyright. They are about usage rights.
The fucking stupid coming out of you is just mind boggling.
While that may apply to future use, if consent is given to take a photo you can't go back and ask them to delete it either. They own the artistic copyright on that image. Whatever the merits may be. The subject consented when it was created. They might disallow further publishing of a photo, prevent it from being seen publicly, but to force someone to delete all traces of it is madness.
There is a lot of retaliatory butthurt behaviour on the internet.
You make one comment someone doesn't like and suddenly it's open season on everything you've ever said, regardless of it's worth. Somewhere like Reddit, someone will go through and downvote your last 40+ comments just because you got the better of them in a debate. Downvoting without commenting is the last vestige of the defeated. They know their argument can't hold water, so rather than concede the point, or move on, they go through and downvote anyone who spoke against them. While some comments are generally stupid enough that they need no reply (or further replies than the ones they've already received), someone who just abandons a discussion in favor of downvoting damages a community.
I can remember one exchange over on reddit, something on Korean language, where a native Korean chimes in as a reply to my comment "This guy is totally 100% right why is this being downvoted?" And it was all because of some other topic where a handful of butthurt children couldn't handle being proven wrong on a point so decided to run around downvoting anything else I'd posted within the last few days.
I've had it happen on Slashdot as well. Not in awhile, because I don't comment here as much as I used to (I used to frequently get mod points, but not that much recently). A few times, almost always after a debate with someone, the other party (I can only assume) would get mod points, and then past posts of mine, like ones over a week old, would suddenly all be moderated down as troll or something like that. I think I even made a post a few years ago about vindictive moderation.
Say what you will about all the access devs have now, but it was that time when things were greatest.
People were still experimenting. Not just with concepts but core mechanics. Interfaces, everything. It was the wild west.
People weren't yet dumbing things down to make them more "Accessible", when you got a game there wasn't going to be another one in 5 minutes. The internet wasn't everywhere. People still had slow connections when it came around. You read magazines, hunted for games and traded with friends.
The early days were really the best for the entirety of computing. Sure, things are flashy, we have such powerful machines now. Those were the days of great games and great indie games.
They never declared it impossible. They said it was a riskier more uncertain market with no return potential. There is a difference.
Because being free isn't a pass on criticism. I'm not sure when that happened. Yes all the people who have devoted time and effort and money on Linux deserve credit for doing so. But for the end consumer there is no real difference between an OS you got for free and one you paid $100 for. They still need to work and they still need to do what you need. Otherwise free doesn't mean anything. In the end they're still providing a product regardless of the cost and the consumer is going to form an opinion on it and give feedback. It's simply just not there yet and the only thing that's really going to get it there, in my opinion, at this point is a huge infusion of cash in exactly the right direction.
Their claim is that it is is and that might be why they don't want it on Linux. Because it is less suitable, less easy, it will cost more to port it over and since they don't yet see a big market for users they won't do it.
It's chicken and the egg. The existence of other apps is immaterial. Other apps might be suited to Linux, they might be easy, cost effective to port and they might be targeting people who might otherwise already use linux.
However, if you get them to do it, the users will come and it will start to snowball. It needs that push to get going and that only comes with money.
Because linux isn't a cohesive platform. That's the problem. As I was googling around one of the staff at adobe mentioned last year that Linux lacked standardized APIs on a forum thread regarding photoshop on Linux.
There is a perception that Linux is a bit like the wild west and in this day and age when you have stable mature platforms like Mac and Windows available, that's risky for developers. Even for big companies.
The intrinsic connection they have is market share and having already been the platform for this programs for a long time. Linux needs to really step up and say "Hey we're ready look at us" but they haven't had that moment yet.
Ubuntu is a step in the right direction. If a company with real money can get behind it and drive it to some kind of consumer ready level like Windows or Mac is, enthusiasts can still sit there and fork and tweak and do as they like, but getting a real ready version there that gets people's attention and wants to make people use it and develop for it is what will drive Linux's success.
It might not be directly Linux's fault that Microsoft doesn't make office for Linux, but they just got office for IOS not that long ago. Who knows what kind of wrangling that took. But if I was someone like Canonical I'd see just how much money it would take to convince Microsoft to make it for linux and make that happen. I'd do the same with programs like Photoshop, and other major programs that have major user bases that are seen as core apps. Valve already seems like they're moving in the direction of taking care of games so I'd make sure I was meeting with them and getting everyone on the same page. They don't have to arrange all the programs. If they do a few core programs that reach a large percentage of the user base, the other programs will start to get ported to linux as user base picks up. For example if they paid to get photoshop and office ported and linux went from the low single digits its sitting around now on the desktop up to 20% or a little higher I think you'd see companies start to take notice and start to focus a little more on it.
except that no one does.
"anyone" sounds like a lot of people, but Linux isn't just for coder enthusiasts with the know-how to fix their own problems. If linux is going to really take off on the desktop those things simply need to be already taken care of. With microsoft floundering around with windows 8 and tablets taking off, if someone wanted to really get market share away from microsoft dumping money into Linux like valve is doing here is a good start. Especially if it can be done in such a way that major game studios can easily make their games multiplatform. Games are what keep a lot of dedicated enthusiasts of all ages away from Linux. So are things like photoshop or microsoft office, or etc. A lot of the core products that people need just don't work well or at all. You can carry on about alternatives, but people don't want alternatives for those kinds of things. The OS, which is mostly background to a lot of people is easy to persuade them on, you can make it look and feel like windows. but gimp will never feel and look like photoshop.
There is very little to be done to justify balance in the world. That's a thing most well adjusted individuals accept as fact.
No, I attacked you for coming across as mouthbreathing ranting moron, there is a difference. One you can't quite grasp which isn't a surprise.
Good luck with that, I'm sure it'll get you far.
Actually I did no such thing. I said such a balance was necessary, i never said we had the right balance now. You only assumed I did because you haven't figured out that your nose was put on your face as a passage for air. In your completely unhinged knee-jerk reaction you failed to actually read anything and decided to launch into your latest manifesto. I expect we'll be seeing you up a clock tower before long.
No, like most grown-ups I realize I'm part of a society and that the world doesn't revolve around me and my delusions.
That building a functioning society requires everyone to work together. That means give and take. I realize that's probably hard for you to understand but I'll see if I can't work it into some kind of puppet show so you can wrap your warped little mind around it.
Yes because acknowledging a need for a balance between competing rights is just like being in North Korea. You know you're an idiot right? You should probably start working on your next tinfoil hat. You're just that far gone.
I should have realized that analogies were beyond you. Define imaginary rights? Things which aren't tangible.. things you can't physically grab on to and count and control? You mean like speech. You're talking about a right to free speech, the right to use your speech as you see fit, copyright is simply making sure others can't use that speech in another way.
You wouldn't happen to be from Montana would you?
I would suggest you probably go separate yourself up a mountain somewhere, away from people. I don't know if what you have is contagious but you should probably wear some kind of mask or something when you go outside of your mother's basement.
Not at all, but it seems like you'd like to create some kind of hippy utopia, good luck with that. Those of us that deal in the real world realize that you must strike a balance between the rights of one and the rights of another. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
Good to have a benchmark for your lunacy.
In those cases the government specifically prohibits certain kinds of speech and directly punishes them, that isn't what we're talking about here.
Hint: shouldn't they be allowed some measure of control over the things they create? Would it be better that they didn't create because they knew that they would have no control over the product they make?
the government doesn't interfere. The copyright holder uses the legal system to address your infringing on his rights. When you speak you can make choices about how you speak. You don't live in a freedom bubble getting to pass through the world pissing all over everyone else just because you ride someone else's coattails and can't be bothered to have an original thought of your own.
It has nothing to do with being offended. Free speech is restricted all the time
Hate speech, inciting riots, etc.
You're free to say whatever you want. No one will stop you, but you also have to face the consequences of saying those things. It seems like someone doesn't really understand what freedom of speech actually means. That's typical, most people take the self-centered view that free speech means they can say whatever they want without consequence. That's false and has never been true. Free speech only means that you can say it in the first place. You're free to change warcraft to doorcraft and giggle yourself to sleep with how clever you are, but if you infringe on someone's copyright then you have to face the legal consequences of that.
Freedom of speech has to balance against people's right to protect the things they said and did as well. It's mostly about people being too lazy to create genuine parody because they don't really have anything to say beyond the level of a fart joke.
That's what he says, but the reality is that most of his songs wouldn't be defensible in court. Most of them simply do a funny spin on the name and change the lyrics but the often don't change the lyrics to comment on the song itself or the creator.
I remember one R Kelly song he did clearly commented on the song and R Kelly himself. that one would have been fine, but some of the other ones, like "white and nerdy" awesome song, but doesn't really do much to comment on the original or the performers who made it.
That's not parody. Parody is not simply trying to be funny. This is why Weird Al actually goes out and gets permission to do the songs he does, because despite the popular thought, most of what he does isn't parody. Parody requires that the new work is used in such a way to comment on the original. Replacing a few words or singing something in a funny voice isn't parody in itself. Depending on how the account is being run it may not be parody either. As time goes on, it's easy for people to misunderstand things, like those "in soviet russia" jokes.. it wasn't simply a matter of swapping two things, the jokes were used in a way, with specific things to comment on the government. Nowadays people just swap something in there with no thought and it doesn't make sense.
Likewise people simply think "If I draw something funny, or make a stupid version of the name, it's fine I can do whatever I want". That's not true.
I think you're missing the point. It's something I thought about for a long time, but it is BS. How could such a society function?
How could you communicate simple daily tasks by talking in such opaque references? How did those people talk in the first place? Language develops to be function, it was not a functional language. How the fuck could they ever build a spaceship trying to communicate like that?
has there been any movie released on DVD recently that hasn't been released online right away via torrent?
Is anyone still stupid enough to think that's slowing anyone down?
Maybe the poster knows something we don't. maybe the person who made the decision in the Kansas Department for Children and Families is a lesbian.
Holy shit this guy could make a giant mech battle at a strip club sound like doing your taxes.