On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Brian Loe wrote: > On 12/5/06, Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You're both right--but, of course, you're talking about different things. > > > > Alan is talking about copyright, Brian, and he is perfectly correct, even > > in the US. > > There are plenty of instances of companies that are very vigorous in > > enforcing > > their IP rights, going so far as to ban photography of certain areas or > > items. > > > > Brian, you're talking privacy, and those issues do differ substantially. > > Another > > poster noted that you can request video footage from surveillance cameras > > in the > > UK, and figured that it was basically the same thing as was going on with > > Microsoft, only Microsoft was more convenient. I think it is, which is why > > I will > > be very interested to see what happens when MS tries to film in Canada. > > We've > > been much more restrictive in terms of surveillance cameras. In BC, there > > is a > > certain area of Vancouver where the store owners have been trying to get the > > police to put in surveillance cameras, and the courts have said no way. (In > > another city, the store owners have been able to get the police to put up > > cameras. > > The courts have [twice, if I recall correctly] told the cops to take the > > cameras > > down, but so far they are still operating.) > > I'm still talking copyright law. I have spent a little time > photographing the building of the new IRS, H&R Block and Sprint > (stadium?) here in downtown KC. No one has even looked twice at me. > I'm also hoping to someday to a rooftop photography project, with the > subjects being buildings. I've seen THOUSANDS of photographs SOLD > COMMERCIALLY of the sculptures on top of the convention center > (http://www.kcconvention.com/). No laws have been broken, no > copyrights infringed
I disagree. The copyright was infringed. What I thnk you mean, is that the copyright was not enforced, and the pirate was not sued in the civil courts. The infringer might argue that his derivative work was, in fact "fair use", but whether that argument would succeeed, depends on all the usual issues surrounding "fair use". > As for privacy rights: you do not have a RIGHT to privacy in PUBLIC > areas, any more than you have a right to be free of other people's > opinions. PERIOD. I'm not asking for a right to privacy in public areas. I'm asking for my intellectual property to be respected and not infringed. What would you say if someone sat in the middle of Central Park and made copies of Microsoft Windows? It's infringement of copyright, even though it's being done in a public place. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
