Hello Brian!
Okay, enough already, this should provide everything we need to know:
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm
First, this looks like a general rule-of-thumb kind of a text; revelvant
laws in UK might be more or less restrictive (especially with respect to
the
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Peter Kosinar wrote:
First, I am not a lawyer (and definitely not an expert in UK law), but
this kind of discussion always attracts my attention, as it sometimes
reveals the amount of absurdity hidden in most laws.
Alan claims that:
I am a work of artistic
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Brian Loe wrote:
On 12/5/06, Richard M. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WikiPedia is our friend:
Okay, enough already, this should provide everything we need to know:
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm
And to Solly's exact point:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Peter Kosinar wrote:
Hello Brian!
Okay, enough already, this should provide everything we need to know:
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm
First, this looks like a general rule-of-thumb kind of a text; revelvant
laws in UK might be more or less
On 12/6/06, Peter Kosinar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian, did you read that carefully?
No, of course not. :)
] Using someone's image for commercial benefit
]
] Many countries recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The
] right of publicity is the direct opposite of the right
Drsolly wrote:
For copyright infringement? Well, kinda -- specifically under the
DMCA. Pointing out that ROT13 is not really an effective encryption
mechanism with which to secure copyrighted digital content is itself
NOT allowed under the DMCA (showing what a shitty little piece of
Date sent: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 08:12:00 -0600
From: Brian Loe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One, I don't think Microsoft is going to use it for profit.
Merely the fact that anyone could *make* that statement boggles the mind ...
== (quote inserted randomly
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Nick FitzGerald wrote:
Drsolly wrote:
For copyright infringement? Well, kinda -- specifically under the
DMCA. Pointing out that ROT13 is not really an effective encryption
mechanism with which to secure copyrighted digital content is itself
NOT allowed
On 12/6/06, Bruce Ediger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some philosophical objections to copyright also exist:
http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html
I doubt those will make much impression on you. The way you phrase your
question seems to indicate that you believe that IP rights should exist
to
Yep, copyright is one of many examples of government regulation that is
needed for markets to work fairly. The problem nowadays is that
copyright law has been perverted beyond its original scope by vested
interests. Example: The anti-research provisions of the DMCA.
Richard
Brian Loe
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 22:03:35 + (GMT)
From: Drsolly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bruce Ediger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy
Cc: funsec@linuxbox.org
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Bruce Ediger wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Brian Loe wrote:
Without
On 12/5/06, Larry Seltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Starbucks and (probably) the casino examples are different than, for
example, the airport ones. It's nothing new that stores don't want you
taking pictures of their insides, and ironically it's also about IP
protection, specifically trade
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Brian Loe wrote:
On 12/5/06, Richard M. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried taking the Wynn photo from the sidewalk along Las Vegas Blvd. and
got yelled at by a rent-a-cop. The rent-a-cop clearly was out of line, but
was probably acting on orders from above.
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
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:38:50 GMT, Drsolly said:
Copyright breach isn't a criminal offence, it's a civil matter.
I'll excuse you from knowing that in the US, it's now a criminal matter,
since terrorists can be pirating MPAA/RIAA materials for money
(Really - 17 USC 506 discusses criminal
Drsolly wrote:
Copyright breach isn't a criminal offence, it's a civil matter.
Not true, in the US. Not since the DMCA and later bills which attach
criminal penalties to copyright. As much as $250,000 and 10 years in
prison, if memory serves.
BB
Date sent: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:27:24 -0800
From: Blue Boar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Drsolly wrote:
Copyright breach isn't a criminal offence, it's a civil matter.
Not true, in the US. Not since the DMCA and later bills which attach
criminal penalties to copyright.
First, I am not a lawyer (and definitely not an expert in UK law), but
this kind of discussion always attracts my attention, as it sometimes
reveals the amount of absurdity hidden in most laws.
Alan claims that:
I am a work of artistic craftsmanship, irrespective of artistic quality.
A
with you the client.
Richard
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter Kosinar
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:16 PM
To: funsec@linuxbox.org
Subject: RE: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy
First, I am not a lawyer (and definitely
On 12/5/06, Nick FitzGerald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For copyright infringement? Well, kinda -- specifically under the
DMCA. Pointing out that ROT13 is not really an effective encryption
mechanism with which to secure copyrighted digital content is itself
NOT allowed under the DMCA (showing
I don't know if you've actually looked at the service, but the pictures
are of the street, not focusing on anyone in it. Occasionally there is
someone who you might be able to identify if you know who they are, but
the pictures aren't sharp enough for the most part.
I claim intellectual property
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Lubomir Kundrak wrote:
On Po, 2006-12-04 at 11:11 +, Drsolly wrote:
In my case, there's the issue of copyright. As the owner and creator of my
face and body shape, I claim intellectual property in it, and they would
have to negotiate a licence to use it or any
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Dude VanWinkle wrote:
Actually in the states, its the responsibility of the copyright holder
to enforce their own interests.
Of course. But it's also incumbent on everyone to respect other people's
copyrights.
Also, if you are well known, you are a public figure and
://blog.eweek.com/blogs/larry%5Fseltzer/
Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Dude VanWinkle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:48 PM
To: Drsolly
Cc: Larry Seltzer; funsec@linuxbox.org
Subject: Re: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy
On 12/4/06, Drsolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I claim intellectual property in it, and they would have to negotiate
a licence to use it or any deriative work based on it, such as a picture
of me.
This is an unreasonable claim. Nobody can take a picture of a public
street you're in unless
for the information
requestor?
-Original Message-
From: Drsolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:06 PM
To: Larry Seltzer
Cc: funsec@linuxbox.org
Subject: RE: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Larry Seltzer wrote:
Also, if you are well known, you
On 12/4/06, Richards, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I lived in London, the CCTV cameras were everywhere.
Anyone can request video from any camera, and I am assuming they do not have
to contact everyone in the requested footage for permission before complying
with the request.
And that's
In the US (at least) I am free to take a photograph from a public
place
of virtually anything (so long as I'm not peeping through your
windows).
News to me. Over the past few years, I've been yelled at for taking a photo
of a sign inside of an airport about the U.S. Visit program, a
On 12/4/06, Richard M. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the US (at least) I am free to take a photograph from a public
place
of virtually anything (so long as I'm not peeping through your
windows).
News to me. Over the past few years, I've been yelled at for taking a
photo
of a sign
On 12/4/06, Dennis Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
News to me. Over the past few years, I've been yelled at for taking a
photo
of a sign inside of an airport about the U.S. Visit program, a
surveillance
camera at a Starbucks, and the Wynn Casino in Las Vegas while it was under
_
From: kdawson
Posted At: Sunday, December 03, 2006 4:53 PM
Posted To: Technology
Conversation: Slashdot
Subject: Windows Live and Privacy
An anonymous reader writes Today as we were biking around our neighborhood
in a small city we saw a strange vehicle slowly driving around. It
An anonymous reader writes Today as we were biking around our
neighborhood in a small city we saw a strange vehicle slowly driving
around.
I saw articles on the live driving thing months ago and tested it. I
think they had Seattle and New York initially. No news here. What's the
privacy issue?
32 matches
Mail list logo
