...merely setting down a camera such that a possible monkey may possibly walk by and may possibly decide to play with it and may possibly end up taking photos with it is not enough in my mind to say it was a setup. What if an acorn or something similar fell off a tree and somehow hit the shutter button on the camera, while his back was turned? Would that still be a setup, and would that setup some translate into him getting the copyright? Both there, and with the monkey, no legal person (i.e. a human) took any active steps whatsoever to actually take the photo. With no human participation and with no intent to take photos (since by his account, he put it down, thus logically meaning he was going to take photos himself later on), there is no creative expression going on and thus nothing to copyright.
As a hobbyist photographer with a DSLR, if someone handed me a camera so I could take a photo of them, I would be the one exercising (more or less) complete control over the shot. I would fiddle with the settings, tell them to move this way or that way, tell them to wait for the lighting to be just right etc. As an aside, the next time this happens to me, I'm going to intentionally be a dick and not tell them about the copyrights until after I've taken the photos, just to see what their reaction will be. Of course I have no intention of trying to enforce what would be my copyrights (since I'm anti-copyright after all).
I never said anything about whether the setup was intentional or not. I was arguing about whether it was setup at all and my argument is it was not. So please, provide evidence of him setting it up, even if unintentionally. From the photographer's own account, he didn't set anything up, and had no intention to take the photos that were taken. Monkeys took the camera when his back was turned, and he made no move to take it back off of them.
...if this was me, I'd just pretend I was crazy by saying "Dem wifi signals mess with our brainz!! Even the cables have wifi, and they're getting into my noggin!"
Yes, you would. You're the one who did all the creative work in lining up the shot, framing, lighting, etc. Since you're the one holding the camera, and there is no signed contract transferring copyrights from you to the happy couple, you have the copyrights on the photos stored on their camera.
One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy, said Slater, 46. 'At first there was a lot of grimacing with their teeth showing because it was probably the first time they had ever seen a reflection. 'They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button. 'The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it 'At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to watch. 'He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet."
If they're expecting me to explain things to my friends and family, that's time and effort I'm going to have to spend. I want to be compensated for that financially. Why should I take time out of my day to explain things about the guest house, when it should be the guest house doing it? Silly me, I thought I was the one paying them to render me a service.
The question in the title has a MASSIVE assumption - that I tell other people about Techdirt...why do you assume that?
Just kidding, of course I do. Just yesterday I shared the "US DOJ wants MS Ireland server data" story on Facebook and a couple of other sites I'm on. I didn't get any responses, but I can always hope someone at least read it, and just didn't think of responding to me...
Wait...Mr. 2008 Campaign To Close Gitmo...just waved away that a high ranking US government official lied, in fact, didn't even care, and didn't care about the torture his government has done? Color me surprised.
Two things required for Quantum to work. 1) The target computer has to have wireless capabilities 2) There has to be some sort of code running on the computer that knows to listen through your wireless device in order to accept fresh commands.
Neither of my two computers have wireless capabilities. They are connected by ethernet cable to my modem. If I yank out that cable, they're completely off the grid. There is no device in them to listen to wireless traffic (I'd know best, since I've built one from scratch and heavily modified the other).
More to the point - find me a person who is interested in paying for as high a speedy connection as possible to the ISP's machines only, and not concerned at all about speed to the rest of the global Internet. When I shop around for an ISP, I'm looking for one who gives me great speed to the Internet, not great speed just to their routers that they directly control. Their advertisements show people on Facebook, Youtube, Netflix et al, and often times, show multiple people in the same household doing all of these things simultaneously. Not once has it ever been advertised showing a great connection to ISP Head Office, and just that.
Anyone know if the people in Microsoft's headquarters in Redmond have access to data stored on MS Ireland servers, or is the only way MS USA could get at the data is to ask/order MS Ireland to produce it? If the latter, then MS USA can't do anything. MS Ireland employees will just say no to the order, and they can't be disciplined over the matter. They'll know that if they get fired over this, they can sue Microsoft for punishing them for not committing a crime. Anyone know if these Irish employees could also bring a case internationally against the US government for starting this whole mess (either the employees or Microsoft Ireland/USA).
This has me scratching my noggin as to just why the US Department of "Justice" seems so allergic to following rules and producers. What's wrong with working through Interpol and An Garda Síochána (Irish police force) to get the information needed? It wouldn't be creating this diplomatic and political hassle at all if the US just fucking asked for cooperation in the matter.
I simply don't see this working. (Irish person here). I can imagine, hypothetically, Microsoft USA sending orders down the chain of command (if they complied with the court order) to Microsoft Ireland, but at that point...what are the MS Ireland employees going to do? They'll talk with their legal department, legal will say "Fuck no, we have data protection laws" and the MS Ireland employees will reply back to Redmond, Washington saying "Sorry, no, we will not be complicit in breaking the laws of our sovereign country". At that point, what is MS USA supposed to do? Fly over here to Dublin and physically do the US's court order? They'd be known and arrested at the airport for conspiracy to commit a crime.
The UK has crown copyright. Does it own the name Sterling, the name of their currency? If so, a friend of mine with that last name could potentially be screwed if this ridiculousness continues (it's a family name, several generations old at least).
A lie is when you say something in the full knowledge that it is false. Brennan is the head of the CIA. That means he is ultimately responsible for everything that happens under his command. So either he lied, thus meaning he has violated his oath of service, and thus, cannot be trusted to continue in his office...or he was himself lied to by those under him, this meaning of course that he is dangerously incompetent, and thus cannot be trusted to continue in his office.
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if an acorn or something similar fell off a tree and somehow hit the shutter button on the camera, while his back was turned? Would that still be a setup, and would that setup some translate into him getting the copyright? Both there, and with the monkey, no legal person (i.e. a human) took any active steps whatsoever to actually take the photo. With no human participation and with no intent to take photos (since by his account, he put it down, thus logically meaning he was going to take photos himself later on), there is no creative expression going on and thus nothing to copyright.
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Re: Re: Re:
As an aside, the next time this happens to me, I'm going to intentionally be a dick and not tell them about the copyrights until after I've taken the photos, just to see what their reaction will be. Of course I have no intention of trying to enforce what would be my copyrights (since I'm anti-copyright after all).
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Behind The Veil Part 2: Let's All Look At Comcast's Customer Retention Playbook For Its Employees!
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Re:
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Re: Re:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-borrows-pho tographers-camera.html
"Mr Slater left his camera unattended for a while.
One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy, said Slater, 46.
'At first there was a lot of grimacing with their teeth showing because it was probably the first time they had ever seen a reflection.
'They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button.
'The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it
'At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to watch.
'He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet."
On the post: Prenda Loses Again: Minnesota Appeals Court Upholds Sanctions
On the post: New York Guest House Burns Own Reputation To The Ground By Trying To Charge Customers $500 For Bad Reviews
Re: Change of heart - due to Internet backlash
Silly me, I thought I was the one paying them to render me a service.
On the post: What Makes You Tell Others About Techdirt?
Just kidding, of course I do. Just yesterday I shared the "US DOJ wants MS Ireland server data" story on Facebook and a couple of other sites I'm on. I didn't get any responses, but I can always hope someone at least read it, and just didn't think of responding to me...
On the post: Obama Admits 'We Tortured Some Folks' But Doesn't Seem Too Concerned
Re:
On the post: Obama Admits 'We Tortured Some Folks' But Doesn't Seem Too Concerned
Color me surprised.
On the post: Keith Alexander: I'm Worth $1 Million Per Month Because I'm Patenting A Way To Stop Hackers (Which I Didn't Tell The NSA)
Re: Re: Easy to beat
1) The target computer has to have wireless capabilities
2) There has to be some sort of code running on the computer that knows to listen through your wireless device in order to accept fresh commands.
Neither of my two computers have wireless capabilities. They are connected by ethernet cable to my modem. If I yank out that cable, they're completely off the grid. There is no device in them to listen to wireless traffic (I'd know best, since I've built one from scratch and heavily modified the other).
On the post: ISP Sues Former Customer Over Reviews Claiming His Internet Speed Was Less Than A Third Of What Was Advertised
Re: Re: Re: Guilty as charged?
When I shop around for an ISP, I'm looking for one who gives me great speed to the Internet, not great speed just to their routers that they directly control. Their advertisements show people on Facebook, Youtube, Netflix et al, and often times, show multiple people in the same household doing all of these things simultaneously. Not once has it ever been advertised showing a great connection to ISP Head Office, and just that.
On the post: Court Says Who Cares If Ireland Is Another Country, Of Course DOJ Can Use A Warrant To Demand Microsoft Cough Up Your Emails
If the latter, then MS USA can't do anything. MS Ireland employees will just say no to the order, and they can't be disciplined over the matter. They'll know that if they get fired over this, they can sue Microsoft for punishing them for not committing a crime. Anyone know if these Irish employees could also bring a case internationally against the US government for starting this whole mess (either the employees or Microsoft Ireland/USA).
On the post: Court Says Who Cares If Ireland Is Another Country, Of Course DOJ Can Use A Warrant To Demand Microsoft Cough Up Your Emails
Re:
On the post: Court Says Who Cares If Ireland Is Another Country, Of Course DOJ Can Use A Warrant To Demand Microsoft Cough Up Your Emails
On the post: Court Says Who Cares If Ireland Is Another Country, Of Course DOJ Can Use A Warrant To Demand Microsoft Cough Up Your Emails
At that point, what is MS USA supposed to do? Fly over here to Dublin and physically do the US's court order? They'd be known and arrested at the airport for conspiracy to commit a crime.
On the post: UK Woman Denied Passport Because Her Name Might Infringe On Disney's Copyright
Re: That's an interesting assertion
On the post: CIA Spying On The Senate Went Much Further Than Originally Reported
Re:
Brennan is the head of the CIA. That means he is ultimately responsible for everything that happens under his command. So either he lied, thus meaning he has violated his oath of service, and thus, cannot be trusted to continue in his office...or he was himself lied to by those under him, this meaning of course that he is dangerously incompetent, and thus cannot be trusted to continue in his office.
Next >>