I'm wondering...should I run right out an take a photo of my grandchildren standing in his dance steps...and then license my photo under creative commons for the rest of the world to use?
I seriously fail to see how a "photo" of concrete impressions in a sidewalk has the potential to cause him any loss. It isn't like he's able to um, sell the artwork again. He was already paid for it...with public funds, created in a public place...using I assume public property (a sidewalk) paid for most likely by the taxes of the citizens of that city.
Soooo, who actually owns the artwork? And...are the dance steps themselves a new dance he created, or are they "prior art"?
[I think the musician probably had a just a little to do with creating things like his own looks, expression and playing style, don't you?]
You don't capture a "playing style" in a photograph. Are you confused about the medium here? The photographer captured a pose - a moment in time. It could have any one of of a 100 different moments during any concert. Can you deduce the playing style of a musician from a photo? No. At least I sure can't.
As for the rest, why do you think I noted that the photographer has nothing to do with the creation of the musician...are you daft?
[Umm, I'd like to see you create that photograph without Miles Davis]
Okay, I generally am not too stupid, but...what has that got to do with the setting or the ambiance? The photograph is about the musician, he's the subject matter. Most artists don't "create" the subject matter either, but the create a "feeling" around the subject matter - whether it's a person or a rock.
How the photograph looks is what a photographer creates. I don't think I ever said the photographer created the subject matter of the photograph. Try reading with your eyes open.
[What I have trouble with is the argument that this is different than photography. In both cases, you have artists who took something that was out there -- something they did not create -- and then turned it into an artform.]
I tend to differ with you here.
The photographer created the photograph by choosing - if you know photography then you know that what settings, what angle, how you setup the photograph create the results you get. Yes, it is created. It isn't something the photographer "didn't create".
The photographer did not create the musician, nor the circumstances (unless it was a private shoot), but the photographer did "create" the photograph and how it appears, the ambiance of the setting.
This isn't that much different than what the "artist" does, however if the artist is using the photograph as the reference, than than the actual subject as a reference (the living, breathing musician) then the artist is using someone else's work - as a reference for his own (provided he didn't just add a filter). He is using the photographer's concept to create his work from. You can't copyright an idea or concept, just the physical work.
I've had numerous pieces of my photography used by painters to create a painting. The painting is not my photograph, though the scene in the painting is the same as my photo. The artist has created their own rendition of the scene in a different art form. Most of the time though, long-time artists are as aware of copyright issues as photographers are, and I've seldom seen an artist take that liberty without at least letting me know and asking if that's okay...which it almost always is.
You can't be serious? You could manhandle every single individual on the plane and still be at risk. Terrorists could swallow a friggin' bomb...feeling the guys jewels ain't going to change that (though it might set the bomb off early).
This is really a rather useless exercise and provides no security whatsoever to anyone. Bah.
["TSA cannot exempt any group from screening because we know from intelligence that there are terrorists out there that would then exploit that vulnerability."]
Oh. "That" vulnerability.
Too bad the woman hadn't the foresight to fill it first.
I guess its time to start planning our vacations in our own backyard. I wonder if the US has any idea how detrimental this could be to their tourism industry? (they probably don't care I suppose)
I was planning a trip to California and to Georgia...which suddenly I'm rethinking. I think I'd feel as if I were playing roulette no matter which mode of transportation I take.
Time to head east or west for me...but definitely not south. At least, not until I grow a pair of wings on my back and can fly myself there. But of course, the Air Force might end up shooting me down anyways.
For some odd reason, this puts me in mind of an old movie with Kurt Russell...escape from New York where NY was turned into a giant maximum security prison...it appears now this might have been premonition instead of fantasy...the next movie will be "Escape from the USA".
[As he notes, you can start to break out of those limits today, thanks to things like Google Voice and Skype, and as that advances, we may finally reach an age when the idea of a telephone number is a historical relic... like the people who used to say letters for the first two digits of their phone number.]
Well like any service there still has to be a way to identify the person the service is leading to. What's the difference if it's a telephone number or some other identifier? You still need one. Sorry, but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Oh wait - I get, we'll all use barcodes instead?
Super...I can't remember my cell number but I'm supposed to try and remember something even more remote?
There is still something to be said on the side of the telephone number...it's hooked to my home, for a reason. When I go out, it stays at home...who wants to answer the phone at a beach picnic? Pffft...even my cell stays home.
Some of us still really don't want to be contacted all the time. I'm one of them. Happy...even blissfully happy in my ignorance of the telephone ringing away at home on my desk.
Telephone numbers are rather personal...I remember our first telephone number (oh, about 45 years back I guess), and my aunt's old alpha-prefix (cherry-9) for her phone about the same time period. What I can't friggin' remember is my own cell phone number.
If I get a choice, I'll keep mine. Thank you very much.
Oh...yes, I am something of a dinosaur (and probably will be til the bitter end), but that's I choice that I make. Because I can. I hope it stays that way, for at least my lifetime.
Although it's marching onward, not everyone has access to the internet on a regular basis and believe it or not, not everyone has a computer in their home...or even wants one.
I'm not arguing that there aren't already some free services - I'm saying if you use free stuff great, but don't expect to get non-freebies for free.
That shouldn't be that difficult to figure out. While progress does reduce the cost of technology over time, it is unlikely to be "free" for the entire world for a long time. It's free if you can afford a computer (which isn't free), it's free if you can afford the internet (which isn't free).
And right now, some technology isn't reliable. Frequently, we still lose our wireless connection...while I still have cable and phone. Someday, I suspect that TV and Telephone will all use internet (some do already), and there will be no such thing as land lines. Right now, that isn't available everywhere.
I have no problem using free stuff except...well I hate skype, Hulu and barely frequent YouTube for the bad quality. If I want to watch TV I watch...TV, not my computer, and not the tiny little screen on my son-in-laws smart phone. Who does that? (well him apparently)
I very much support "free stuff" - open source software is often my first choice, and the ones that are great always get my support via a donation. Cause, well those developers have to eat too.
I still have to say that expecting everything free is what I'd call entitlement issues...like the world owes it you because you want it. The answer to that now, as it has always been is No. Nobody owes you everything you want. ("you" being humanity in general, not anyone in particular).
Maybe someday in the very far future everything will be free, in which case nobody would need to work cause everything is free. I'd like to see that, but I'm pretty sure I won't. I wouldn't mind living in a world that used the old barter system...we still do for as many things as we can.
Travel costs won't drop until gas prices drop, and those won't drop until? Governments aren't so money hungry? Until people no longer work in the industry? Until cars no longer need gas?
[Is it "spoiled" to use a telephone or email to communicate? Is it "spoiled" to travel by a car or airplane?]
It is if you expect to do or use those things for free. None of those things are free, except perhaps for those who use a free email service, but you still have to pay the ISP to get an internet connection in your home.
I think there's a huge difference between expecting everything for free, and being willing to pay for the progressive products you want to use that aren't free.
Free is good - great in fact. But if it isn't free, then why would you expect it for free? If what you want requires a fee, find a free alternative or pay the fee, don't expect to be able to use that paid service for free.
[If anything, it seems like the sense of "entitlement" and the feelings of being "spoiled" is coming from those who wish to hold back progress, and to keep things the way they were in the past, ]
So I can assume that you'll soon expect our telephone services, TV cable, rail and air transport (lets not forget the buses and subways and toll roads) all to be free as well?
I'm all for that, however I doubt it will happen in my lifetime :)
[TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.]
So in other words, all flights in the US should be cancelled?
From what I understanding, the groping doesn't appear to make flights any safer than not groping...otherwise, why not do the touchy-feely on every traveler?
Likely not. As a photographer, I spend a fair bit in both SD and CF cards over the course of a year. It's hard enough to make a living today in this field...and I so just needed to add yet another tax onto my overtaxed life.
I seriously doubt they'll put any of that money into any of my pockets.
I don't suppose they thought about sending the stroller through the security WITHOUT the kid in it FIRST...before they decided to look for a diaper bomb? Or send the kid through the scanner without the the stroller?
Nah. That would make too much sense and perhaps negate the need for a touchy-feely session.
On the post: Another Fair Use Debacle: Photographer Settles Bogus Copyright Threat From Artist
I seriously fail to see how a "photo" of concrete impressions in a sidewalk has the potential to cause him any loss. It isn't like he's able to um, sell the artwork again. He was already paid for it...with public funds, created in a public place...using I assume public property (a sidewalk) paid for most likely by the taxes of the citizens of that city.
Soooo, who actually owns the artwork? And...are the dance steps themselves a new dance he created, or are they "prior art"?
On the post: If Jay Maisel's Photograph Is Original Artwork, Then So Is The Pixelated Cover Of 'Kind Of Bloop'
Re: Re:
You don't capture a "playing style" in a photograph. Are you confused about the medium here? The photographer captured a pose - a moment in time. It could have any one of of a 100 different moments during any concert. Can you deduce the playing style of a musician from a photo? No. At least I sure can't.
As for the rest, why do you think I noted that the photographer has nothing to do with the creation of the musician...are you daft?
[Umm, I'd like to see you create that photograph without Miles Davis]
Okay, I generally am not too stupid, but...what has that got to do with the setting or the ambiance? The photograph is about the musician, he's the subject matter. Most artists don't "create" the subject matter either, but the create a "feeling" around the subject matter - whether it's a person or a rock.
How the photograph looks is what a photographer creates. I don't think I ever said the photographer created the subject matter of the photograph. Try reading with your eyes open.
On the post: Is Copyright Needed To Stop Plagiarism?
Um, no...does copyright stop plagiarism now?
On the post: If Jay Maisel's Photograph Is Original Artwork, Then So Is The Pixelated Cover Of 'Kind Of Bloop'
I tend to differ with you here.
The photographer created the photograph by choosing - if you know photography then you know that what settings, what angle, how you setup the photograph create the results you get. Yes, it is created. It isn't something the photographer "didn't create".
The photographer did not create the musician, nor the circumstances (unless it was a private shoot), but the photographer did "create" the photograph and how it appears, the ambiance of the setting.
This isn't that much different than what the "artist" does, however if the artist is using the photograph as the reference, than than the actual subject as a reference (the living, breathing musician) then the artist is using someone else's work - as a reference for his own (provided he didn't just add a filter). He is using the photographer's concept to create his work from. You can't copyright an idea or concept, just the physical work.
I've had numerous pieces of my photography used by painters to create a painting. The painting is not my photograph, though the scene in the painting is the same as my photo. The artist has created their own rendition of the scene in a different art form. Most of the time though, long-time artists are as aware of copyright issues as photographers are, and I've seldom seen an artist take that liberty without at least letting me know and asking if that's okay...which it almost always is.
On the post: TSA Says Groping A Dying 95-Year-Old Woman, Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure
Re: Today's encounter
Does such a person exist in US government? Cause I'm pretty sure there isn't one in Canada's government offices...anywhere.
On the post: TSA Says Groping A Dying 95-Year-Old Woman, Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure
Re:
You can't be serious? You could manhandle every single individual on the plane and still be at risk. Terrorists could swallow a friggin' bomb...feeling the guys jewels ain't going to change that (though it might set the bomb off early).
This is really a rather useless exercise and provides no security whatsoever to anyone. Bah.
On the post: TSA Says Groping A Dying 95-Year-Old Woman, Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure
Oh. "That" vulnerability.
Too bad the woman hadn't the foresight to fill it first.
... have we enough of this sh*t yet?
On the post: TSA Takes Security Theater On The Road: Mobile Groping Teams Can Pop Up Anywhere
I was planning a trip to California and to Georgia...which suddenly I'm rethinking. I think I'd feel as if I were playing roulette no matter which mode of transportation I take.
Time to head east or west for me...but definitely not south. At least, not until I grow a pair of wings on my back and can fly myself there. But of course, the Air Force might end up shooting me down anyways.
For some odd reason, this puts me in mind of an old movie with Kurt Russell...escape from New York where NY was turned into a giant maximum security prison...it appears now this might have been premonition instead of fantasy...the next movie will be "Escape from the USA".
On the post: There Really Are Privacy Issues Out There; Facebook Using Facial Recognition Is Not One Of Them
On the post: How Long Until Phone Numbers Are A Historical Relic?
Well like any service there still has to be a way to identify the person the service is leading to. What's the difference if it's a telephone number or some other identifier? You still need one. Sorry, but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Oh wait - I get, we'll all use barcodes instead?
Super...I can't remember my cell number but I'm supposed to try and remember something even more remote?
There is still something to be said on the side of the telephone number...it's hooked to my home, for a reason. When I go out, it stays at home...who wants to answer the phone at a beach picnic? Pffft...even my cell stays home.
Some of us still really don't want to be contacted all the time. I'm one of them. Happy...even blissfully happy in my ignorance of the telephone ringing away at home on my desk.
Telephone numbers are rather personal...I remember our first telephone number (oh, about 45 years back I guess), and my aunt's old alpha-prefix (cherry-9) for her phone about the same time period. What I can't friggin' remember is my own cell phone number.
If I get a choice, I'll keep mine. Thank you very much.
Oh...yes, I am something of a dinosaur (and probably will be til the bitter end), but that's I choice that I make. Because I can. I hope it stays that way, for at least my lifetime.
On the post: Entitlement? Spoiled Brats? Or Just Progress?
Re: Free? I don't think so.
They're free.
On the post: Entitlement? Spoiled Brats? Or Just Progress?
Re: Re:
I'm not arguing that there aren't already some free services - I'm saying if you use free stuff great, but don't expect to get non-freebies for free.
That shouldn't be that difficult to figure out. While progress does reduce the cost of technology over time, it is unlikely to be "free" for the entire world for a long time. It's free if you can afford a computer (which isn't free), it's free if you can afford the internet (which isn't free).
And right now, some technology isn't reliable. Frequently, we still lose our wireless connection...while I still have cable and phone. Someday, I suspect that TV and Telephone will all use internet (some do already), and there will be no such thing as land lines. Right now, that isn't available everywhere.
I have no problem using free stuff except...well I hate skype, Hulu and barely frequent YouTube for the bad quality. If I want to watch TV I watch...TV, not my computer, and not the tiny little screen on my son-in-laws smart phone. Who does that? (well him apparently)
I very much support "free stuff" - open source software is often my first choice, and the ones that are great always get my support via a donation. Cause, well those developers have to eat too.
I still have to say that expecting everything free is what I'd call entitlement issues...like the world owes it you because you want it. The answer to that now, as it has always been is No. Nobody owes you everything you want. ("you" being humanity in general, not anyone in particular).
Maybe someday in the very far future everything will be free, in which case nobody would need to work cause everything is free. I'd like to see that, but I'm pretty sure I won't. I wouldn't mind living in a world that used the old barter system...we still do for as many things as we can.
Travel costs won't drop until gas prices drop, and those won't drop until? Governments aren't so money hungry? Until people no longer work in the industry? Until cars no longer need gas?
On the post: Entitlement? Spoiled Brats? Or Just Progress?
It is if you expect to do or use those things for free. None of those things are free, except perhaps for those who use a free email service, but you still have to pay the ISP to get an internet connection in your home.
I think there's a huge difference between expecting everything for free, and being willing to pay for the progressive products you want to use that aren't free.
Free is good - great in fact. But if it isn't free, then why would you expect it for free? If what you want requires a fee, find a free alternative or pay the fee, don't expect to be able to use that paid service for free.
[If anything, it seems like the sense of "entitlement" and the feelings of being "spoiled" is coming from those who wish to hold back progress, and to keep things the way they were in the past, ]
So I can assume that you'll soon expect our telephone services, TV cable, rail and air transport (lets not forget the buses and subways and toll roads) all to be free as well?
I'm all for that, however I doubt it will happen in my lifetime :)
On the post: Justice Department Threatens To Ban Flights Out Of Texas If Texas Makes TSA Groping Illegal
So in other words, all flights in the US should be cancelled?
From what I understanding, the groping doesn't appear to make flights any safer than not groping...otherwise, why not do the touchy-feely on every traveler?
On the post: Should Young People Have Their Votes Count More?
Super. Just shoot me now.
On the post: The Stupidity Of 'You Must Be A Criminal' Copyright Taxes: The SD Card Edition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Stupidity Of 'You Must Be A Criminal' Copyright Taxes: The SD Card Edition
Re: Re: Re:
It should be HSTS:
Harmonized Sales Tax Sucks.
On the post: The Stupidity Of 'You Must Be A Criminal' Copyright Taxes: The SD Card Edition
Re:
The "levee or tariff" is "extra" on top of the HST...or maybe before it, which means we'd pay more in HST as well.
On the post: The Stupidity Of 'You Must Be A Criminal' Copyright Taxes: The SD Card Edition
Re: Bu, bu, but . . .
I seriously doubt they'll put any of that money into any of my pockets.
On the post: TSA Frisks A Baby; Says The Stroller Set Off 'Explosives' Alarm
I don't suppose they thought about sending the stroller through the security WITHOUT the kid in it FIRST...before they decided to look for a diaper bomb? Or send the kid through the scanner without the the stroller?
Nah. That would make too much sense and perhaps negate the need for a touchy-feely session.
Next >>