No one is asking money if you see it. The artist is demanding to be paid for the use of his work in the advertisements by Mercedes. So Mercedes is making profit from work created by someone else and refuses to pay the original author a fair amount.
Most art isn't permanent. Some art might survive for centuries but like the fire in the Notre Dame recently, art can also go up in smoke real fast.
And all that matters is if the murals are artistic or not and who the authors of the murals is. If the restaurant-owner hired the artist to paint the mural then this would be work-for-hire and the restaurant would be the author of the work, not the artist.
But that's not very likely...
Actually, the pictures were taken in Detroit, as mentioned in the related article. But as I said, location matters as Europe doesn't recognize fair use in the same way. They're more strict.
Problem is that the location of the mural is important, as Europe doesn't have fair-use laws like the US. In Europe, buildings and murals can be protected by copyright, making such pictures a violation. As Mercedes is also located in Europe, they would have to comply to European laws, if the mural is in Europe.
A good example of this is the Eiffel Tower in Paris. The tower itself is too old and thus public domain, but the lights in this tower are pretty recent and considered artistic enough to qualify for copyrights. This means that you can't take pictures of the Eiffel tower at night when the lights are on without paying royalties!
Problem is that Mercedes has paid royalties before in similar situations so I don't understand why they didn't this time. I doubt it's fair use as it is used to promote their own product in a commercial way so I agree with the artists: Mercedes has to cough up royalties...
So, if TechDirt wins the Anti-Slapp and this dude has to pay back all the legal costs of TechDirt, does that mean that all of us who donated to this great Cause will get our money back? :)
It would be fun if Coca Cola would respond to this video with their own video in which they explain why the trademark on "Out for a rip" would be invalid. I wonder if Coca Cola has enough humor to do so, as it would bring a lot of new exposure to this rapper that's likely worth more than the trademark itself... Especially since Coca Cola is trading in sugar-water, not rap-songs. :-) It is a trademark issue after all and I don't think people would confuse black liquids with a white rapper. Ehm, wait... Maybe they will...
It makes sense to ban those laptops as it would encourage people to use Cloud services instead. That way, they could just use a simple laptop with a web browser, fly to the USA with the laptop as baggage and once in the USA, they would use the Cloudapps instead. But Cloudapps often have servers located inside the USA as they are likely hosted by Google, Microsoft/Azure of Amazon. It means that the USA can also listen to all the web traffic of all those foreigners visiting the USA and gain access to an enormous amount of data. All in all, it allows the USA to better spy on the whole world... --- Removing my aluminum foil hat now. Just wanted to have some crazy thoughts for a change. Then again, how crazy are they? :-)
Yeah, well. Unfortunately that's not true. A white man can walk around with a gun and while people might ask questions about why is is carrying, he will generally be allowed to carry his weapon. A person of color, any color, will more likely be stopped and temporarily detained for questioning. It is also possible that he will be shot first by the police. Race also matters! See this experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXv2Pjtc3Zk I think this boy would have still been alive if he was white...
Just wondering what your skin color is. Why? Because the kid that was shot and killed was black, and many people in the USA still have plenty of prejudism towards non-Caucasians.
Well, pink or not, if it looks realistic enough, people will feel threatened by it. It is that simple. When it is unclear if the weapon is real or not, you have to wonder what the risks are. But again, this situation had two problems, one of them being a very trigger-happy police who shot an armed child even though gun ownership in the USA is legal. This boy wasn't shot because he had a gun, but because they considered him dangerous. So had his gun clearly looked like a fake then he would not be considered dangerous and still be alive. Many of those pink M16's and pink AR-15's still look realistic enough to confuse people. People feel less threatened if you point a Buzz Lightyear raygun at them, no matter if it is a real gun or not.
Just to make things more clear: a ban of realistic-looking toy weapons won't solve the trigger-happy police problem. Police in the USA tends to shoot first and ask questions later. Solving that problem is a whole different problem.
But, it started with a realistic-looking toy that this boy was playing with. A toy that some people thought was real! People would have been less suspicious if the whole thing was orange. It could have even been a real orange gun and people would be much less worried about it until they realize it is real. But people want to feel safe and a gun-wielding person in the streets seems very unsafe. People aren't paranoid enough to consider anything as a possible weapon. Well, not yet anyways...
In this case, the police has an excuse that they thought the weapon was real. It was a fake gun but the only way to know this was by an orange tip, which had been removed. So they shoot, as they have been trained to do! The boy dies but the "dangerous situation" has been resolved.
When you walk around with a gun, you could expect that someone will consider you hostile and they will shoot you before you can shoot them. Even if the gun is fake. By removing any fake weapons from the market that are too realistic, you can avoid this. You can make people less scared of a kid with a toy gun if the gun is bright orange and looks fake. (Yes, even if it is still real!) It is all about perceived threat.
The solution is reasonably simple, and countries like the Netherlands use this solution and are extremely strict with this: Ban all realistic-looking toy guns!
Simply put, if you own something that could be mistaken for a real gun then you can be arrested and the toy will be confiscated as evidence and be destroyed. You will get a warning or fine. (Worst case? 9 months imprisonment or €20,900 fine if you have a collection or used it to commit a crime.) But possession of realistic-looking toy weapons is severely discouraged in the Netherlands.
So ban the realistic-looking toy weapons and this mistake should never have to happen. The next time a 12-year old will be shot by the police will be because he had a real gun instead.
Which is still no excuse to shoot immediately on sight!
Come on, guys! They don't want it off the Google-index because it's all secret but worse: it's butt-ugly! You need Internet Explorer to correctly see the page, else things look a bit weird. And it has been developed in an Ancient .NET version in a pretty bad way. And it would not surprise me if a hacker gets inside within 15 minutes of experimenting. But the page... And the Code... Oh, it hurts my eyes so badly! Quick! Close it, forget it, BURN IT DOWN! I agree with them and this should be DMCA'd because no one should be able to see such ugliness... It's Geocities all over again...
It might be interesting to know that there are groups on Facebook that discuss all kinds of erotic things and even contain erotic images without Facebook responding to them. One of them would be https://www.facebook.com/groups/Rooieoortjes which happens to exist for a long time already and often shares nudity and mild pornography. (It's a closed group, though.) And I know that some people have tried to report the group, but it just continues to exist. Facebook does not take any action against it. And the banned picture is quite tame compared with the contents of this group. So, Facebook has no problem with porn, as long as it happens in closed groups...
Let's rhyme if I mat be blunt, This Milorad Trkulja is totally a c**t! Trying to get Techdirt plucked but Milorad Trkulja is totally f***ed.
Well, just sharing my opinion here. A guy who makes these kinds of threats isn't a gangster anyways. He's just a pathetic moron. If he gets shot in the back again, no one would cry about it, I think.
Quote: "dead celebrities that had lived in the state at the time of their death." Huh? What? How can they live in a state when they're dead? Don't you just mean celebrities who died in that state? :)
On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use
Re:
No one is asking money if you see it. The artist is demanding to be paid for the use of his work in the advertisements by Mercedes. So Mercedes is making profit from work created by someone else and refuses to pay the original author a fair amount.
On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use
Re:
Most art isn't permanent. Some art might survive for centuries but like the fire in the Notre Dame recently, art can also go up in smoke real fast.
And all that matters is if the murals are artistic or not and who the authors of the murals is. If the restaurant-owner hired the artist to paint the mural then this would be work-for-hire and the restaurant would be the author of the work, not the artist.
But that's not very likely...
On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use
Re:
No, they're asking money from Mercedes for the use of their art in the advertisements of Mercedes. Big difference...
On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use
Re: Re: Location matters, though...
Charging for looking? Nope.
Charging for making copies and using them for commercial purposes, definitely yes!
On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use
Re: Re: Location matters, though...
Actually, the pictures were taken in Detroit, as mentioned in the related article. But as I said, location matters as Europe doesn't recognize fair use in the same way. They're more strict.
On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use
Location matters, though...
Problem is that the location of the mural is important, as Europe doesn't have fair-use laws like the US. In Europe, buildings and murals can be protected by copyright, making such pictures a violation. As Mercedes is also located in Europe, they would have to comply to European laws, if the mural is in Europe.
A good example of this is the Eiffel Tower in Paris. The tower itself is too old and thus public domain, but the lights in this tower are pretty recent and considered artistic enough to qualify for copyrights. This means that you can't take pictures of the Eiffel tower at night when the lights are on without paying royalties!
Problem is that Mercedes has paid royalties before in similar situations so I don't understand why they didn't this time. I doubt it's fair use as it is used to promote their own product in a commercial way so I agree with the artists: Mercedes has to cough up royalties...
On the post: The Latest On Shiva Ayyadurai's Failed Libel Suit Against Techdirt
Money back?
On the post: Canadian Rapper Sends Rap Video Cease & Desist Letter To Coca Cola For 'Jacking' His Catchphrase
Respond RAPidly?
Especially since Coca Cola is trading in sugar-water, not rap-songs. :-) It is a trademark issue after all and I don't think people would confuse black liquids with a white rapper.
Ehm, wait... Maybe they will...
On the post: This Makes No Sense: US To Ban Laptops On All Flights From Europe
It makes sense...
But Cloudapps often have servers located inside the USA as they are likely hosted by Google, Microsoft/Azure of Amazon. It means that the USA can also listen to all the web traffic of all those foreigners visiting the USA and gain access to an enormous amount of data. All in all, it allows the USA to better spy on the whole world...
---
Removing my aluminum foil hat now. Just wanted to have some crazy thoughts for a change. Then again, how crazy are they? :-)
On the post: Police Union Sues Toy Gun Maker For Not Doing Enough To Keep Cleveland Cops From Killing 12-Year-Old Boys
Re: Re: Re: Simple solution
A person of color, any color, will more likely be stopped and temporarily detained for questioning. It is also possible that he will be shot first by the police.
Race also matters! See this experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXv2Pjtc3Zk
I think this boy would have still been alive if he was white...
On the post: Police Union Sues Toy Gun Maker For Not Doing Enough To Keep Cleveland Cops From Killing 12-Year-Old Boys
On the post: Police Union Sues Toy Gun Maker For Not Doing Enough To Keep Cleveland Cops From Killing 12-Year-Old Boys
Re: Search For Pink M16
But again, this situation had two problems, one of them being a very trigger-happy police who shot an armed child even though gun ownership in the USA is legal. This boy wasn't shot because he had a gun, but because they considered him dangerous.
So had his gun clearly looked like a fake then he would not be considered dangerous and still be alive. Many of those pink M16's and pink AR-15's still look realistic enough to confuse people. People feel less threatened if you point a Buzz Lightyear raygun at them, no matter if it is a real gun or not.
On the post: Police Union Sues Toy Gun Maker For Not Doing Enough To Keep Cleveland Cops From Killing 12-Year-Old Boys
Re: Simple solution
But, it started with a realistic-looking toy that this boy was playing with. A toy that some people thought was real! People would have been less suspicious if the whole thing was orange. It could have even been a real orange gun and people would be much less worried about it until they realize it is real. But people want to feel safe and a gun-wielding person in the streets seems very unsafe. People aren't paranoid enough to consider anything as a possible weapon. Well, not yet anyways...
In this case, the police has an excuse that they thought the weapon was real. It was a fake gun but the only way to know this was by an orange tip, which had been removed. So they shoot, as they have been trained to do! The boy dies but the "dangerous situation" has been resolved.
When you walk around with a gun, you could expect that someone will consider you hostile and they will shoot you before you can shoot them. Even if the gun is fake. By removing any fake weapons from the market that are too realistic, you can avoid this. You can make people less scared of a kid with a toy gun if the gun is bright orange and looks fake. (Yes, even if it is still real!) It is all about perceived threat.
On the post: Police Union Sues Toy Gun Maker For Not Doing Enough To Keep Cleveland Cops From Killing 12-Year-Old Boys
Simple solution
The solution is reasonably simple, and countries like the Netherlands use this solution and are extremely strict with this: Ban all realistic-looking toy guns! Simply put, if you own something that could be mistaken for a real gun then you can be arrested and the toy will be confiscated as evidence and be destroyed. You will get a warning or fine. (Worst case? 9 months imprisonment or €20,900 fine if you have a collection or used it to commit a crime.) But possession of realistic-looking toy weapons is severely discouraged in the Netherlands. So ban the realistic-looking toy weapons and this mistake should never have to happen. The next time a 12-year old will be shot by the police will be because he had a real gun instead. Which is still no excuse to shoot immediately on sight!
On the post: Police To Google: Make Our Site More Secure By Delisting It
Has anyone even looked at this site?
But the page... And the Code... Oh, it hurts my eyes so badly! Quick! Close it, forget it, BURN IT DOWN! I agree with them and this should be DMCA'd because no one should be able to see such ugliness...
It's Geocities all over again...
On the post: Facebook Prude-Patrol Nixes Another Work Of Art By A Feminist, Entirely Proving Her Decades-Old Point
Double standard at Facebook
So, Facebook has no problem with porn, as long as it happens in closed groups...
On the post: Our Response To The Latest Ridiculous Legal Threat Against Us: Milorad Trkulja Can Go Pound Sand
Re:
On the post: Our Response To The Latest Ridiculous Legal Threat Against Us: Milorad Trkulja Can Go Pound Sand
This Milorad Trkulja is totally a c**t!
Trying to get Techdirt plucked
but Milorad Trkulja is totally f***ed.
Well, just sharing my opinion here. A guy who makes these kinds of threats isn't a gangster anyways. He's just a pathetic moron. If he gets shot in the back again, no one would cry about it, I think.
On the post: James Woods Not Allowed To Find Out Name Of Guy Who Called Him A Cocaine Addict On Twitter
Sorry, had to say that. I'll powder my nose now. Woods, wanna join? :P
On the post: Marilyn Monroe Estate Trying To Use Trademark To Enforce Publicity Rights Court Said It Doesn't Have
Huh? What? How can they live in a state when they're dead? Don't you just mean celebrities who died in that state? :)
Next >>