Professional cameras not allowed

Something in the public domain does not have a license, nor does it need one.
Anyone can do anything with it. That's what public domain means.

 

[/QUOTE]

I was describing your situation.

"More than I can afford to pay". Say, Kellog's "Corn Pops Cereal,
12.5-Ounce Packages (Pack of 4)" (costs according to amazon.com
$10.17 currently) for $350 instead.

Oh, and no chance of another maker being any cheaper, if
available at all.

I also get physical goods, which are --- short of a Star Trek
replicator --- rather hard to duplicate for free. Whereas an
idea can be duplicated quite cheaply. The whole Internet is
a huge idea duplication machine. So are the printing press,
the radio and television.

Sure, you do have setup costs, and often need electricity and
mainenance is really not free, but the cost per MB, the cost
per idea is really low, and the cost is shared over very very
many shoulders.

Not that you'll get the wrong idea: I'm all for allowing those
who are creative to be able to live from their creativity.
That's just healthy self-interest in my case.

As to patents: They are harming creativity in at least the areas
I am intimate with. The patent system, like copyright, isn't
there to support any businesses. It's there so that society,
as a whole, wins, due to more creativity overall and all the
creativity being freely available (after some time) to everyone.

I propose that that goal is not being met any more in at least
some areas.

Well, TRY to build something that is partially patented and give
it away for free. Like the apples you'd surely give to your
better neighbours.

Must be because I don't have "much the same problem [as in a
patent-boobytrapped field] when buying groceries".


Me:
| So your "Usually they do - under specified conditions" is to be
| read as "If you're lucky, you'll get a license and don't go broke
| paying for it".

You:
| I have much the same problem when buying groceries.

Hmmm. I wasn't aware that NZ was *that* bad when it comes to
buying groceries. How did it become that way?

-Wolfgang

 

I see. Licenses do not matter, everything is PD.

-Wolfgang

 

Well, if it's a criminal trial and the defendant is an
adolescent, the costs may be eaten by the state. Or if
someone started the case with e.g. false accusations, they
might have to pay.

Can't afford going to a lawyer? You'll be helped.

If you settle and agree to split the costs (or admit complete
defeat), then you may have to pay, yes. Same as in court.

If you drop the case --- well, don't unless you know how to
recoup your costs.

Still, if you can't afford it, you'll be helped. Equality before
the law also means that not having enough money won't exclude
your legal rights. And that's not just going to court.

-Wolfgang

 

The point of the discussion is a civil case involving trademark and
copyright issues. What the hell does a criminal trial have to do with
this?

A party can sue another party, in civil court, for bringing a
frivolous lawsuit. However, the suing party will be responsible for
legal costs unless the lawyer takes the case on a contingent basis.

Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
of a settlement or of winning the case. There's no reason the lawyer
should spend his/her time and money to pursue a case with no return to
the lawyer.

By whom? Public defenders take criminal cases, not civil cases.

Some lawyers take cases pro bono, but a lawyer isn't going to take a
case unless there's a strong possibility of winning or unless his/her
client is willing and able to foot the bill.

The best that can be hoped for is that some group - like the American
Civil Liberties Union - takes on the case. What group has enough
interest in overturning Pebble Beach's right to trademark and
copyright protection?

By whom?

That pertains primarily to criminal cases, not civil cases. The civil
cases where this comes into play are cases are deprivation of civil
rights in some form.

A person objecting to Pebble Beach's trademark and copyright
protection has to show they've been damaged to have a viable case.
The person can't just say "I want to use this and I don't want to pay
for it". There must be demonstrable damage. The person must also
show that they have attempted to mitigate any damage.

What damage is there here?

Who is your legal advisor? Whoever it is, fire him/her.

 

Not in a Civil case in the US, perhaps in Germany. Perhaps an
"ambulance chaser" prepared to take your case on contingency, but don't
hold your breath on that happening.

That is going to depend on the arrangement you have with your attorney.
Remember there are no Court appointed attorneys in Civil cases.

There is a difference in dropping the case and reaching an agreement to settle.

In a criminal case, yes. In a civil case, no.

In a Civil case, if you find an attorney who is prepared to work for a
contingency fee, you might have a fair chance of having him be enough
of a PITA to reach a settlement agreement, but he is going to get his
chunk of that settlement before you see one cent.
....and he is only likely to take you on if he sees a way to a
settlement, whether you are right or wrong. He knows that as soon as
you step into a Court room you are gambling, and you might not have
what it takes to support your case once it goes to trial.

....er, yes, and no.

In the US you have Constitutional Rights specified in the Bill of
Rights with permit you due process in criminal cases where you are
protected from self incrimination by being given the opportunity to
STFU, and to have access to legal representation to help you STFU and
lead your defense. This is not going to happen in a Civil trial.

In a Civil case where your freedom is not in jeopardy, you are going to
have to find your own way to your perception of justice.

 

Regarding all of the above.
Yup!

 

[/QUOTE]

So basically if your employer does not pay you and you don't
have money, you're screwed?

As I said, it seems the US law system is broken. And "ambulance
chaser" lawyers are just another aspect of how it's broken.

That's going to depend on the arrangement you make with your
opponent.

And that means you can't have a lawyer in civil cases if you
don't have money? Did I mention the US law system seems broken?

Yes. But dropping a case is voluntary.

Again, the US law system seems broken.

.... broken.

.... broken.

You are poor (e.g. a welfare recipient) and have a problem that
could be a civil case. Say your last boss, who fired you, still
owes you a couple hundred dollar? What are you supposed to do?
Bend over and enjoy it?

Yep, so he who has money will win against him who has none.
So what's to stop someone with money to stiff people without for
small sums no contingency lawyer would find interesting?

-Wolfgang

 

No. But the Wikipedia photo of the Lone Cypress is public domain, because the
photographer released it into the public domain. Which means that anyone can
use it for anything.

 

The author (photographer) would probably have been better advised to
release that image under Creative Commons Noncommercial, rather than
Public Domain, simply because the author's use was non-commercial, but
subsequent users might not be. CCNC is more specific in addressing
commercial use in violation of prior agreements.
< http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.en_US >

He has tried to cover himself by adding the following:
"I the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public
domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this might not be
legally possible; if so:
I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any
conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

This is a piece of babbling double speak from the author.
Basically he has said "I release this work to the public domain, except
where conditions for this release might be required by law, and I can't
actually release it."

The bottom line is this photographer might well have released his work
to PD in error, when he should have used CCNC, but ignorance with
regard to the way some Wikipedia entries and submissions should be made
and are actually made, are often quite messy.

 

Hi,

Some years ago, I had the opposite effect. My wife and I were visiting
Carcassone, France, and were near the courtyard of the old castle. They
were shooting a French period movie, with people in costumes plus ducks
and cows, and swordsmen scaling the walls and fighting each other. My
wife had a simple camera,and was denied permission to enter. I was
carrying 2 SLR bodies plus a large case filled with lenses, motor drive,
etc. and I was waved right in. They probably thought that I was a
professional photographer, and not the traveler that I was.

Incidentally, I could not find any Kodachrome there, and had to use
Agfachrome, but its brownish earthy colors went very well with the
subject matter.

You win some and lose some. That day, I won.

Mort Linder

 

It's even more simplistic.
If I gave Tony Cooper your Mercedes, he would not own it. I can only
transfer those rights that I have, and I have no ownership rights to
your Benz.

 

It doesn't matter. Public domain is public domain. Once it is released to the
public domain, anyone can do anything with it.

Now, presumably the PBC could prohibit a photographer from releasing his photo
to the public domain explicitly ... but it cannot prohibit the entry of that
photo into the public domain when copyright expires. So, no matter what PBC
puts in its visitor agreements or contracts, ultimately it cannot prevent
people from obtaining good photos of the tree and doing what they want with
it. It's as simple as that.

He has not only tried, he has succeeded. And the text is Wikipedia
boilerplate, not his own words. The image is now in the public domain, and
there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

What that text means is that in some countries he may not be able to release
all rights to the public domain, such as so-called moral rights (which don't
exist in the United States). But in the U.S. this does not apply, so the image
is fully in the public domain.

No, it's in the public domain now, and that's that. He is perfectly within his
rights to release the image to the public domain, and it's irrevocable. He's
not the ignorant one.

 

The "loser does not pay the cost" cases.

So I can sue you frivously as long as I'm known not to settle
and the case is not crystal clear, if you are poor. And if
you win, you'll loose what the courts grant you in damages to
your own lawyer. Isn't that fun?

By the state. At least *here*.

To paraphrase you:
What the hell does a criminal case have to do with this?

Well, and there we are ... *here* you can get counsel and a
lawyer, if the case is winnable.

Yep, they have copyright on a tree, and on every photograph
you shoot on their premises.

Did I mention the US law system seems broken?

By the state.

That pertains to *all* cases. It might not be practiced in the
US in order to allow the rich to ride roughshod over the poor.

Having to pay for something that you're free by the law to use
without pay would constitute damage. Not being allowed to make
money by your own works would also constitue money.

And since any painting or carving or model of some salt- and
wind-formed single cypress on a rocky shore seem to be affected
.... even if it's a different tree, or off a PD photo or completely
invented by the artist. At least that's what I've read in
this thread.

"I said I would not pay extortionists and blackmailers. I also
made shure I was not bound by any contractual law with PBC,
by never entering any agreement with them, including entering
their property."

Hereby I order you to pay me 1 cent every time you use the
letter 'e' or 'E' or any letter with a similarly looking glyph.
What's the damage? None, right? You just need to learn how to
live without the letter 'e'. It's possible! See here for proof:
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp37063

Thanks, I'll take that advice:
"tony cooper", you're fired! No more legal advice from you!

-Wolfgang

 

Just like you to mouth off about something you don't know about. A
wages dispute would be handled by mediation if the state in which the
parties live has some sort of state agency for employment claims. Or,
it would be brought in Small Claims Court where neither side can bring
an attorney.

Small Claims Court have a maximum amount that can be sued for of
between $3,000 and $5,000 depending on the state. The fee for filing
can range between $75 and $300, depending on the state, and the loser
of the case pays the filing fees.

If there's a wages dispute over the Small Claims Court maximum, either
the wronged party sues for the maximum or files a civil case in
regular court. Most wages disputes fit within the max, though.

"Ambulance chasers" are not a fault of US law, but a fault of the Bar
Association, in my opinion. An ambulance chaser is an attorney who
specializes in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death and solicits those
cases through an agent. The law does, and should provide, redress
for losses due to injury and wrongful death, but the Bar should
prohibit the solicitation of those case and the inflation of losses.

What's wrong with that? Who works without compensation? Actually,
both receive their share of the judgement/settlement at the same time
but the check goes to the lawyer. The lawyer takes the percentage/fee
off the top just as you agreed for him to do when you hired him/her.

No, you take him to Small Claims Court where neither of you is allowed
an attorney.

Small Claims Court. All US states have them.

 

And what would be the problem with that?

Do you suggest the photographer must not have wanted that someone
might use his works for commecial use --- a trivial example being
selling a printed excerpt of Wikipedia?

And then it wouldn't have been in Wikipedia. That's only good
for the PBC and not for anyone else.

No, basically this says: "I release this work to the public domain,
except that in some countries there are rights you cannot yield
copyright, therefore there I give you all the rights needed to use,
copy and change it."

Germany being one prime example where you *cannot* relinquish
(nor sell) copyright except by being dead for 70 years. You can
sell usage rights, or give them away.

The bottom line is you can't believe someone would release his
works as PD, since the someone else could make MONEY with them.

-Wolfgang

 

[/QUOTE]

There's a reason for the question mark and for the "seems" I
continue to use.

The Small Claims Court is probably a bandaid on the system.

Which I understand might be strictly forbidden in some states as
"court shopping" ...

Which means again you need money to get money.

It's allowing lawyers to be paid on success instead of on work,
giving them a part of the damages paid.

And that the amount of damages seem at least in some areas an
order of magnitude too high.

Suppose businesses would pay employees a part of the sales
volume instead of a regular salary.

Suppose attorneys would be paid by the case, based on the
size of damages and a difficulty factor ...

He *is* a lawyer. Lucky you, no chance to get on equal footing.

And you still need a lawyer to know your rights. The court can
certainly tell you "no", but rarely it'll be able to tell you
"take him to court over X and Y as well".

-Wolfgang

 

We have long departed from that issue.

But if you like, yes, the US law system seems broken when you
need serious money to assert your rights.

Me: rich, you: poor.

And same for a non-frivolous case, right?

| Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
| of a settlement or of winning the case.

Try to read enough to understand the context.


[must pay the lawyer]

Assume my objective is not making money but making your life
difficult.

As I said: you're fired.

Yes, it's a common spelling mistake and I am prone to it.

I thought it being mentioned so often that that's dommon
knowledge.

Nonsense cases aren't paid for, nor are they paid if you
could pay the money.

But getting representation and advice doesn't depend on you
having money.

Let's see ... wasn't it
| Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
| of a settlement or of winning the case.
? Are you sure there's no difference between a case that has
a chance to win and one where such a thing (or settlement) is
*absolutely* sure?

Oh, and you did imply there must be enough money in the case to
interest the lawyer.

That's an open secret.

The single states of the Federation.

Well, it only covers costs if you couldn't cover them yourself,
so it's not ridiculous. It's the logical and clear consequence
that the law and your rights shouldn't depend on you having money.

The idea that that only should be true when your freedom is in
danger is prima facie ridiculous.

As to unbelievable:
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/berathig/BJNR006890980.html
You may need to consult a bilingual lawyer here.

Where do I assume the rich (suing or being sued) won't have the
money to hire a lawyer?

Oh, then probably
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/damages
don't understand it as well.

Are you sure any license at any cost will never constitute
damage, even if the license was bought under duress ("we'll
sue you till you're broke, and yes, we own the courts") ---
as you can just set the price to include the fee?

Are you sure if your legal rights are restricted that's also
no damage?

So who is your lawyer, Mr. Fool?

-Wolfgang

 

What's your basis for that statement? Just mouthing off again about
something you don't understand?

You understand incorrectly. No one is required to use Small Claims
Court, so suing in any court venue is permissible.

What you are thinking of is "judge shopping", and that's something
done by the lawyer and usually in a criminal case. If there's a law
against it in any state, I'm unaware of it. It's just part of the
strategy.

If you have just cause to sue, and a reasonable expectation of
winning, a contingency agreement puts money in your pocket.

It's also allowing clients without money to successfully bring suit.
Lawyers don't have success if they don't perform the work.

I agree with that, but you are taking two conflicting positions: that
the contingency arrangement is wrong, and that the contingency
arrangement that results in too large of an award is wrong.

That's common. It's called "commissions". Before I started my own
company, I worked as a salesman on straight commission for several
years and was very successful doing so. When I started my own
company, the salesmen I hired were paid on straight commission.
They were well compensated.

Some companies pay a base salary plus commissions and some pay
straight commission based on sales. In my case, both as an employee
and as an employer, it was straight commission with a weekly draw
against commissions.

Of course you do. The award is based on the facts presented. If you
can show you worked, and that you were not paid, you win. If he can't
show canceled checks or some other proof he paid you, he loses.

Small Claims Court is the most fact-based aspect of our legal system.
There's no jury, just a judge or other court-appointed official.
There's no dramatic courtroom bullshit. The plaintiff is required
only to show that the preponderance of the evidence is in his favor.

Legal Aid has offices in most major cities and are usually located in
poorer neighborhoods. They provide free legal advice. They don't
provide lawyers to go to court, but they will inform you about the
law. Once again, you are mouthing off about a system you evidently
know nothing about.

 

No, because in the non-frivolous case a lawyer would take it on
contingency.

You have an inflated sense of your own importance. If you've
mentioned it, I haven't noticed or retained that information. I
really only scan your posts and notice when you make some outrageously
mistaken comment.

Yes, I'm sure. There is no case that is absolutely winnable.

Another word you don't understand the legal meaning of: duress.