Professional cameras not allowed

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. tony cooper

    Mxsmanic Guest

    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.
     
    Mxsmanic, Sep 11, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. [/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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 11, 2012
    1. Advertisements

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

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 11, 2012
  4. 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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 11, 2012
  5. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    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.
     
    tony cooper, Sep 11, 2012
  6. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    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.
     
    Savageduck, Sep 11, 2012
  7. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    Regarding all of the above.
    Yup!
     
    Savageduck, Sep 11, 2012
  8. [/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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 11, 2012
  9. tony cooper

    Mxsmanic Guest

    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.
     
    Mxsmanic, Sep 11, 2012
  10. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    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.
     
    Savageduck, Sep 11, 2012
  11. tony cooper

    Mort Guest

    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
     
    Mort, Sep 12, 2012
  12. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    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.
     
    PeterN, Sep 12, 2012
  13. tony cooper

    Mxsmanic Guest

    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.
     
    Mxsmanic, Sep 12, 2012
  14. 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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 12, 2012
  15. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    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.
     
    tony cooper, Sep 13, 2012
  16. 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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 14, 2012
  17. [/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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 14, 2012
  18. 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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 14, 2012
  19. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    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.
     
    tony cooper, Sep 16, 2012
  20. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    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.
     
    tony cooper, Sep 16, 2012
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.