OT - photos and copyrights

[Dave Hinz]

Hm, I saw it as a well-crafted and eloquent example of a flame. I think his observations and invitation are correct and appropriate.

[Tom Quackenbush]

I can't afford to bitch about people's spelling, as I make plenty of mistakes myself. I didn't bitch about Swingman's spelling, either. I thought that he might not understand why OE's spell checker offered up "imminent" as a correctly spelled, but wrong, choice, thus my initial post. Apparently, he did understand & therefore my post wasn't useful to him.

R, Tom Q.

[Tom Quackenbush]

I'm well aware that I, and my spelling, are far from perfect. I'm not sure what I said that led you to believe that.

I never complained about your spelling. When you said that OE thought "eminent" was spelled "imminent", I offered an explanation as to how that might happen. Apparently you already knew all about spell checkers and my explanation was of no use to you. Fine. Instead of saying something like, "Yes, Tom, I know how spell checkers work", you gave me a snotty reply. My second post was a snotty reply to your snotty reply. That was a mistake on my part.

Very nice.

R, Tom Q.

[Tom Quackenbush]

I'm a little surprised at your comment, Dave. What did I say that warranted a "go f*ck yourself" reply? Prior to reading your post I thought that maybe "Swingman" misunderstood me or was having a bad day when he wrote that, but maybe it _is_ me. What did I say that was so terrible? I did get a little snide in my second post, but that was in response to his "No shit?!" post. That's no excuse for my reply, but it _was_ a response in kind. I've re-read the whole sub-thread and I'm not seeing where I said anything to warrant that type of response.

I realize that I might be biased in my own favor and would appreciate an objective third party take on why what I said was so bad.

R, Tom Q.

[Swingman]

Let it die ... I apologize for taking you too harshly to task for your reaction to what I considered lighthearted banter on my part. We obviously both misunderstood each other ... it happens, but does not signify, nor should it have long lasting consequences/bitterness.

Have a good fourth.

[Tom Quackenbush]

Done.

Agreed. I'm usually pretty good at lighthearted banter, but I can see where I might have missed it here.

You too.

We're supposed to have sunny and dry weather all weekend up here, which means that I can make some sawdust outside. If you could see the sad state of my basement "workshop", you'd realize what good news that is (and, in Vermont, fairly rare).

R, Tom Q.

[Swingman]

No lack of sunshine here in Houston and it's punishingly hot, especially in a shop with no AC. However, I am determined to take advantage of some hopefully uninterrupted shop time this long weekend and complete the remaining sliding shelves in a new kitchen that has been the victim of procrastination.

Shelves ... should be a piece of cake, but somehow they've taken longer to complete than the cabinets.

[Glen]

The 'right' leaning politicians are hostile to

I can't say I agree with you. To me, it seems that the left is attempting to put limits on my free speech with its move for political correctness. It appears the left is trying to disallow Christians and believers in God from exercising their religious freedom or expression (except if you wish to express positive things about Islam, the left still permits that!) If you consider a crucufix placed in a bottle of urine fine art, then yes, "right" leaning politicians are (and should be) hostile to funding it. Also, can you imagine the uproar if an "artist" put the Koran in a jar of urine. He would be lambasted by the left for not being "sensitive." Yet when one objects to paying with public funds for "art" that displays an anti-Christian messages, that person is labeled a Neanderthal.

The double standard is sickening!

Glen

[fredfighter]

I left free speech out because it is opposed by both 'lefties' and 'righties'. _Some_ 'Lefties' want hate-speech legislation, bans on cross-burning and so on while _some_ 'righties' want to bad flag burning require the pledge of allegience in classrooms etc.

Every part of the (multiaxial) political spectrum seems to have people who some manner of speech based entirely on the speaker's choice of content. This, more than anything else, is why I find the commonplace labeling to be all but insensible.

Yes, people should feel as strongly about a 'Piss Koran' as about a 'Piss Christ'. What I find repugnant are the bigots who feel differently about one than about the other.

[Charlie Self]

A long time ago, I used to get a kick out of various government agencies demanding an oath of loyalty or a statement of lack of support for the goals of various Communist organizations in order to provide college loans, etc. I presume they still do. The idea that a determined Communist, bent on the overthrow of the U.S., would actually lie on taking such an oath seemed beyond the people who set up the requirement. I always figured anyone in a too great rush to sign such oaths might be worth investigating.

What I find really repugnant are the types who bemoan the loss of their religious freedom when what the really mean is my being able to tell them to get off my front stoop and out of my yard with their "messages".

[Peter McCormick]

Sorry,

But current copyright law applies to ALL photographs, and to all other copyright material, regardless of when produced.

[lgb]

I'm not disputing that. I just think that in cases like the one I posted, that law is ridiculous.

And again I ask, aren't "ex post facto" laws unconstitutional?

But of course this isn't a homegrown law, from what I read it's an intenational treaty. It's almost enough to make me an isolationist :-).

[Morris Dovey]

| What I find really repugnant are the types who bemoan the loss of | their religious freedom when what the really mean is my being able | to tell them to get off my front stoop and out of my yard with | their "messages".

The underlying premise for this kind of behavior is an especially ugly bit of vanity that can be summed up as:

"My conscience is better than your conscience."

-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA

[Robert Bonomi]

*MOST* laws are 'ridiculous' with regard to _some_ of the situations to which they apply. :)

Yes, *BUT*...

"Ex post facto" does _not_ include making something which "was allowed" to now be "not allowed".

"Ex post facto" means making it a crime *now*, to _have_done_a_thing_ that it was legal to do when it was done.

If, for example, one had made copies of an old photograph that lacked any copyright claim, *before* the 'Berne Convention' copyright statute revisions, that action would be legal, and those copies _would_ be "legal" copies.

*IF* the copyright law changes had attempted to make one liable for copyright violation _now_, for the act committed *then*, THAT would be an unconstitutional 'ex post facto' situation.

Declaring that, 'from the date of enactment of the new law, and thereafter' that one can _no_longer_ make copies of that photograph without infringing on the copyright rights of the photographer is _not_ 'ex post facto'.

Acts done _prior_ to the enactment of the new law are unaffected.

Acts done _after_ the enactment of the new law are governed by the new law.

[fredfighter]

I suggest you check into the difference between "ex post facto" and "retroactive."

[lgb]

Well, we could go round and round with legalisms, but my contention is that by not stampiong the photos when that was required, the photographer implicitly refused copyright. Now he, or his estate, has been given the copyright. Refusing his refusal?

And I think we've beat this to death. If someone sues me for copying a picture of myself or my kids, I'll let you all know :-).

[Robert Bonomi]

"Not exactly."

First off, he didn't "refuse" anything. He neglected to perform a particular overt act for assertation of certain protections. As a result, _at_that_time_ he did not have the benefit of those protections.

At a later date, the law was changed, so that such protections accrued to the benefit of the photographer -- as of the date of the law revision, and going forward from there -- whether or not he had performed the particular overt action in the past.

Whether or not this was a 'sensible' thing to do is a moot point -- it *is* the way the law is.

I, personally, am of the opinion that the extension of "automatic" copyright protection to pre-existing works for which no copyright was claimed qualifies as a *STUPID* peice of legislation. But, it is on the books, and we have to deal with things on that basis.

[lgb]

No argument there. I just wonder what it'd take to get it changed. Since it apparently stemmed from an international agreement, it'd probably be a lost cause.

[Robert Bonomi]

Without being overly facietious: it would reuqire "an Act of Congress" *grin*

The "Berne Convention" accords did not, as far as I kwow, specify anything about how "previously existing" works were to be treated.

A lot of that push came from Disney & Co. -- they still make "significant" money from works that were produced long enough ago that "pre Berne Convention" copyright protection would have expired about the time the changes in the laws were being considered.

Trying to 're-change' things, to "fix" the original silliness, would merely make the situation worse.