@davey: That's why smart people READ contracts before signing them. The contract photographers use has been around for years. You pay them for their time, expenses and studio but you DON'T own their copyrights unless you negotiate that separately. I remember asking about it when they took my graduation photos many years ago.
This is a good lesson. If someone, for example, one day wanted to lead a country (God forbid), or be a heartbeat away from leading a country, it would be recommended for that person (or her staff) to be able to read and understand a contract.
This could have been Ms. Palin negotiating the surrender of the USofA to [insert enemy here]. Thank [insert deity here] that she just F'ed up a photo shoot.
@jon day: The difference is that every photograph, work of art, sculpture, etc is automatically copyrighted when it is created, whereas a commercial slogan or symbol is not. Registering the copyrights gives you more options under the law, but you own the copyright as soon as you snap the shutter.
Anyone publishing any photo, especially one that is obviously professionally done, should have the good sense to ask who owns the copyright and secure permission to use it.
It sounds like Palin's office was too stupid to negotiate proper terms with the photographer they hired.
The photographer is completely within his rights to be paid for the use of his work, and we've seen that ugly mug around enough to suspect he should be paid quite handsomely. The image in question is obviously a professionally-shot portrait and any editor should know enough to ask who owns the copyright when publishing it.
The real case for the courts to decide is whether Palin's people should be the ones paying or the end users, who were probably led to believe they were allowed to use the photo.
Techdirt writes a lot of good things about the abuses of copyright and trademark law. This article isn't one of them.
I can assure you that Lindsay Lohan was not on our minds while shooting. We were mostly concerned with which talent would sit still under the lights without screaming and give us something that we could use between crying fits (which is probably a lot like working with Ms. Lohan, come to think of it.)
Thank jebus I am low enough on the call sheet to not have to worry about milkoholics filing lawsuits.
I am as anti-DRM as the next guy, but the encryption and rights management built into D-cinema motion picture distribution is actually a benefit to all involved.
The National Association of Theatre Owners publishes a set of Digital Cinema System Requirements that address equipment interoperability and compatibility. If some theatre in buttfuck nowhere can't unlock their copy of Avatar, they are either not following the standards or they are not legally allowed to screen the movie at that time.
D-cinema distribution allows digitally perfect copies of films to be distributed to theatres on $60 hard drives instead of $2000-$5000 film prints. Each time a D-cinema package is projected, it 'phones home' to ensure that the particular theatre is authorized to project that film at that time. This enables studios to control when films are released in various markets, to accurately bill exhibitors only for the number of actual screenings, and (presumably) to watermark each screening to track piracy. If a copy is lost or stolen they can simply disable that copy.
D-cinema DRM is not at all comparable to the horrendous controls people try to place on consumer media. Digital theatres invest in millions of dollars worth of gear to project digital movies and DRM has been part of it from the beginning. In fact, D-cinema encryption is probably the only reason digital exhibition is allowed by the studios to exist. This is not some poor schmuck who can't watch his iTunes movie because he isn't connected to the Internet. Digital cinema systems are designed from the ground up to be rights managed and net-connected.
For moviegoers, D-cinema allows us to see films with the picture quality and sound the creators intended, to always view a perfect 'print' without scratches and sound pops, and to (maybe someday) benefit from the reduced costs to theatres and distributors.
D-cinema and the DCI Standard are examples of DRM with a purpose and it works very well.
Yup. I suspect The North Face is most concerned with the graphical treatment of South Butt's logo. It is substantially similar, and while very clever in its humor, would be enough to make most lawyers salivate.
Actually, many filesharers are simply upgrading content they already own. Maybe when I ripped my copy of The Cars 4 years ago I didn't see the benefit of lossless compression. Do I dig my CD out of storage and re-rip it or do I simply download a lossless FLAC someone else has made?
And yes, I actually HAVE personally handed a $10 bill to a band whose CD I downloaded.
What we need is for a smart, nimble and innovative company to set up shop and start running fiber into our homes. The New Brunswick government is giving Aliant telecom $60 million to do it, and they say they can wire every home in 2 cities for $857 per home.
I know that I would happily pay $857 or more to have an unlimited pipe coming into my home, and I would pay for the privilege of using as much real bandwidth as I wanted! Some months I might only use a few gigs, other months I would use hundreds. Just like electricity, water, and gas I would pay for what I use from an unlimited supply.
I'm curious how many others would pay to free their homes from the clutches of Bell and Rogers. Resident-owned fiber to the home is the solution. Imagine real competition for your telephone, Internet and TV service!
On another note, when I cancelled my Rogers Internet service last year, they asked why I was canceling and I told them it was completely because of the throttling. They pretended not to know what I was talking about, and their computers didn't have a 'check box' for that, so I made them put a note on my account explaining in detail how displeased I was. Unfortunately I went to Bell, who started throttling soon after I joined, after promising me that they had no plans to ever do so and would never do such a thing.
I still don't understand why people continue to accept emails as legal and proper communications from corporate lawyers. Reply with a bounce message. Make them do some actual WORK if they want to be idiots!