Because the shape of the carrot cake is partially determined by its function as food. The same rule applies to clothing. Copyright restrictions only apply to purely creative works. When a work has functional aspects that can't be separated from its artistic ones, the work is not copyrightable subject matter.
Why this rule. I think it's because for these items, even thought the chef or designer might think them unique, there's only so many ways to arrange food on a plate, it's been done nearly identically at some point in history. Also, as a practical matter, the market for paintings is based on artistic aspects alone, whereas food and clothing still have value outside of their artistic aspects, so the general public doesn't feel it's worth placing copyright restrictions on these items.
It depends on if what you're photographing is copyrightable subject matter. Neither the car nor the plate of food are so you're fine. Even if they were, there's still fair use to consider including the transformativeness test that someone else mentioned.
Copyright is a law. Licensing is a specific agreement between two parties, usually to achieve some state of affairs other than what would result from the law alone. They have nothing to do with each other.
For example when you buy software, the law gives you certain rights, but you might then choose to sign a license that gives some of those rights back to the software publisher. That's another thing. Copyright, being a law, is automatic, whereas licenses are always voluntary.
This is the problem with using the phrase "intellectual property". It gulls people into believing they have more rights than they actually do. Legally speaking, there is no such thing as intellectual property. There is only copyright, and plates of food aren't copyrightable.
Now, technically, these states are on reasonably firm legal ground, even if they're on completely illogical common sense ground. While US copyright law is clear that works of the federal government are not covered by copyright, that's not the case for state or local governments.
Even if though they're not excepted from copyright, I wonder how this would stand up to the question of copyrightability. Statements of facts are not copyrightable, so I'm wondering if that would be the most logical defense in this case.
Also, notice how many items in the grocery store are labeled "All Natural". They do that because while it conjures up a nice image for you, unlike labels such as "Organic", the word "natural" has no regulation whatsoever by the Food and Drug Administration. Any edible product at all can be labeled "All Natural" without running afoul of the law.
Modern processed food is complete crap. As fewer and fewer people cook for themselves, the less questions they think to ask about what they're putting in their mouths. Did you know the majority of the money you pay for a box of corn flakes goes to advertising? Did you know ingredients used in "processing" are never included on the ingredient label even though they end up in the food? You might also think simple produce items aren't processed, but many of them from cuts of raw meat to heads of broccoli have been soaked in acid. The acid improves the shelf life but the taste and nutrition suffers. Hope your not one of the growing number of people allergic to these chemicals. Don't bother asking the store. The long supply chain in today's food market ensures the store knows next to nothing about what's actually in the food their selling. Meat is often treated with carbon monoxide to make it look fresher. The modern food industry is all about deceiving the consumer.
I doubt that it's really possible today to go the other direction. Even if one country reverted to having a much smaller central government through a violent upheaval, it would eventually be conquered or absorbed by one of the remaining countries with a much stronger government. To truly go backwards, it would have to happen on a global scale, but what's the point since the size and scope of government will just naturally increase again?
I agree. The real question we should be asking is if we are getting good value (in terms of lost liberty and monetary costs) for the security measures we have. For example I think the TSA is a complete waste of money and turns air travel into a humiliating experience but I'm perfectly fine with having to drive on the right side of the road instead of it being a choice.
While we're at it, let's tackle the notion that more laws passed = better legislature. I figure if the laws weren't crap to begin with, they wouldn't need to rewrite them so often. It's certainly not a given that the more new laws passed the better, usually the opposite is true when it comes to technology. Sorry of going off topic.
Good question. What about increasing the delay from when the light turns red and the light for the cross street turn green? I'm sure when faced with these choices, the revenue generating aspect of the cameras will factor in.
I don't believe that anyone would intentionally run a red light, at least not after it has been red for a few seconds and the cross traffic has started to move. I can only imagine that those people must have gotten distracted and not seen the red light at all. Wouldn't the cameras have no effect then? Maybe the thought of the tickets sits in the back of people's mind and raises their alertness around intersections. Not saying it actually works, just a theory.
How can that be? There would be a large area before the intersection where it would be theoretically impossible for you not to go through an amber light, even if you were going less than the speed limit. For example, if you were driving 55 mph on a wet road and the light turned yellow, you would need to be at least 350 feet away from the intersection to have a chance of stopping in time.
Yes, it really is when you consider that something like 70+ percent of red light citations are issued for not stopping long enough (whatever that means) while turning right on red. Most of the rest of them are for violations that occur less than half a second after the light changes. That may be a technical violation but it is not dangerous because traffic on the other side won't be moving yet.
I can see why this could be dangerous. It's not the traffic that's stopped. If you're making a right-on-red, there could be pedestrians in the crosswalk. If you're rushing to turn before the other traffic goes you're not going to be paying as much attention to the crosswalk and will be more likely to hit someone.
Actually, the article doesn't say the opposite. It says the number of accidents have increased. That's the only statistic it mentions. The quote from AC says they have reduced the running of red lights.
Most of the referenced studies show a reduction in injuries by around 30%. Focusing on the number of accidents misses the most important part of the story. The point of the cameras is not to reduce accidents but to reduce injuries. Intellectually honest observers can see the difference between these two measurements.
I've been waiting for more products like this to come out.
We had red light cameras here in Houston, TX. Instead of a photo, it recorded about 5 seconds worth of video which they send you as part of the ticket. I'm sure you could have the video reviewed by the court if you wanted to contest it. Maybe it doesn't work this way everywhere but an officer reviews the videos and decides whether or not to send a ticket. The cameras were eventually removed by a ballot initiative.
Statistics are tricky things. People read that the cameras have increased accidents and conclude that they're reducing safety. But are all accidents equal? If you only look at those accidents involving injury, the cameras have actually reduced those accidents. It's pretty obvious what's happening. People are stopping quickly to avoid the tickets which is increasing the number of rear-end collisions. At the same time, the number of T-bone collisions have gone down since people are more aware of the lights, leading to less serious injuries.
please correct me (in a non-longwinded fashion) if I'm wrong
A MAC can be changed, but Amazon has no idea what yours is. The account is most likely tied to a combination of your email, name, credit card, and postal address. Change enough of those and they won't know it's you.