My husband has an old ticket from the Daytona 500 (probably about 8 years ago) and it does indeed have a disclaimer on the back of the ticket, but that disclaimer (the way I read it) doesn't mean you turn over your copyright to photos/videos you take, it simply means they can use your likeness (ie: a photo of your, or a video of your) in any way they choose. A quote from the back of a Daytona ticket:
[Holder irrevocably grants to Daytona International Speedway and its assigns, licensees, affiliates and successors the right to use Holder's image, likeness, voice, actions and/or statements in all forms and media including advertising, trade, or any commercial purpose throughout the world and in perpetuity. Holder hereby waives any and all claims that holder may have for libel, defamation, invasion of privacy or right of publicity, infringement of copyright or violation of any other right arising out of or relating to any utilization of Holder's image as described herein.]
[where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground.]
So I wonder if a balloon and gondola tethered to the ground fits that description?
Otherwise, Google Maps will be utilizing some really big cranes if they want visuals for the maps.
How taking aerial photos of something is considered a criminal offense is beyond me. It's okay to stand in the street and take a snapshot of the house, but not okay to do it from the air...hmmmm. A shot of your house front from the street is likely to reveal as much or more than aerial view would.
[People are driven by what they know. They are always slow to change. If you don't know that I am sorry. ]
And this makes it Google's fault because people are slow? If you don't know that people are responsible for their own actions, then I am sorry about that, but people need to learn something called "responsibility" ... have it. Use it. It's good.
[I can tell you from years of experience that people are not even sure what the address bar is.]
That's true. I know lots of them too. However, it is their own fault for not exercising their own choice to learn or to drown on the web. It isn't Google's responsibility (nor anyone else's) to force netintelligence on them either.
My dad always told me "if you don't know how it works, learn. If you don't want to learn, don't use it."
My dad didn't even finish grade 8, but he was a smarter man than most guys I know who finished university.
If Monsanto didn't actually want people to plant seeds from these plants, why wouldn't they make them sterile or at least engineer them to prevent them producing viable seed? A lot of hybrid garden plants (not edible) won't produce seed that's viable.
Oh ... that's probably because they want to sell all the seed themselves to farmers so they still need plants that actually produce usable seed.
I see no correlation at all between a seed patent and software - they're about as far apart as the ocean and the stars.
[Whenever I hear these silly corporate names invoked with sanctimonious awe, I imagine Dipsy, Laa-Laa, Po, and Tinky-Winky singing their hit single “Teletubbies say ‘Eh-oh’ ” as they shake the change out of some two-year-old’s pocket.]
I guess it's not surprising that he actually knows who the teletubbies are, and what they sound like.
[It's that his masturbatorial (like an "editorial," only more self-serving) rant projects an egomaniacal picture of the Publisher/Writer/Journalist as the Savior of Culture.]
I'll save my own culture interests thanks ... I don't think I need the editor of Harper's for that cause, well you know - I can find it on the web anywhere.
I actually had to go and look at Harper's to see what they publish. I wouldn't pay for that ... on the other hand, I might pay for TechDirt if it came right down to it.
Oh get a grip. I was not born into any sort of "riches", but I totally agree with the whining and silly aspects of this.
Just because these bloggers can't deal with the fact that they agreed to the terms when they signed up isn't HuffPo's fault, nor should the courts have to deal with it wasting tax payers time and money.
They aren't now and never were entitled to any share of the profits of the site they wrote for, particularly when they agreed to blog for free.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
[but if you're suggesting that the tendency of the younger generations is "ignore laws and do whatever I want",]
I'm suggesting that ignoring laws can lead to anarchy. So right now, it's the red light and copyright?
Which both seem pretty minor, I agree.
But the concept of ignoring laws is not likely to stop there. The "we want what we want" mentality isn't confined to the younger set either, but they do embrace it a lot quicker than old fogies like me.
I'm saying that doing anything the wrong way (such as trying to get poorly written laws like copyright changed) can lead to chaos. It isn't about the fact that it's copyright laws, but more about choosing methods for change, or to try and bring about change.