Maybe I'm missing something, but I think he meant the photograph itself has the copyright, not the actual artwork.
I can take a picture of a tree and copyright the photo I took, but the tree itself has no copyright.
Not in the U.S. Southern District of New York (but broadly accepted, yet unchallenged, in the rest of the country). Bridgeman vs. Corel ruled that reproductions of old work are not eligible for copyright because of the lack of originality.
I think Mike is forgetting the National Portrait Gallery vs. Wikipedia issue of about a year ago when (a user of) Wikipedia did the same thing. He published high resolution reproductions which the gallery said violated their copyright. And, I think the conclusion was that it might in the UK. But it clearly doesn't in the U.S. Is it stupid? Yes. But so is much of copyright law. Luckily on this point the U.S. is better.
(And I think it's not even contested that our copyright law starts at time of publishing, not creation, so I think the first point is straight forward--as long as they really are being published for the first time.)
What Adam Wasserman is half right, I think. The driving example is bad since driving laws aren't a Constitutional issue, clearly. I do think there are some foreign laws that need to be followed even if they wouldn't stand in U.S. courts. But, the problem with this is the internet. If you publish something online and a British court fines you it's pretty clearly problematic that you have to pay especially if you had no specific intention of publishing it for British people.
Ross Nicholson has a point about consumer protections but I don't exactly think libel law is where you enforce that.
Speed cameras can improve safety. The key is making sure governments use them to improve safety and not for revenue. The problem with politics in Baltimore is when you try to lower the speed limit on a road into the city that richer suburbanites use they will complain about it. Speed traps are bad. Speed limit enforcement is good. Now if only people could see nuance on this issue.
No. That is not a reason to examine the students, it's a reason to examine the evidence that they have presented (of which their grades are irrelevant). If there was a problematic transfer of money then the prosecutor should be looking into that, of course, but that is not about the personal lives of the students, that is about fact finding on the case. If the students did something illegal such as coercing/bribing a witness to change testimony then you deal with that as a separate legal case. Looking for personal information is intimidation and should not be (and probably isn't) allowed.
Compared to the iPhone interface I really like WebOS. Notifications and better menus are the main reason for this. I really like being able to see that someone has texted/IMed/e-mailed me without having to interact with it. I like being able to open multiple programs at once if I need to. I don't like the lag... and that lag is not only when multiple programs are open it's just how the phone is--no idea if it's poorly coded WebOS or the hardware.
I think the best point of the post is that if Palm and WebOS don't have a big enough audience then no one will make applications for the OS. It doesn't matter of it's good or not. All of the 'smartphones' have too many drawbacks for me as it is but the final OS I get hopefully will have nice notifications like WebOS and good integration of online contacts rather than the iPhones rather clumsy style.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by gren.