Kaemaril 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (56) comment rss

  • On the post: Failure To Obtain Warrants Results In Suppression Of Evidence In Two Child Porn Cases

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 22 Dec, 2014 @ 04:20pm

    So, any bets on whether the government will try to push this up to the Supreme Court on some made-up excuse for why they totally didn't screw things up?

  • On the post: UK Teacher Shows Student's Swimsuit Photo From Facebook To Class Assembly To Teach Her A Lesson

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2014 @ 02:06am

    Re:

    There's no "fair use" but there is "fair dealing", and other exceptions, and it's entirely possible the use of a photograph in these circumstances could be valid, albeit stupid.

    https://www.gov.uk/exceptions-to-copyright

  • On the post: English Premier League Apparently Wants Fans To Hate It Even More: Threatens To Pull Down Vines And Animated GIFs

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 16 Aug, 2014 @ 11:49am

    We may not have "fair use" but we do have "fair dealing", which is unfortunately a lot more restrictive than "fair use".

  • On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2014 @ 02:04pm

    Re: monkey selfie??????

    The article specifically stated that "hundreds" of photographs were taken. It's not unusual for one or two to be focused well out of a sea of badly focused shots.

    By the way, why on Earth would this guy even try at this point to claim that he, not the monkey, took the photo?

    1) It ruins the selling power of the photo. Suddenly it's gone from '1 in a million shot' to 'Meh, it's an OK picture of a monkey.'

    2) It's devastating to any possible credibility should this ever go to court. 'So, Mr. Photographer, for many many years you've claimed that you should have the copyright on this photograph that you claimed a monkey took. Now, when it's quite convenient to your case, you claim that actually it was you that took the shot. Tell me, have you been lying for the last few years or are you lying now? Why should the jury believe a word you say?'

  • On the post: Amtrak Thinks 'Sharing' Your Photo Means Giving Up Any And All Rights In Perpetuity

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2014 @ 10:12am

    Re: It's more an ambush than an assignment of copyright

    To which, they presumably point to their agreement ...

    "Photographer agrees to execute all papers and to perform such other proper acts, as Amtrak may deem necessary or desirable to secure for Amtrak the rights herein granted, assigned and/or transferred. "

    And say, "Right, we require you to transfer your copyright in writing, as agreed."

    At which point, hopefully, everyone would laugh in their face and tell them they'd see them in court, but there could be some people out there intimidated enough by the legalese ...

  • On the post: Amtrak Thinks 'Sharing' Your Photo Means Giving Up Any And All Rights In Perpetuity

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2014 @ 09:38am

    Re:

    I've read a few. Generally, they say by agreeing to host the photo you give them a permanent non-exclusive right to reproduce your photo as they see fit, blah blah.

    I've yet to see any which flat out say "You agree to transfer your copyright", which is what the Amtrak terms are doing.

    But maybe I've been looking in the wrong places.

  • On the post: FBI Thinks Driverless Cars Could Be Criminals' New Best Friends

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2014 @ 04:24am

    Re: Re:

    Oh, you think that's bad? Some people had more drastic measures in mind in the early 20th century ...

    Proposed Rules of the FARMERS' ANTI-AUTOMOBILE SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA ( from http://www.vmcca.org/bh/aaa.html ):

    "1. Automobiles traveling on country roads at night must send up a rocket every mile, then wait ten minutes for the road to clear. The driver may then proceed, with caution, blowing his horn and shooting off Roman candles, as before.

    2. If the driver of an automobile sees a team of horses approaching, he is to stop, pulling over to one side of the road, and cover his machine with a blanket or dust cover which is painted or colored to blend into the scenery, and thus render the machine less noticeable.

    3. In case a horse is unwilling to pass an automobile on the road, the driver of the car must take the machine apart as rapidly as possible and conceal the parts in the bushes."

    Good job those suggestions never made it into the statute book :)

  • On the post: FBI Thinks Driverless Cars Could Be Criminals' New Best Friends

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2014 @ 04:15am

    I think the FBI are secretly worried somebody might be building the Knight Automated Roving Robot :)

  • On the post: Blogger Defends Outing Politician Trolling His Comments

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2014 @ 03:09am

    Anonymity?

    Does the blog actually guarantee true anonymity? I must admit I didn't dig too deeply into the site after I read their 'About' (not a good layout, imho), but all I could see was the usual Wordpress 'Name, email (which we don't disclose)' bit. I don't know if that's supposed to constitute a guarantee of full anonymity or whether that's just designed to stop people trawling for e-mail addresses ...

  • On the post: Digital First Media Lawyer Orders Blogger To Take Down And 'Return' Memo Listing Names Of Staff Members To Be Fired

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 30 Jun, 2014 @ 04:31pm

    An appropriate response -

    "Dear Mr. Bralow,

    With regard to your recent demand, which we have carefully studied for the full five seconds it deserved, our response is as follows:

    No.

    Regards,

    Mr. Romenesko"

  • On the post: Courtroom Staff, Freaked Out By FBI Agents, Failed To Record Important Terrorism Court Hearing

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2014 @ 12:58am

    Re:

    Sure it does.

    The unhidden microphone is the one they can control, so they can switch it off when they're discussing uber-secret stuff, or discussing things off the record.

    Hidden microphones, they can't control.

  • On the post: Michael Robertson Challenges Ruling That Says He Has To Pay Over $40 Million For Copyright Infringement

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2014 @ 04:44am

    Re: Response to: Groaker on Jun 4th, 2014 @ 10:13pm

    "Thou shalt not", surely? :)

  • On the post: Proud Voters Tweeting In The UK Could Receive Jail Time And A Fine

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 24 May, 2014 @ 09:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nope

    Voters advised not to take selfies in polling booths

    "Anyone who inadvertently reveals how someone else votes in Thursday's local and European elections could face a ?5,000 fine or six months in prison."

    I'd be interesting in seeing how many people will be prosecuted for taking a photograph of how they (and only they) voted in this, or for that matter any, election. Give it six months, and I'd be very, very, surprised if the answer isn't zero.

  • On the post: Proud Voters Tweeting In The UK Could Receive Jail Time And A Fine

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 24 May, 2014 @ 03:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Nope

    The UK doesn't have the first amendment, so that's not an issue :)

  • On the post: Proud Voters Tweeting In The UK Could Receive Jail Time And A Fine

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 23 May, 2014 @ 04:06pm

    Re: Re: Nope

    You're perfectly free to ask your local MP to raise the matter in Parliament, and to strive to get the law changed.

  • On the post: Proud Voters Tweeting In The UK Could Receive Jail Time And A Fine

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 23 May, 2014 @ 04:03pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Section 66A makes reference to a person, which could thus be interpreted to include the actual voter him/herself, and thus could lead to a prosecution by some overly keen CPS type.

    But I think it would be quite bizarre to do so, and I don't see the CPS trying it unless something truly bizarre happened. I suspect there'd be uproar if somebody told the British public they had to keep secret how they voted.

    It's kind of traditional that we do - even amongst my own family, we don't say how we voted - but if somebody tried to say it was legally required that we don't? Yeah, that boat wouldn't float. Daily Mail would probably have a field day :)

  • On the post: Proud Voters Tweeting In The UK Could Receive Jail Time And A Fine

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 23 May, 2014 @ 03:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Nope

    Drat, beaten to it by Retsibsi. I need to type faster :)

  • On the post: Proud Voters Tweeting In The UK Could Receive Jail Time And A Fine

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 23 May, 2014 @ 03:53pm

    Re: Re: Nope

    Assuming some hard-ass cop wants to try it on, I very much doubt any CPS lawyer would try it.

    But even if he/she did ...

    The voter who tweets their own vote (and only their own vote) did not "obtain in a polling station information as to whom the voter in that station is about to vote or has already voted".

    That voter already knew, prior to entering that polling station, who he/she was going to vote for, and hence did not "obtain in a polling station" any such information.

    Unless the CPS could somehow prove that you didn't know who you were going to vote for at the time you entered the polling station, I think frankly they'd be onto a sticky wicket. Not one, I'd have thought, they'd want to try to set any kind of legal precedent with.

    And that's not even talking about freedom of speech - I think they'd have a hard time arguing that you were not permitted to tell people how you voted if you wanted to, and if you're allowed to verbally express it I don't see why expressing it visually (whether as simple text, as a photo, painting, sculpture, or even interpretative dance :) ) could possibly be banned.

  • On the post: Proud Voters Tweeting In The UK Could Receive Jail Time And A Fine

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 23 May, 2014 @ 03:41pm

    Re:

    Amusingly, techdirt and the dailydot (the article techdirt links to, instead of the original Register article for some reason ...) mention section 66, Requirement of Secrecy...

    Whereas the Register original refers to section 66A, Prohibition on publication of exit polls.

    Nice.

  • On the post: Proud Voters Tweeting In The UK Could Receive Jail Time And A Fine

    Kaemaril ( profile ), 23 May, 2014 @ 03:29pm

    Nope

    Complete non-story, as even the original Register story makes clear:

    "It is not a crime to snap silly, duckface pictures of yourself when casting a vote. But revealing how someone else has ticked the box is illegal."

    Which is probably as it should be.

Next >>