"Most artists retain rights to their works, even if they are commissioned, so likely not. Unless you had a contract with him stating you gained all rights, then he's safe."
-Depends on the country and local laws governing. In Canada (where I live) art commissioned is copyright the person commissioning the art. (Work for Hire Laws). Photographers, Painters, Sculptors etc. have to have the copyright assigned back to them via a legal agreement, usually part of the contract they work under if they want the copyright- these laws differ place to place though.
As to the IOC holding the rights, unless you had a model release (needed for buildings and such too sometimes if it's recognizable) they should be able to license "how" you use the images - a public performance like putting them on flickr - may very well be contrary to their acceptable use of the recognizable aspects of the event, players etc. The artist would still hold the copyright of the images, but not the right to display them publicly. Of course, those laws would be subject to change depending on country/state laws etc. as well I think.
Good to know that you at least can post a sarcastic comment without giving it away with silly jokes, and that very few people are able to read the sarcasm in it.
"Man in the Street"'s sarcasm generator needs calibration." - I don't really think so, I think you need to read this paragraph again:
"In the end, it doesn't matter how flimsy or made-up the evidence is, we know that BREIN is gonna prevail in court regardless. Just look at the way they ran the trial in the first place with weak evidence and still won to see how. They are the ones looking after the interests of very large, legitimate businesses, so they deserve to win in any way possible."
I currently have something on the level of 140 "friends" in facebook.
1 of those is an acquaintance I've never met, and only corresponded with a couple of times.
4 of those are people I ran an online radio station with several years ago, I've never met them in person, but I've spent many, many hours talking with them over VoIP, DJ'ing shows and generally hanging out. True friends, though I've never met them.
About 40 of those "friends" are family members that I'm close to. Cousins, 2nd cousins, uncles, aunts, brother, sisters etc. I'd guess those count as friends.
2 of those are co-workers who are friends.
About 7 - 10 are friends I regularly see in my small town. We play poker together, hang out, and are very real, close friends.
About 5 are very close friends who have moved away. Facebook is how we keep in contact, in combination with phones, letters and cards.
About 5 more are spouses of the above friends.
That totals 66 friends and one acquaintance. Every other person on my friends list is someone I've had a fairly close friendship with over the years and still keep in contact with through facebook. We call each other occasionally, share jokes, send emails, let each other know what is going on in our lives - but we're not "particular" friends, if the meaning is clear, but we're certainly more than "acquaintances".
I don't understand how it would be so hard to believe someone could have 120, 140, or even more friends, that they keep in touch with through a social networking site.
Add to the fact that I've got 2 children, one of them brand new, so I don't have much in the way of a social life. When I was in high school I regularly hung out with at least that number of people, other times of my life have been more or less, but I think it's asinine to suggest that simply because you can only maintain friendships with a very limited number of people yourself, that the same must be true for every other person.
Often known as a poor man's copyright. Sending a manuscript to yourself registered mail provides a signature and paper trail to prove that you wrote something at a certain time. afaik it has held up in court when copyright is argued.
IANAL, but as I understand, any person who creates something automatically holds the copyright to their creation unless it is created under certain circumstances (such as while on the job for a company they've agreed to create stuff for).
The trick is proving you've created something first, hence the registered mail trick.
Whoever owns the rights to this movie wouldn't be breaking Rowling's (or Time-Warner's) copyright by using the name as it is a prior intellectual property, unless they intentionally confuse the public as to what property they are representing (trademark law if Harry Potter is trademarked) or draw from the new Harry Potter stories and re-use ideas.
I think. This is all just as I understand copyright law, which is honestly not much. Someone better qualified will probably come alone and clarify.
Re: Next thing you know..
"Most artists retain rights to their works, even if they are commissioned, so likely not. Unless you had a contract with him stating you gained all rights, then he's safe."
-Depends on the country and local laws governing. In Canada (where I live) art commissioned is copyright the person commissioning the art. (Work for Hire Laws). Photographers, Painters, Sculptors etc. have to have the copyright assigned back to them via a legal agreement, usually part of the contract they work under if they want the copyright- these laws differ place to place though.
As to the IOC holding the rights, unless you had a model release (needed for buildings and such too sometimes if it's recognizable) they should be able to license "how" you use the images - a public performance like putting them on flickr - may very well be contrary to their acceptable use of the recognizable aspects of the event, players etc. The artist would still hold the copyright of the images, but not the right to display them publicly. Of course, those laws would be subject to change depending on country/state laws etc. as well I think.
Re: Forged docs ok
@Man in the Street
Good to know that you at least can post a sarcastic comment without giving it away with silly jokes, and that very few people are able to read the sarcasm in it.
"Man in the Street"'s sarcasm generator needs calibration." - I don't really think so, I think you need to read this paragraph again:
"In the end, it doesn't matter how flimsy or made-up the evidence is, we know that BREIN is gonna prevail in court regardless. Just look at the way they ran the trial in the first place with weak evidence and still won to see how. They are the ones looking after the interests of very large, legitimate businesses, so they deserve to win in any way possible."
Huh?
@ AC @2:41pm
What now? I'm confused.
What's all this about camels and kingdoms and CEO's?
Jack Thompson is a camel and so he gets to go to Heaven before a rich CEO? Got it. That's the truth man!
Re: Tgeigs
+1 for truth. Way to rant, I love it. And agree.
How Many?
I currently have something on the level of 140 "friends" in facebook.
1 of those is an acquaintance I've never met, and only corresponded with a couple of times.
4 of those are people I ran an online radio station with several years ago, I've never met them in person, but I've spent many, many hours talking with them over VoIP, DJ'ing shows and generally hanging out. True friends, though I've never met them.
About 40 of those "friends" are family members that I'm close to. Cousins, 2nd cousins, uncles, aunts, brother, sisters etc. I'd guess those count as friends.
2 of those are co-workers who are friends.
About 7 - 10 are friends I regularly see in my small town. We play poker together, hang out, and are very real, close friends.
About 5 are very close friends who have moved away. Facebook is how we keep in contact, in combination with phones, letters and cards.
About 5 more are spouses of the above friends.
That totals 66 friends and one acquaintance. Every other person on my friends list is someone I've had a fairly close friendship with over the years and still keep in contact with through facebook. We call each other occasionally, share jokes, send emails, let each other know what is going on in our lives - but we're not "particular" friends, if the meaning is clear, but we're certainly more than "acquaintances".
I don't understand how it would be so hard to believe someone could have 120, 140, or even more friends, that they keep in touch with through a social networking site.
Add to the fact that I've got 2 children, one of them brand new, so I don't have much in the way of a social life. When I was in high school I regularly hung out with at least that number of people, other times of my life have been more or less, but I think it's asinine to suggest that simply because you can only maintain friendships with a very limited number of people yourself, that the same must be true for every other person.
poor man's copyright
@ Yoorah # 12
Often known as a poor man's copyright. Sending a manuscript to yourself registered mail provides a signature and paper trail to prove that you wrote something at a certain time. afaik it has held up in court when copyright is argued.
IANAL, but as I understand, any person who creates something automatically holds the copyright to their creation unless it is created under certain circumstances (such as while on the job for a company they've agreed to create stuff for).
The trick is proving you've created something first, hence the registered mail trick.
Whoever owns the rights to this movie wouldn't be breaking Rowling's (or Time-Warner's) copyright by using the name as it is a prior intellectual property, unless they intentionally confuse the public as to what property they are representing (trademark law if Harry Potter is trademarked) or draw from the new Harry Potter stories and re-use ideas.
I think. This is all just as I understand copyright law, which is honestly not much. Someone better qualified will probably come alone and clarify.
Browsers. Pheh.
They lost me at:
"Please use Internet Explorer to complete all studies"
Because of course, everyone knows that all Firefox users are pirates. ;)