"oh terribly sorry, but we got those images from another sources, and they have been attributed. thanks for playing".
Which would be a deliberate falsehood and meaningless, especially given that they'd intentionally removed the copyright notice embedded in the photo and replaced it with his name somewhere near it in one instance, no attribution at all in another, and 'Courtesy of Matt Garcia Design' in the last instance. At the very least in two out of the three examples they knew full well that Garcia wasn't the right person.
You see, we don't know what he was really asking for on the phone. Perhaps he was being unreasonable. Perhaps he was talking to the wrong people. Perhaps he wanted his name in lights. We don't know any of that.
Or perhaps they didn't care until he decided to hire a lawyer, and even then they lied by claiming that a) they believed that Garcia owned the photos, and b) claiming that Garcia had given them advanced permission to use them.
When Stross learned of the use, he first attempted to contact NBC, but received no response. Then he tried again, and was likewise ignored. It took Stross hiring a lawyer to get NBC to respond in any way. NBC then attempted to say it had gotten permission to use the photographs from the architect, except its evidence of this seems to indicate it only attempted to do so after the infringing use.
• On May 8, 2012: Amy Eley -- a producer working for Defendant -- requested press materials and photographs from Mr. Garcia, who replied that he had a photo shoot coming up, and asked her to wait until they were finished. There appears to have been no further correspondence between Ms. Eley and Mr. Garcia.
• At 2:17 p.m. on May 12, 2015: after Defendant ran the On-Air Segment; after it posted the Tweet; and after it published the Web Article -- a freelance writer named Julie Pennell contacted Garcia and informed him that she was writing a piece on the houses for Today.com. She asked if new photographs had been taken, and whether she could use them (failing to advise Garcia that Defendant had already used the Photographs). Garcia informed Pennell that the scheduled photo shoot had been cancelled, and asked if she would like copies of other photographs that he had -- which happened to be Stross’ Photographs.
Balderdash, the government absolutely welcomes the opinions of the people, and would never set up a venue wherein the ask for opinions only to ignore them and do what they'd already planned on doing ahead of time.
If it wasn't their idea, and they were going to have to do it anyway thanks to a contract or demand, then they shouldn't have bothered with the farce of asking their customers what they thought about it.
Teens(not necessarily these ones) pass explicit photos of themselves to each other, and the law cracks down on that, doing it's best to ruin as many lives as possible for 'creation and/or distribution of child porn'.
News agency publicly displays both name and dick pic of teen, and the law is completely indifferent.
Yup, they certainly are focused on 'protecting' the kids with those laws aren't they? /s
The best part of course is that their actions will almost certainly drive previously paying customers to piracy, as their paid for product is now inferior to the 'free' copy available from the pirates.
In attempting to 'fight' piracy they've instead made it even more likely to happen, and in an attempt to protect sales they've given potential customers a very good reason not to buy from or use their products at all.
Wouldn't likely help, anti-SLAPP laws are to 'discourage' people from suing to try and shut someone up, here the threat is simply 'You're not allowed to sell to anyone but us', which isn't likely to be considered as falling under the category of speech.
All the would-be-dictatorships around the world have got to love those two words, because as soon as someone mentions them, any limits as to what they can do, what rights they can strip away are gone.
Detention without charge, barring assembly, limits on free speech? All acceptable so long as you say the two magic words, because who's going to 'support terrorism by making the public vulnerable'? Use the phantom threat of terrorism to scare the public into complying and there's no right you can't remove, no law you can't ignore.
My feeling is with the tabled turned the other way, the story would read about the horrible copyright bully trying to stop some guy from tweeting images.
And now for the million dollar question: In that situation, where things were reversed and NBC was going after some guy tweeting images for similar reasons, would your stance change?
Would you still be claiming that NBC was going overboard, that their lawyer was clearly lacking in knowledge of fair use and 'didn't have a leg to stand on', that it's unreasonable for someone to know the copyright status of a work and that filing a lawsuit against them for a mistake was excessive? Or would all that 'It's a mistake, and even if it wasn't it's still Fair Use' arguments be thrown aside as you claimed that it's his own fault for using NBC's photos without permission?
All I can say is that is's certainly a good thing they removed the requirement for registration, can you think of how confusing this whole mess would be if people were able to make a simple check to see if something was under copyright, and if so, who had the current rights to it? Madness, pure madness I say.
Haupt owns the recording but not its content, which belongs to the N.F.L. If the league refuses to buy it, he cannot sell the tapes to a third party, like CBS or a collector who would like to own a piece of sports history that was believed to be lost. He would like to persuade the league to sell the tapes jointly and donate some of the proceeds to their favorite charities.....
That is just taking vindictiveness and pettyness to whole new levels. 'Either sell it to us on our terms, or be sued into the ground if you try and sell it to anyone else'.
What's even worse is the fact that it doesn't matter whether they actually have a legal leg to stand on here, as the odds of a judge being willing to award Haupt legal fees should he sell the tape anyway and the NFL sues is likely pretty low, so any money he'd get out of the sale would likely be burned through from defending himself in court even if he won, something I've no doubt the NFL considered with their threat.
Like many examples from the legal system, you don't have to have the law on your side to win, just more money than the other person.
They can artificially keep those numbers high temporarily by raising per customer costs to offset the loss of subscribers, but it's a delaying tactic at best as it'll just make the problem for them even worse long term as more people bail out the second they can thanks to the higher costs.
They either adapt or fold, and at this rate I'm pretty sure by the time they admit that there's a problem it'll be too late for them.
Personal privacy and academic freedom are paramount in everything we do. But we cannot make good on our commitment to protect individual privacy without ensuring a sound cybersecurity infrastructure.
In other news an unnamed university official was heard saying that to better protect the dignity of those on campus, mandatory strip-searches will be implemented, and to better protect the diversity and ecology of the flora and fauna of the surrounding area, all plants and animals would be lit on fire and killed respectively.
Given the bits quoted in the article about the US pulling their 'approval' for reading rooms such as the one discussed, I imagine the US provided the text, and they simply didn't care enough to translate it. Since the german politicians are just supposed to approve it there's no real point in them being able to read it after all, why read something when they're just going to be good little lackeys and sign it anyway?
If you don't like the numbers, just create your own, though given that I'm surprised they didn't take the next step and just make up numbers showing about the millions of new subscribers they were picking up on a daily basis. If you're going to lie, why not go big, right?
In the case of unauthorised disclosure of information, the US "may withdraw its consent to the placement of TTIP consolidated texts in any or all of the member states reading rooms”. This means if an MP leaks or quotes any sensitive information, the parliament may be denied access to the documents.
Well, wouldn't want to anger the ones in charge of the agreement after all, now would we? Now be good little bootlickers for the USG and behave and maybe you'll get your self-respect and dignity back once you've voted in favor of it like you've been told, after which you can pretend that you actually have any say in matters affecting your country and government.
Fines only create frameworks where people or organizations with money can purchase a special class of citizenship that others may not be able to financially enjoy.
Not if it's percentage based. A set amount doesn't work because it will almost always cost a company less than they got from the violation, meaning at best it's just making it so that they make slightly less from it. If it's a percentage however, and it starts at 100%, then at best they break even, which means there's absolutely no financial motivation to violate the law/rule.
As an added perk, by using a percentage based system it scales well from small person/company to large. Rather than having a case where the fine would ruin someone without sufficient funds, but barely effect someone with enough money, it affects them both based upon the gain they acquired from the illegal action, whether that amount be tiny or significant.
The ONLY punishment the government needs to be handing out is JAIL TIME! The government should have never ever had the power to summarily administer a fine for failure to comply with any law.
So the government shouldn't be able to fine someone for non-compliance with the law, but they should be able to throw them in jail. Hate to break it to you but even that favors the rich over the poor, as someone with enough money can cope just fine without a job for a while, whereas someone without enough money saved up is likely to be in a real rough spot not being able to work for a while.
1) Becuase while they don't like him, they love money, and the companies that stand to profit heavily from the thing also tend to be generous with their money to those that 'help' them.
2) Thinking long-term. FTA helps Obama for the TPP sure, but it also stays in place for a few years, and if a republican is elected president next, then that means they get all the benefits from it as well.