Comments on: (Mis)understandings of the words “intellectual property” http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/ Red Hat Magazine Fri, 8 Aug 2008 20:45:31 +0000 http://lyceum.ibiblio.org/?v=1.0.2 by: Ruth Suehle http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-47908 Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:18:16 +0000 http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-47908 Ben--thanks so much for contributing your firsthand information on the case. I've been checking periodically to see if I could find any updates on the case. I think it's a beautiful image as well, and both as a photographer and former lowcountry resident, I'm pulling for your side! Ben–thanks so much for contributing your firsthand information on the case. I’ve been checking periodically to see if I could find any updates on the case. I think it’s a beautiful image as well, and both as a photographer and former lowcountry resident, I’m pulling for your side!

]]> by: Ben Ham http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-47891 Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:58:36 +0000 http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-47891 I have just come across this article and thought I would comment on it. The lawsuit filed against me by the College Of Charleston Foundation mentions nothing about the claim of rules established by John Henry Dick for Dixie. This was information provided by the Foundation for the article about the suit. We asked to be provided with this documentation from the beginning. It was never produced. The suit claims I entered the property without permission stole an image of their trees and am damaging them by the sale of said image and the continued sale of said image. The property was placed in the Lowcountry Open Land Trust by Dick which prevents the development of the property and also has a tax incentive for the protection of the property. Mr. Dick was an artist and illustrator. I have been told by his friends that he would have loved my image. The Foundation threatened me with several actions for 10 months before filing suit. From the beginning I have been offering them a portion of the proceeds or an out right donation of 5 large framed pictures for a charity auction to raise money for their plans for the property. All refused. I give quite a bit of work to charity and it always brings a very good sum. I have just come across this article and thought I would comment on it. The lawsuit filed against me by the College Of Charleston Foundation mentions nothing about the claim of rules established by John Henry Dick for Dixie. This was information provided by the Foundation for the article about the suit. We asked to be provided with this documentation from the beginning. It was never produced. The suit claims I entered the property without permission stole an image of their trees and am damaging them by the sale of said image and the continued sale of said image. The property was placed in the Lowcountry Open Land Trust by Dick which prevents the development of the property and also has a tax incentive for the protection of the property. Mr. Dick was an artist and illustrator. I have been told by his friends that he would have loved my image. The Foundation threatened me with several actions for 10 months before filing suit. From the beginning I have been offering them a portion of the proceeds or an out right donation of 5 large framed pictures for a charity auction to raise money for their plans for the property. All refused. I give quite a bit of work to charity and it always brings a very good sum.

]]> by: sammy martin http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-29339 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:34:26 +0000 http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-29339 We have become a stupid people. Full of greed. But we only have ourselves to blame. In America for now a least, jury are still selected from the masses. If, people would stop finding in favor of such things, then these threats etc. would go away. We have become a stupid people. Full of greed. But we only have ourselves to blame. In America for now a least, jury are still selected from the masses. If, people would stop finding in favor of such things, then these threats etc. would go away.

]]> by: Nicu Buculei http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28498 Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:09:22 +0000 http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28498 The Voronet Monastery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronet) is called "the Sistine Chapel of the East" and it is an UNESCO World Heritage Site; the entrance tax was like this: http://picasaweb.google.com/nicubunu/TheWorldAroundMe/photo#5124523515655789522 photos allowed only at exterior and taxed with 2 Euros for film cameras and 3 Euros for digital cameras. The footnote states "taxes [...] are a contribution for the restoration process". The Voronet Monastery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronet) is called “the Sistine Chapel of the East” and it is an UNESCO World Heritage Site; the entrance tax was like this: http://picasaweb.google.com/nicubunu/TheWorldAroundMe/photo#5124523515655789522 photos allowed only at exterior and taxed with 2 Euros for film cameras and 3 Euros for digital cameras.
The footnote states “taxes […] are a contribution for the restoration process”.

]]> by: Ruth Suehle http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28494 Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:36:31 +0000 http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28494 Nicu - That's really interesting! I've never encountered that in traveling, but then, I've never been to Romania. I would be interested to hear what their answer would be. They're making an overt dilenation where many places here make the same judgment without the written rule. If your equipment is too "professional-looking," you're more likely to be stopped. But the truth is, I've gotten some of my best pictures with a basic Kodak EasyShare. Here in the US, you generally are prohibited from taking pictures in mueseums. At the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame, they say that it's because of the terms of the agreements with the musicians who have donated their stuff to the museum, but as you can tell from the article, they believe in "what's mine is mine." At art museums and historic homes, it's usually said that repeated flash photography will degrade the paints. I've seen mixed information about that, so I can't really say to what degree it's true. It seems logical, and yet, by banning flashes and tripods in a museum where everything is long in the public domain, museum gift shop sales are presumably increased. I will note that when I was at the Louvre, they allowed photography, even flash photography. (I've read that they now allow photography only in certain areas to keep traffic flowing better.) If it's good enough for Mona Lisa and the Venus di Milo... Nicu - That’s really interesting! I’ve never encountered that in traveling, but then, I’ve never been to Romania. I would be interested to hear what their answer would be. They’re making an overt dilenation where many places here make the same judgment without the written rule. If your equipment is too “professional-looking,” you’re more likely to be stopped. But the truth is, I’ve gotten some of my best pictures with a basic Kodak EasyShare.

Here in the US, you generally are prohibited from taking pictures in mueseums. At the Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fame, they say that it’s because of the terms of the agreements with the musicians who have donated their stuff to the museum, but as you can tell from the article, they believe in “what’s mine is mine.”

At art museums and historic homes, it’s usually said that repeated flash photography will degrade the paints. I’ve seen mixed information about that, so I can’t really say to what degree it’s true. It seems logical, and yet, by banning flashes and tripods in a museum where everything is long in the public domain, museum gift shop sales are presumably increased. I will note that when I was at the Louvre, they allowed photography, even flash photography. (I’ve read that they now allow photography only in certain areas to keep traffic flowing better.) If it’s good enough for Mona Lisa and the Venus di Milo…

]]> by: Nicu Buculei http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28457 Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:02:11 +0000 http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28457 A somewhat related story: here in my country we have some open-air museums and at the entrance you have to pay a tax to be allowed to take photos inside them. The things is, the tax has two levels: one for amateurs and another for professionals. The question is: if I have a SLR and post the photos on my blog (there I use AdSense), am I amateur or professional? And yet another discrimination I saw a few years ago at a historical monastery: a smaller tax for Romanians and a larger one for foreigners. A somewhat related story: here in my country we have some open-air museums and at the entrance you have to pay a tax to be allowed to take photos inside them.
The things is, the tax has two levels: one for amateurs and another for professionals. The question is: if I have a SLR and post the photos on my blog (there I use AdSense), am I amateur or professional?
And yet another discrimination I saw a few years ago at a historical monastery: a smaller tax for Romanians and a larger one for foreigners.

]]> by: Maddog http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28325 Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:11:03 +0000 http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28325 This just goes to show what happens when "intellectual property" goes overboard. The reason IP is perotected is so that those who own it are encouragedf to share it with society. But now moneygrubbers are doing the exact opposite. Thuis madness has got to stop. This just goes to show what happens when “intellectual property” goes overboard. The reason IP is perotected is so that those who own it are encouragedf to share it with society. But now moneygrubbers are doing the exact opposite. Thuis madness has got to stop.

]]> by: Sandra http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28251 Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:37:40 +0000 http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28251 I say, "Keep your laws off my art!" Molecularly speaking it is IMPOSSIBLE to recreate time. A photographic image captures an exact moment in time and no two images will ever be exactly alike by any two cameras, even if the picture is taken at the same moment. They can't be in the same physical space. Therefore each and every photograph is a completely distinct piece of proprietary creation and should be considered as such. Furthermore, no human intellectual property can or should be able to claim proprietary rights over an item existing in nature, which again, continually changes at some level over time. Furthermore, images in and of themselves are just that. It's what people do with images that subject them to this rhetoric. I say, “Keep your laws off my art!” Molecularly speaking it is IMPOSSIBLE to recreate time. A photographic image captures an exact moment in time and no two images will ever be exactly alike by any two cameras, even if the picture is taken at the same moment. They can’t be in the same physical space. Therefore each and every photograph is a completely distinct piece of proprietary creation and should be considered as such. Furthermore, no human intellectual property can or should be able to claim proprietary rights over an item existing in nature, which again, continually changes at some level over time. Furthermore, images in and of themselves are just that. It’s what people do with images that subject them to this rhetoric.

]]> by: Jot http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28061 Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:17:58 +0000 http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28061 I own the term "intellectual property" is is my intellectual property. No one is allowed to use the term to prohibit anyone from taking pictures in public spaces. I own the term “intellectual property” is is my intellectual property. No one is allowed to use the term to prohibit anyone from taking pictures in public spaces.

]]> by: Cyde Weys http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28038 Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:59:23 +0000 http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/misunderstandings-of-the-words-%e2%80%9cintellectual-property%e2%80%9d/#comment-28038 This is getting absurd. It has happened to me too. I was in a commercial shopping mall in Boston — kind of up-scale, but nothing revolutionary — and a security guard interrupted me while I was taking pictures of the architecture using a point-and-shoot pocket digital camera. What the hell is going on in society? How did we ever let it get this bad? Unless there are proprietary trade secrets involved, e.g. breaking into a rival laboratory and photographing the lab journals, I don't see how it makes sense to prohibit taking pictures anywhere you're allowed to look. This issue is all going to become moot in the near future when the human body and technology become more tightly integrated. We already have cyborgs walking amongst us (most of them, admittedly, as some form of medical treatment). And we already have electronics that interface directly with the brain. How long until someone figures out a way to digitally record what your eyes see? Or implants a camera? Then what will these protectors of "intellectual property" do? This is getting absurd. It has happened to me too. I was in a commercial shopping mall in Boston — kind of up-scale, but nothing revolutionary — and a security guard interrupted me while I was taking pictures of the architecture using a point-and-shoot pocket digital camera.

What the hell is going on in society? How did we ever let it get this bad? Unless there are proprietary trade secrets involved, e.g. breaking into a rival laboratory and photographing the lab journals, I don’t see how it makes sense to prohibit taking pictures anywhere you’re allowed to look.

This issue is all going to become moot in the near future when the human body and technology become more tightly integrated. We already have cyborgs walking amongst us (most of them, admittedly, as some form of medical treatment). And we already have electronics that interface directly with the brain. How long until someone figures out a way to digitally record what your eyes see? Or implants a camera? Then what will these protectors of “intellectual property” do?

]]>