Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
The ones that change in the toilet cubicles must have some seriously ugly deformities to make getting changed over a toilet worth it.
I'm waiting for someone from the XV to come in and mention that it's social pressure, not ugly deformities that lead to women getting changed in private.
*twiddles thumbs*
-
Kyle, I'm pretty sure that's incorrect.
Trust me. I run a database of about 20,000 images of artwork, which is, umm, legally borderline. We get away with educational purposes, but I've spent several hours meeting with people in the School of Law to find a way through it.
Putting an image on the web site is publishing it, in much the same way that putting it in a book is publishing it. Both are exact copies, but you can't legally rip an image off a web site any more than you can legally scan it from a book.
-
So I can't go in and scan a copy myself? Surely, if the original is out of copyright that wouldn't be a problem ...
I frankly don't have a lot of patience with public archives getting pernickety over what happens to low-resolution images on websites. It's silly.
You can go in and scan a copy of the photo and then you hold copyright over that scan. You can then put it up on a web site and do what you like with it (as long as the original photo has no copyright over it).
But of course if the library holds the only copy of that photo, they're likely to put limits on what you can scan it for, so you'll have to pay a fee if you want it scanned for publishing purposes.
I'm not a lawyer, so I may be wrong, but Section 14 of the Act (don't you love legislation.govt.nz?) would seem pretty clearly to apply only to original works, and to exclude copies.
It's not a copy. The original is a photo. The image on the web site is published and therefore a new original. By scanning it and republishing it you have ownership of the derivative copyright.
In much the same way that you are on legally shaky ground if you scan a reproduction of the Mona Lisa and then try and sell it. the reproduction has a photographer and possibly publisher who have copyright over it. If you want to sell photos of the Mona Lisa, you need to take your own one.
But yes to Russell's gripe. It's often silly how restrictive these things are, particularly when the only copyright on the image is the one currently being applied by the library. The copyright on the original has now lapsed.
-
Although it always grates to see institutions imposing rights over images where the copyright has expired. They've decided that the images are protected by commercial license.
They hold copyright over the version that they've scanned and put on the web site.
You can use the photo, you just have to find your own original.
In much the same way that a photographer holds copyright over a photo taken of Mona Lisa. You can use another image of Mona Lisa for anything you want, but not the one that he took.
-
Surely if you choose to move in next to a long established live venue it's incumbent upon you or the developer to soundproof the housing, rather than the venue to keep your peace?
Chris has kind of answered this above, but I think it depends on the zoning more than what's there.
The fact that there might already be businesses or residents there doing whatever, doesn't prevent someone stepping in, building stuff, and then pointing to the zoning laws and saying "um, you can't do that anymore". Otherwise the nature of a part of town could change every time someone builds something or a different person lives there.
-
Booze barns need space so there goes the butcher, baker and bookshop owner.
No one ever thinks of the candlestick maker.
-
I think there's a delay for Letterman, so the Friday session is probably the previous week/day's show.
Letterman is always delayed, it shows late evening est, which is late afternoon nz time.
I think Friday's show is a specially quick broadcast of their Thursday night show with John Key. In which case it will be delayed on a couple of hours.
-
And, it's my understanding that the Marsden was for a history of the hospital (which is still being worked on).
This book seems to have been a sideline diversion which came up while doing that work.
-
The references to the Marsden Fund and Auckland University Press peer review processes were interesting. Just who were they asking?
I don't know all of them, but one of them was an Australian historian. Only one was in NZ I believe.
-
Have a nosey on page 5/6 of the Undie 500
I should say, while some of the themes you see are pretty bad, most of the ones that come down are topical, well modified to a theme, and some are damn funny. It seems wrong that engineering students are the civilised, intelligent, charity donating ones in the whole story, but there you go.