Posts by Lilith __
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Damien Hirst: the dollars and sense?, in reply to 81stcolumn,
Thanks 81st, I appreciate your well-reasoned perspective.
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Alex Efimoff,
up above the clouds :)
Alex these are wonderful. And for once the scratchiness of the aeroplane window actually adds something -- it scatters the moonlight most pleasingly!
-
OnPoint: Student Loans are Loans (Duh.), in reply to Hebe,
Stupid system, for everyone concerned
Well…you can imagine a situation where the spouse or children of a former student were otherwise saddled with that person’s student debt if they died. And with many student debts being 50 or even 100,000 (eg. medicine or dentistry), that’s a very big deal.
When student loans were introduced, the rationale was that tertiary degrees should give graduates the ability to earn more, and so a portion of those subsequent earnings are taken back by the government. But if a graduate did not earn much income, and/or died still owing money, then the debt would be forgiven.
-
OnPoint: Student Loans are Loans (Duh.), in reply to Hebe,
if a student loan were not repaid by the time the student (or former student) died, it would come out of their estate like any other debt.
Unless it's changed, no. If you die, any remaining student debt becomes a grant.
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Fooman,
Isn’t the threshold for re-using someone else’s photo 10%? ie. up to 10% of your picture may be borrowed from another image?
10%, as far as I know, is not enshrined in legislation or common law.
Huh. And I was taught that in a class at design school, too!
This seems to be the US situation:
Can't I take an image and change it to make it mine?
No. Because one of the exclusive rights granted under copyright is the individual right of the copyright owner to create derivative works from their original copyrighted material.
Modifying or altering an image is infringing upon the copyright owner's rights unless expressed permission is granted or the modification falls under fair use (which is highly unlikely).
In a few court cases, a modified image was not considered infringement because the original image was no longer recognizable due to the extent and variety of the alterations.
Altering or modifying published works is strongly not recommended because most artists, writers, musicians, photographers, etc., can recognize their own work even through modifications.
Many people believe the "myth" that if they change an existing image a percentage (10%, 30%, etc.), then they can legally use the image. Be advised: that is not the law.
-
bootleg brolley anyone?
Sounds uncomfortable! ;-)
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Hebe,
I admit to a certain amount of Devil’s advocacy here;
That’s just as well; if you got caught lifting things at Bally’s, you’d get banned from the store, and how would you hold up your head in polite company then?! ;-)
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Hebe,
But not a perfectly saleable “only you have this particular coat/photo” digital image. Exclusivity confers value in many markets – how much would someone have paid for The Scream if there were 20,000 Screams instead of three or four.
Intellectual property is different from physical property. As Sacha says, intellectual objects can be infinitely copied without physical loss, but that doesn’t mean there’s no loss of value.
With regards to The Scream, it would be worth a lot less as an object it it hadn’t been so widely reproduced! But a text, or a digital photo, which in a sense has no original, and can’t be reduced to a physical object, still has an author and a value. It’s just more complicated to price, sell, and to prevent unauthorised use.
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Jackie Clark,
I still like to hear everyone's perspectives!
+1
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Jos,
lacebark tree in the foreground.
Oh Jos, that's really creepy!!