«

PeterN <> wrote:
> On 9/1/2012 1:14 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

>> They cannot license images, they can only license permission to take
>> photographs on their property. It's not the same thing.

>> A clear solution here is to hire a helicopter, hover off the coast and take
>> some really good photographs, and then release high-resolution photos to the
>> public domain.

> It's obvious of me that you have never been involved with the valuation
> of intellectual property.

What as the fact that some "intellectual property" is deemed
valuable to do with legal photography of trees and the selling
of the same (which is also "intellectual property")?

-Wolfgang

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> ...and ultimately it is going to be the depth of your pockets and your
> ability to absorb a considerable financial hit to test/contest the
> Pebble Beach Company's control over their very active legal posturing
> in this matter.
> < http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=20 >

Seems the US law system is broken, if it's not a "loser pays
all" system.

-Wolfgang

On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 22:31:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<> wrote:

>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> ...and ultimately it is going to be the depth of your pockets and your
>> ability to absorb a considerable financial hit to test/contest the
>> Pebble Beach Company's control over their very active legal posturing
>> in this matter.
>> < http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=20 >
>
>Seems the US law system is broken, if it's not a "loser pays
>all" system.

The loser only pays the costs if the case comes to trial and the
decision requires that. There can be extensive legal costs in
preparing for a case to come to trial, and those costs may not be
recovered if the case is settled out of court or if the case is
dropped before trial.

In the majority of legal actions brought, there is no winner or loser
because the cases are dropped or settled.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 21:46:04 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 22:34:37 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:02:56 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:45:01 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>>>>>>>>And there's no way to get a license unless the patent holder
>>>>>>>>specifically wants to give a license to you.

>>>>>>> Usually they do - under specified conditions.

>>>>>>FRAND does not apply to everything. Blocking patents exist.

>>>>> FRAND has to do with the setting of standards and is not part of the
>>>>> patent system.

>>>>So your "Usually they do - under specified conditions" is to be
>>>>read as "If you're lucky, you'll get a license and don't go broke
>>>>paying for it".

>>> I have much the same problem when buying groceries.

>>- There's only a single supplier of each item (and usually an
>> item group) of groceries you can use, no matter how much money
>> you're willing to spend. Worse, for many items you need to
>> ask several parties as each one of them hold a part of the item
>> and it can only be used complete.

> In that case you should stick with more simple recipes.

I was describing your situation.


>> Cereals: grain, sugar, making flakes, frosting, each additive,
>> adding additives, using a carton, using a plastic bag to
>> hold food items, printing on a package, selling packages
>> ... everything held by a different party, and if just one party
>> disagrees or overcharges badly ...

> How do you determine overcharging? Isn't this just another way of
> saying "more than I want to pay"?

"More than I can afford to pay". Say, Kellog's "Corn Pops Cereal,
12.5-Ounce Packages (Pack of 4)" (costs according to amazon.com
$10.17 currently) for $350 instead.

Oh, and no chance of another maker being any cheaper, if
available at all.


>> When I buy groceries, I have a choice of many suppliers: several
>> chains of several sizes, independent stores, specialized stores,
>> online stores, ... and most items and all item groups have
>> multiple sources within easy walking distance. If one shop
>> is out of something I can go to the next shop, even of the
>> same chain. They're all *very* willing to sell to me, and due
>> to lots of competition prices are acceptable or downright cheap.

> They still have a price which you have to pay.

I also get physical goods, which are --- short of a Star Trek
replicator --- rather hard to duplicate for free. Whereas an
idea can be duplicated quite cheaply. The whole Internet is
a huge idea duplication machine. So are the printing press,
the radio and television.

Sure, you do have setup costs, and often need electricity and
mainenance is really not free, but the cost per MB, the cost
per idea is really low, and the cost is shared over very very
many shoulders.

Not that you'll get the wrong idea: I'm all for allowing those
who are creative to be able to live from their creativity.
That's just healthy self-interest in my case.

As to patents: They are harming creativity in at least the areas
I am intimate with. The patent system, like copyright, isn't
there to support any businesses. It's there so that society,
as a whole, wins, due to more creativity overall and all the
creativity being freely available (after some time) to everyone.

I propose that that goal is not being met any more in at least
some areas.


>>- If you grow something in your backyard, you need to pay for a
>> license --- unfortunately, for your apple tree you can't get a
>> license, so you need to chop it down. You could try to claim
>> apples were there before the need to license was granted, but
>> that'll bancrupt you. And even if you were to win in a couple
>> years from now, your tree still needs to be chopped down today.

> That's not correct. Patents allow personal use.

Well, TRY to build something that is partially patented and give
it away for free. Like the apples you'd surely give to your
better neighbours.


>> Where I live I can just buy seeds and grow groceries (except
>> for stuff like pot and similar drugs). I can use the seeds of
>> the plants I have grown to grow new plants if I like.

> So, you have no real problems.

Must be because I don't have "much the same problem [as in a
patent-boobytrapped field] when buying groceries".


Me:
| So your "Usually they do - under specified conditions" is to be
| read as "If you're lucky, you'll get a license and don't go broke
| paying for it".

You:
| I have much the same problem when buying groceries.

>>Guess you still live in the old communist block, where shortages
>>are the daily bread and getting a car would take 10-15 years
>>(unless you were a fat cat). Oh, being able to choose between 2
>>items of a kind (say tomato ketchup) is a rare treat for you.

> Your geography is extremely muddled.

> I live in New Zealand.

Hmmm. I wasn't aware that NZ was *that* bad when it comes to
buying groceries. How did it become that way?

-Wolfgang

Mxsmanic <> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

>> I see. Licenses do not matter.

> Something in the public domain does not have a license, nor does it need one.
> Anyone can do anything with it. That's what public domain means.

I see. Licenses do not matter, everything is PD.

-Wolfgang

tony cooper <> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 22:31:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>>> ...and ultimately it is going to be the depth of your pockets and your
>>> ability to absorb a considerable financial hit to test/contest the
>>> Pebble Beach Company's control over their very active legal posturing
>>> in this matter.
>>> < http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=20 >

>>Seems the US law system is broken, if it's not a "loser pays
>>all" system.

> The loser only pays the costs if the case comes to trial and the
> decision requires that.

Well, if it's a criminal trial and the defendant is an
adolescent, the costs may be eaten by the state. Or if
someone started the case with e.g. false accusations, they
might have to pay.


> There can be extensive legal costs in
> preparing for a case to come to trial, and those costs may not be
> recovered if the case is settled out of court or if the case is
> dropped before trial.

Can't afford going to a lawyer? You'll be helped.

If you settle and agree to split the costs (or admit complete
defeat), then you may have to pay, yes. Same as in court.

If you drop the case --- well, don't unless you know how to
recoup your costs.

> In the majority of legal actions brought, there is no winner or loser
> because the cases are dropped or settled.

Still, if you can't afford it, you'll be helped. Equality before
the law also means that not having enough money won't exclude
your legal rights. And that's not just going to court.

-Wolfgang

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:39:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<> wrote:

>tony cooper <> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 22:31:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>>> ...and ultimately it is going to be the depth of your pockets and your
>>>> ability to absorb a considerable financial hit to test/contest the
>>>> Pebble Beach Company's control over their very active legal posturing
>>>> in this matter.
>>>> < http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=20 >
>
>>>Seems the US law system is broken, if it's not a "loser pays
>>>all" system.
>
>> The loser only pays the costs if the case comes to trial and the
>> decision requires that.
>
>Well, if it's a criminal trial and the defendant is an
>adolescent, the costs may be eaten by the state. Or if
>someone started the case with e.g. false accusations, they
>might have to pay.

The point of the discussion is a civil case involving trademark and
copyright issues. What the hell does a criminal trial have to do with
this?

A party can sue another party, in civil court, for bringing a
frivolous lawsuit. However, the suing party will be responsible for
legal costs unless the lawyer takes the case on a contingent basis.

Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
of a settlement or of winning the case. There's no reason the lawyer
should spend his/her time and money to pursue a case with no return to
the lawyer.
>
>> There can be extensive legal costs in
>> preparing for a case to come to trial, and those costs may not be
>> recovered if the case is settled out of court or if the case is
>> dropped before trial.
>
>Can't afford going to a lawyer? You'll be helped.

By whom? Public defenders take criminal cases, not civil cases.

Some lawyers take cases pro bono, but a lawyer isn't going to take a
case unless there's a strong possibility of winning or unless his/her
client is willing and able to foot the bill.

The best that can be hoped for is that some group - like the American
Civil Liberties Union - takes on the case. What group has enough
interest in overturning Pebble Beach's right to trademark and
copyright protection?

>If you settle and agree to split the costs (or admit complete
>defeat), then you may have to pay, yes. Same as in court.
>
>If you drop the case --- well, don't unless you know how to
>recoup your costs.
>
>> In the majority of legal actions brought, there is no winner or loser
>> because the cases are dropped or settled.
>
>Still, if you can't afford it, you'll be helped.

By whom?

> Equality before
>the law also means that not having enough money won't exclude
>your legal rights. And that's not just going to court.

That pertains primarily to criminal cases, not civil cases. The civil
cases where this comes into play are cases are deprivation of civil
rights in some form.

A person objecting to Pebble Beach's trademark and copyright
protection has to show they've been damaged to have a viable case.
The person can't just say "I want to use this and I don't want to pay
for it". There must be demonstrable damage. The person must also
show that they have attempted to mitigate any damage.

What damage is there here?

Who is your legal advisor? Whoever it is, fire him/her.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-09-11 07:39:57 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> tony cooper <> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 22:31:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>>>>> ...and ultimately it is going to be the depth of your pockets and your
>>>>> ability to absorb a considerable financial hit to test/contest the
>>>>> Pebble Beach Company's control over their very active legal posturing
>>>>> in this matter.
>>>>> < http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=20 >

>>>> Seems the US law system is broken, if it's not a "loser pays
>>>> all" system.

>>> The loser only pays the costs if the case comes to trial and the
>>> decision requires that.

>> Well, if it's a criminal trial and the defendant is an
>> adolescent, the costs may be eaten by the state. Or if
>> someone started the case with e.g. false accusations, they
>> might have to pay.

>>> There can be extensive legal costs in
>>> preparing for a case to come to trial, and those costs may not be
>>> recovered if the case is settled out of court or if the case is
>>> dropped before trial.

>> Can't afford going to a lawyer? You'll be helped.

> Not in a Civil case in the US, perhaps in Germany.

So basically if your employer does not pay you and you don't
have money, you're screwed?

> Perhaps an
> "ambulance chaser" prepared to take your case on contingency, but don't
> hold your breath on that happening.

As I said, it seems the US law system is broken. And "ambulance
chaser" lawyers are just another aspect of how it's broken.


>> If you settle and agree to split the costs (or admit complete
>> defeat), then you may have to pay, yes. Same as in court.

> That is going to depend on the arrangement you have with your attorney.

That's going to depend on the arrangement you make with your
opponent.

> Remember there are no Court appointed attorneys in Civil cases.

And that means you can't have a lawyer in civil cases if you
don't have money? Did I mention the US law system seems broken?


>> If you drop the case --- well, don't unless you know how to
>> recoup your costs.

> There is a difference in dropping the case and reaching an agreement to settle.

Yes. But dropping a case is voluntary.


>>> In the majority of legal actions brought, there is no winner or loser
>>> because the cases are dropped or settled.

>> Still, if you can't afford it, you'll be helped.

> In a criminal case, yes. In a civil case, no.

Again, the US law system seems broken.

> In a Civil case, if you find an attorney who is prepared to work for a
> contingency fee, you might have a fair chance of having him be enough
> of a PITA to reach a settlement agreement, but he is going to get his
> chunk of that settlement before you see one cent.

.... broken.

> ...and he is only likely to take you on if he sees a way to a
> settlement, whether you are right or wrong. He knows that as soon as
> you step into a Court room you are gambling, and you might not have
> what it takes to support your case once it goes to trial.

.... broken.

You are poor (e.g. a welfare recipient) and have a problem that
could be a civil case. Say your last boss, who fired you, still
owes you a couple hundred dollar? What are you supposed to do?
Bend over and enjoy it?


>> Equality before
>> the law also means that not having enough money won't exclude
>> your legal rights. And that's not just going to court.

> ...er, yes, and no.

> In the US you have Constitutional Rights specified in the Bill of
> Rights with permit you due process in criminal cases where you are
> protected from self incrimination by being given the opportunity to
> STFU, and to have access to legal representation to help you STFU and
> lead your defense. This is not going to happen in a Civil trial.

> In a Civil case where your freedom is not in jeopardy, you are going to
> have to find your own way to your perception of justice.

Yep, so he who has money will win against him who has none.
So what's to stop someone with money to stiff people without for
small sums no contingency lawyer would find interesting?

-Wolfgang

On 9/11/2012 6:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-09-11 14:46:03 -0700, Mxsmanic <> said:
>
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
>>
>>> I see. Licenses do not matter, everything is PD.
>>
>> No. But the Wikipedia photo of the Lone Cypress is public domain,
>> because the
>> photographer released it into the public domain. Which means that
>> anyone can
>> use it for anything.
>
> The author (photographer) would probably have been better advised to
> release that image under Creative Commons Noncommercial, rather than
> Public Domain, simply because the author's use was non-commercial, but
> subsequent users might not be. CCNC is more specific in addressing
> commercial use in violation of prior agreements.
> < http://creativecommons.org/licenses/...3.0/deed.en_US >
>
> He has tried to cover himself by adding the following:
> "I the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public
> domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this might not be
> legally possible; if so:
> I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any
> conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."
>
> This is a piece of babbling double speak from the author.
> Basically he has said "I release this work to the public domain, except
> where conditions for this release might be required by law, and I can't
> actually release it."
>
> The bottom line is this photographer might well have released his work
> to PD in error, when he should have used CCNC, but ignorance with regard
> to the way some Wikipedia entries and submissions should be made and are
> actually made, are often quite messy.
>

It's even more simplistic.
If I gave Tony Cooper your Mercedes, he would not own it. I can only
transfer those rights that I have, and I have no ownership rights to
your Benz.



--
Peter

tony cooper <> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:39:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> <> wrote:

>>tony cooper <> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 22:31:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>>>>> ...and ultimately it is going to be the depth of your pockets and your
>>>>> ability to absorb a considerable financial hit to test/contest the
>>>>> Pebble Beach Company's control over their very active legal posturing
>>>>> in this matter.
>>>>> < http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=20 >

>>>>Seems the US law system is broken, if it's not a "loser pays
>>>>all" system.

>>> The loser only pays the costs if the case comes to trial and the
>>> decision requires that.

>>Well, if it's a criminal trial and the defendant is an
>>adolescent, the costs may be eaten by the state. Or if
>>someone started the case with e.g. false accusations, they
>>might have to pay.

> The point of the discussion is a civil case involving trademark and
> copyright issues. What the hell does a criminal trial have to do with
> this?

The "loser does not pay the cost" cases.


> A party can sue another party, in civil court, for bringing a
> frivolous lawsuit. However, the suing party will be responsible for
> legal costs unless the lawyer takes the case on a contingent basis.

> Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
> of a settlement or of winning the case. There's no reason the lawyer
> should spend his/her time and money to pursue a case with no return to
> the lawyer.

So I can sue you frivously as long as I'm known not to settle
and the case is not crystal clear, if you are poor. And if
you win, you'll loose what the courts grant you in damages to
your own lawyer. Isn't that fun?


>>> There can be extensive legal costs in
>>> preparing for a case to come to trial, and those costs may not be
>>> recovered if the case is settled out of court or if the case is
>>> dropped before trial.

>>Can't afford going to a lawyer? You'll be helped.

> By whom?

By the state. At least *here*.

> Public defenders take criminal cases, not civil cases.

To paraphrase you:
What the hell does a criminal case have to do with this?

> Some lawyers take cases pro bono, but a lawyer isn't going to take a
> case unless there's a strong possibility of winning or unless his/her
> client is willing and able to foot the bill.

Well, and there we are ... *here* you can get counsel and a
lawyer, if the case is winnable.


> The best that can be hoped for is that some group - like the American
> Civil Liberties Union - takes on the case. What group has enough
> interest in overturning Pebble Beach's right to trademark and
> copyright protection?

Yep, they have copyright on a tree, and on every photograph
you shoot on their premises.

Did I mention the US law system seems broken?


>>If you settle and agree to split the costs (or admit complete
>>defeat), then you may have to pay, yes. Same as in court.

>>If you drop the case --- well, don't unless you know how to
>>recoup your costs.

>>> In the majority of legal actions brought, there is no winner or loser
>>> because the cases are dropped or settled.

>>Still, if you can't afford it, you'll be helped.

> By whom?

By the state.

>> Equality before
>>the law also means that not having enough money won't exclude
>>your legal rights. And that's not just going to court.

> That pertains primarily to criminal cases, not civil cases.

That pertains to *all* cases. It might not be practiced in the
US in order to allow the rich to ride roughshod over the poor.


> The civil
> cases where this comes into play are cases are deprivation of civil
> rights in some form.

> A person objecting to Pebble Beach's trademark and copyright
> protection has to show they've been damaged to have a viable case.
> The person can't just say "I want to use this and I don't want to pay
> for it". There must be demonstrable damage.

Having to pay for something that you're free by the law to use
without pay would constitute damage. Not being allowed to make
money by your own works would also constitue money.

And since any painting or carving or model of some salt- and
wind-formed single cypress on a rocky shore seem to be affected
.... even if it's a different tree, or off a PD photo or completely
invented by the artist. At least that's what I've read in
this thread.

> The person must also
> show that they have attempted to mitigate any damage.

"I said I would not pay extortionists and blackmailers. I also
made shure I was not bound by any contractual law with PBC,
by never entering any agreement with them, including entering
their property."

> What damage is there here?

Hereby I order you to pay me 1 cent every time you use the
letter 'e' or 'E' or any letter with a similarly looking glyph.
What's the damage? None, right? You just need to learn how to
live without the letter 'e'. It's possible! See here for proof:
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu...?key=olbp37063

> Who is your legal advisor? Whoever it is, fire him/her.

Thanks, I'll take that advice:
"tony cooper", you're fired! No more legal advice from you!

-Wolfgang