Re: Professional cameras not allowed

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by otter, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:44:35 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:17:23 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>>>Sort of like patent (which forbids an IDEA) ...


    >>> Nonsense.


    >>Given a patent --- if anyone who comes up with the same or
    >>similar enough idea, are they allowed to use it?


    > That's not what you said


    Hmmm. Yes, I can see that ... I thought it was quite clear
    that you couldn't use the idea, even if you came up with it
    independently, even if it is the obvious way, even if it's been
    used for however long. I.e. the idea is forbidden to use ---
    not just a specific implementation.

    I was wrong.

    > although I accept that might be what you
    > meant. You can neither forbid nor control ideas as long as they stay
    > inside someone's head.


    That's *only* because the technology to read the mind is in it's
    infancy ... and because some countries consider that off limits.

    Oh, they're trying, they're really trying, starting with lie
    detectors (which are anything but, they just register stress)
    and continuing with scanning the brain for centers of activity,
    in conjunction with triggers (e.g. sounds, pictures).

    It's already possible to control a cursor by thinking (after
    training). It's also already possible to --- sort of
    --- read out what a person is seeing by mapping the brain:
    https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto-et-al-2011


    > If someone comes up with a novel idea for a device and succeeds in
    > patenting it then they are given sole rights as to its use for a
    > limited period of time. Those rights include the right to forbid
    > others to use the idea or the the right to use the idea if they pay a
    > license fee of some kind. But I know you know all that.


    Also, the idea doesn't need to be all that novel (the standards
    for that are *really* low! Want examples?), nor does it need
    to be for a device (algorithms aren't devices (and any and all
    devices implementing an algorithm is hair splitting, even though
    patent offices allow that), business methods aren't devices, ...)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 26, 2012
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:10:45 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 00:17:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>tony cooper <> wrote:

    >
    >>>> Certainly. It's not concept of the idea that is patented, it's how
    >>>> the idea is implemented.

    >
    >>>Bull. That's coypright. That protects the implemenation.

    >
    >> It's always interesting to try to deal with someone who doesn't
    >> understand the meaning of the words they use.

    >
    >I know, I know, I'm having that experience right now with a
    >certain tony cooper. He insists that e.g.
    > http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227
    >describes an implementation, not a concept, like, say, swinging
    >on a swing.
    >
    >I try to throw clues his way, but he seems to have this weird
    >idea that instead of catching them, he's supposed to be hitting
    >them back over the net.
    >
    >
    >Of course, he may be right and I may be wrong, unlikely as that
    >may be: if that was so, he'd probably be posting URLs ...
    >
    >-Wolfgang


    Go to the last page of the document where you will see that this spoof
    patent was refused by canceling Claims 1,2,3,and 4.

    I particularly like the spoofing where the patent allows the user to
    produce a "Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described".
    I suppose the copyright of Edgar Rice Burroughs on "Tarzan" has
    expired, so the spoofer is off-the-vine there.

    It's reassuring that people like you fall for spoofs. It shows that
    the Nigerian email offer of sharing millions is not a dead scheme.

    How are your shares of the company producing that perpetual motion
    machine doing? Have you collected any tolls on your bridge?





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 26, 2012
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. otter

    alan1browne Guest

    On 2012.08.23 18:18 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:17:23 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Sort of like patent (which forbids an IDEA) ...

    >
    > Nonsense.


    You cannot patent an idea. It would have to be reduced to an invention
    (a process or thing that can be clearly described). It usually has to
    be functional (works). It can include software but not the idea for a
    software program (some countries don't include s/w at all).

    Not to mention it has to be demonstrably novel.
     
    alan1browne, Aug 27, 2012
    #63
  4. On Sat, 25 Aug 2012, PeterN wrote:

    >> Yes, but PBC attorneys will not be going after violators on copyright
    >> grounds. It will be breach of contract grounds since the photographer
    >> entered into a contract with PBC agreeing not to use photographs for
    >> commercial purposes when they agreed to the conditions of entry to the
    >> property.

    >
    > Possibly both, but more likely trademark or copyright violation grounds. See
    > my prior posting.


    Trademark, maybe. It wouldn't be under copyright grounds. You can't
    copyright a tree that happens to be on your property. The law does not
    work that way; see my earlier links to an attorney who explains this.

    At any rate, any time lawyers get involved things get expensive, even if
    the other guy doesn't have a case, so the risk/reward for photographing
    that particular tree is probably such that ti's not worth it for most
    people. It's kinda unfortunate that the legal system is structured in
    such a way as to deter people from lawfully exercising their rights, but
    that's the reality of it. It's why big stock agencies always ask for
    property releases, even though for the most part they are never legally
    needed.

    Ryan McGinnis                         @bigstormpicture
    Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT        Images@AGE http://bit.ly/w4EuWB
    The BIG Storm Picture:  http://bigstormpicture.com    PGP Key: 0x65115E4C
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Aug 30, 2012
    #64
  5. otter

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <2012083022584416807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    >
    > On 2012-08-30 22:32:54 -0700, Mxsmanic <> said:
    >
    > > Ryan McGinnis writes:
    > >
    > >> Trademark, maybe. It wouldn't be under copyright grounds. You can't
    > >> copyright a tree that happens to be on your property. The law does not
    > >> work that way; see my earlier links to an attorney who explains this.

    > >
    > > Breach of contract is the most reasonable way to proceed. Incidental recording
    > > of a trademark or copyrighted image is not usually actionable.
    > >
    > > If there is no contract (something photographed from public property, for
    > > example), there is nothing to be done.
    > >
    > > And trees cannot be copyrighted or trademarked.

    >
    > ...and who says that?
    >
    > The Pebble Beach Company and the Monterey Chamber of Commerce seen to
    > have no problem using the "Lone Cypress" and graphic representations of
    > the tree as a registered trademark. A registration and right they have
    > successfully defended whenever that trademark has been infringed on.
    >
    > In the case of "The Lone Cypress", the classic image can only be
    > captured while on private property, owned by the pebble Beach company.
    > If you pay $9.75 at any of the 17-Mile Drive entrances, you can drive
    > to the tree and shoot photographs all day with any equipment you
    > choose, to use the images for personal, non-commercial purposes. You
    > cannot use those images commercially without licensing by the Pebble
    > Beach Company.
    > Especially in Monterey County, they can and have seized any unlicensed
    > images offered for sale, be they photographs, post cards, paintings,
    > carvings on redwood burl, etc. In those cases those seizures have taken
    > place after cease & desist orders had been ignored, and subsequent
    > Court action resulted in a decision in their favor. The seizure usually
    > made by the local Sheriff's office.


    Have they actually won a suit against a photographer? I can't find any
    record of doing so. What I have found is statements by photgraphers
    that the company threatened suit, the photographer consulted his lawyer,
    found that it would cost him $50K to defend the suit, and rather than
    spending the money he caved and signed over his rights to his own work.

    Do you have any evidence that they have actually gone to court over a
    photo of the tree (and not their logo) and prevailed?

    They're essentially engaging in intimidation by threat of litigation.

    In any case there are several images of the tree on Flickr.com, posted
    by individuals and licenseable via Getty Images. One suspects that if
    Pebble Beach Company tries to intimidate Yahoo by litigation they are
    going to get taken down a few pegs.
     
    J. Clarke, Aug 31, 2012
    #65
  6. On Fri, 31 Aug 2012, Eric Stevens wrote:

    > By the sounds of it, they do have rights controlling it's use as a
    > trademark.


    Yeah, but the kinds of things you can restrict on trademark grounds are
    much, much more limited than the kinds of things you can restrict with
    contract law when people come onto your property. Not that that stops
    some trademark holders from trying (see Rock and Roll Hall of Fame v.
    Gentile Productions).

    I mean with contract law, you can completely forbid all photography of
    anything on the proprty, period, if that is what you desire. Trademark
    law can make no restriction on the photographing of things, only how those
    photographs are used -- and even then it can only be used to restrict uses
    that might confuse consumers about the trademark.

    Ryan McGinnis                         @bigstormpicture
    Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT        Images@AGE http://bit.ly/w4EuWB
    The BIG Storm Picture:  http://bigstormpicture.com    PGP Key: 0x65115E4C
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Aug 31, 2012
    #66
  7. otter

    -hh Guest

    On Aug 31, 8:43 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2012-08-31 04:59:52 -0700, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    > >
    > > Have they actually won a suit against a photographer?  I can't find any
    > > record of doing so.  What I have found is statements by photgraphers
    > > that the company threatened suit, the photographer consulted his lawyer,
    > > found that it would cost him $50K to defend the suit, and rather than
    > > spending the money he caved and signed over his rights to his own work.

    >
    > > Do you have any evidence that they have actually gone to court over a
    > > photo of the tree (and not their logo) and prevailed?

    >
    > > They're essentially engaging in intimidation by threat of litigation.

    >
    > > In any case there are several images of the tree on Flickr.com, posted
    > > by individuals and licenseable via Getty Images.  One suspects that if
    > > Pebble Beach Company tries to intimidate Yahoo by litigation they are
    > > going to get taken down a few pegs.

    >
    > There is more than a little history and growling over the issue.
    >
    > From Wikipedia:
    > "Chief among the scenic attractions is the Lone Cypress Tree
    > (36.568738�N 121.965321�W), a salt-pruned Monterey cypress (macrocarpa)
    > tree which is the official symbol of Pebble Beach and a frequent
    > fixture of television broadcasts from this area. In 1990 the Monterey
    > Journal reported that Pebble Beach's lawyer, Kerry C. Smith, said "The
    > image of the tree has been trademarked by us," and that it intended to
    > control any display of the cypress for commercial purposes. The company
    > had warned photographers that "they cannot even use existing pictures
    > of the tree for commercial purposes." Other legal commentators have
    > questioned the Pebble Beach Company's ability to invoke intellectual
    > property laws to restrict others' use of such images."


    An interesting situation.

    It appears that there's two distinct legal provisions in effect.

    The first is a license agreement as part of the terms of service to
    use the private road.
    The second is a specific trademark.

    For the first part (private property access), one could postulate that
    if a photographer could get to a suitable location without using the
    private property, then the TOS provision would not apply. For
    example, since this is a littoral location, one could notionally
    "approach from the sea" and swim in - - it varies by the State, but
    typically the land below the high water mark is considered to be
    public property. Of course, this would result in a different angle-
    to-subject (ie, much lower), but the possibility exists for
    consideration of a "Really Tall Tripod" to elevate the camera.
    Particularly if one documented the photographer's approach via public
    routes and the gear setup, this would IMO probably be legally
    defendable. Alternatively, one might similarly consider a "fly-over"
    using the public's airspace.

    For the second part (trademark), that would require quite a bit more
    research to see what the specific provisions and restrictions are.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Aug 31, 2012
    #67
  8. otter

    -hh Guest

    On Aug 31, 9:26 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2012-08-31 06:05:40 -0700, -hh <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Aug 31, 8:43 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > >> On 2012-08-31 04:59:52 -0700, "J. Clarke" <> said:

    >
    > >>> Have they actually won a suit against a photographer? I can't find a

    > > ny
    > >>> record of doing so. What I have found is statements by photgraphers
    > >>> that the company threatened suit, the photographer consulted his lawyer

    > > ,
    > >>> found that it would cost him $50K to defend the suit, and rather than
    > >>> spending the money he caved and signed over his rights to his own work.

    >
    > >>> Do you have any evidence that they have actually gone to court over a
    > >>> photo of the tree (and not their logo) and prevailed?

    >
    > >>> They're essentially engaging in intimidation by threat of litigation.

    >
    > >>> In any case there are several images of the tree on Flickr.com, posted
    > >>> by individuals and licenseable via Getty Images. One suspects that i

    > > f
    > >>> Pebble Beach Company tries to intimidate Yahoo by litigation they are
    > >>> going to get taken down a few pegs.

    >
    > >> There is more than a little history and growling over the issue.

    >
    > >> From Wikipedia:
    > >> "Chief among the scenic attractions is the Lone Cypress Tree
    > >> (36.568738 N 121.965321 W), a salt-pruned Monterey cypres

    > > s (macrocarpa)
    > >> tree which is the official symbol of Pebble Beach and a frequent
    > >> fixture of television broadcasts from this area. In 1990 the Monterey
    > >> Journal reported that Pebble Beach's lawyer, Kerry C. Smith, said "The
    > >> image of the tree has been trademarked by us," and that it intended to
    > >> control any display of the cypress for commercial purposes. The company
    > >> had warned photographers that "they cannot even use existing pictures
    > >> of the tree for commercial purposes." Other legal commentators have
    > >> questioned the Pebble Beach Company's ability to invoke intellectual
    > >> property laws to restrict others' use of such images."

    >
    > > An interesting situation.

    >
    > > It appears that there's two distinct legal provisions in effect.

    >
    > > The first is a license agreement as part of the terms of service to
    > > use the private road.
    > > The second is a specific trademark.

    >
    > > For the first part (private property access), one could postulate that
    > > if a photographer could get to a suitable location without using the
    > > private property, then the TOS provision would not apply.   For
    > > example, since this is a littoral location, one could notionally
    > > "approach from the sea" and swim in - - it varies by the State, but
    > > typically the land below the high water mark is considered to be
    > > public property.   Of course, this would result in a different angle-
    > > to-subject (ie, much lower), but the possibility exists for
    > > consideration of a "Really Tall Tripod" to elevate the camera.
    > > Particularly if one documented the photographer's approach via public
    > > routes and the gear setup, this would IMO probably be legally
    > > defendable.  Alternatively, one might similarly consider a "fly-over"
    > > using the public's airspace.

    >
    > > For the second part (trademark), that would require quite a bit more
    > > research to see what the specific provisions and restrictions are.

    >
    > > -hh

    >
    > ...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>


    Agreed.

    I had that part in mind when I mentioned that the "public access"
    strategy would be best served by also filming the procedure by which
    one was able to get to the desired photo location...that was defensive
    in nature.



    -hh
     
    -hh, Aug 31, 2012
    #68
  9. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:56:18 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:44:35 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:17:23 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>>>>>Sort of like patent (which forbids an IDEA) ...


    >>>>> Nonsense.


    >>>>Given a patent --- if anyone who comes up with the same or
    >>>>similar enough idea, are they allowed to use it?


    >>> That's not what you said


    >>Hmmm. Yes, I can see that ... I thought it was quite clear
    >>that you couldn't use the idea, even if you came up with it
    >>independently, even if it is the obvious way, even if it's been
    >>used for however long.


    > You can void the patent if you can show it has been in use for a long
    > time.


    In reality that happens to be an extreme amount of work ---
    for each single patent.
    You could as well say "If you shot the wrong person, the hospital
    will sort him out again."


    >>I.e. the idea is forbidden to use ---not just a specific implementation.


    > Forbidding the unlicensed use of an idea is not the same as forbidding
    > the idea, which last was your original statement.


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

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 31, 2012
    #69
  10. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:35:25 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:


    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 00:17:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>>>Here's a bit of reading material for you. Maybe your brain
    >>>>is simply underinformed ...
    >>>> http://eupat.ffii.org/patents/samples/index.en.html


    >>>>You tell me an implementation that's not covered by the patent
    >>>>discussed below ...
    >>>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/trivial-patent.html


    >>> http://www.kokoandkalila.com/images/Maypole_Pony_Hobby_Horse_opt.jpg


    >>> Again!


    >>http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/D247003.html


    >>Any questions?


    > I wouldn't worry about it. It's expired now.
    > http://patents.justia.com/1978/D0247003.html


    So?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 31, 2012
    #70
  11. tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:10:45 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:


    >>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 00:17:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>tony cooper <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> Certainly. It's not concept of the idea that is patented, it's how
    >>>>> the idea is implemented.

    >>
    >>>>Bull. That's coypright. That protects the implemenation.

    >>
    >>> It's always interesting to try to deal with someone who doesn't
    >>> understand the meaning of the words they use.

    >>
    >>I know, I know, I'm having that experience right now with a
    >>certain tony cooper. He insists that e.g.
    >> http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227
    >>describes an implementation, not a concept, like, say, swinging
    >>on a swing.
    >>
    >>I try to throw clues his way, but he seems to have this weird
    >>idea that instead of catching them, he's supposed to be hitting
    >>them back over the net.
    >>
    >>
    >>Of course, he may be right and I may be wrong, unlikely as that
    >>may be: if that was so, he'd probably be posting URLs ...
    >>
    >>-Wolfgang


    > Go to the last page of the document where you will see that this spoof
    > patent was refused by canceling Claims 1,2,3,and 4.


    Not found at http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227

    > I particularly like the spoofing where the patent allows the user to
    > produce a "Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described".
    > I suppose the copyright of Edgar Rice Burroughs on "Tarzan" has
    > expired, so the spoofer is off-the-vine there.


    > It's reassuring that people like you fall for spoofs. It shows that
    > the Nigerian email offer of sharing millions is not a dead scheme.


    > How are your shares of the company producing that perpetual motion
    > machine doing? Have you collected any tolls on your bridge?


    Which THAT perpetual motion machine? There are so many
    patented ideas ... even very recent ones (6 past 2000) ...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Patents

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 31, 2012
    #71
  12. alan1browne <> wrote:
    > On 2012.08.23 18:18 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:17:23 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>> Sort of like patent (which forbids an IDEA) ...


    >> Nonsense.


    > You cannot patent an idea. It would have to be reduced to an invention
    > (a process or thing that can be clearly described).


    Almost any idea can be described as a process or a thing.


    > It usually has to
    > be functional (works).


    Like all the perpetual motion machine patents?


    > It can include software but not the idea for a
    > software program (some countries don't include s/w at all).


    Using XOR to map a cursor onto a screen is an idea for (a part of)
    a software program.
    "[...] An XOR feature allows a selective erase that restores
    lines crossing or concurrent with erased lines. The XOR feature
    permits part of the drawing to be moved or "dragged" into place
    without erasing other parts of the drawing."

    (Abstract of US patent #4,197,590, luckily expired)

    > Not to mention it has to be demonstrably novel.


    Novel to the patent office's clerical staff.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 31, 2012
    #72
  13. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:43:26 -0400, alan1browne
    >>On 2012.08.23 18:18 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:17:23 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>> <> wrote:


    >>>> Sort of like patent (which forbids an IDEA) ...


    >>> Nonsense.


    >>You cannot patent an idea. It would have to be reduced to an invention
    >>(a process or thing that can be clearly described). It usually has to
    >>be functional (works). It can include software but not the idea for a
    >>software program (some countries don't include s/w at all).


    Business method pate

    >>Not to mention it has to be demonstrably novel.


    > ... and non-obvious to 'one skilled in the art'.


    Amazon, one-click patent.
    XOR to add/remove a cursor from a b/w screen.

    BTW, who decides what 'one skilled in the art' finds obvious?
    Someone who's *not* skilled in the art in question in >99% of
    the time ...


    So, how about this one:
    http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5443036
    | A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam
    | of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the
    | floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then
    | moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in
    | an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a
    | chase instinct.
    (BTW, where's the difference between that process and the idea
    "let the cat chase the laser pointer"?)
    And given that, how is that one non-obvious to someone with
    a somewhat agile brain and a cat:
    http://www.google.com/patents/US6557495
    (basically a thingie that moves the laser point automatedly
    in 2 dimensions (using 2 movable mirrors)).

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 31, 2012
    #73
  14. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > Take a drive on 17-Mile Drive sometime and you eill note that the
    > likelihood of capturing an image of "The Lone Cypress" from public
    > property is slim to none.


    How far does their property extend into the sea?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 31, 2012
    #74
  15. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > In the case of "The Lone Cypress", the classic image can only be
    > captured while on private property, owned by the pebble Beach company.
    > If you pay $9.75 at any of the 17-Mile Drive entrances, you can drive
    > to the tree and shoot photographs all day with any equipment you
    > choose, to use the images for personal, non-commercial purposes. You
    > cannot use those images commercially without licensing by the Pebble
    > Beach Company.


    So far OK.

    > Especially in Monterey County, they can and have seized any unlicensed
    > images offered for sale, be they photographs, post cards, paintings,
    > carvings on redwood burl, etc.


    So if I never went there myself, bought an officially sanctioned
    photograph and paint my very own interpretation based on that
    photograph (i.e. different enough that copyright doesn't prohibit
    me), what law am I breaking by selling my work as my own work
    and not implying the PBC has anything to do with it or has
    sanctioned it?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 31, 2012
    #75
  16. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:12:26 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:10:45 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >> <> wrote:

    >
    >>>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 00:17:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>> Certainly. It's not concept of the idea that is patented, it's how
    >>>>>> the idea is implemented.
    >>>
    >>>>>Bull. That's coypright. That protects the implemenation.
    >>>
    >>>> It's always interesting to try to deal with someone who doesn't
    >>>> understand the meaning of the words they use.
    >>>
    >>>I know, I know, I'm having that experience right now with a
    >>>certain tony cooper. He insists that e.g.
    >>> http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227
    >>>describes an implementation, not a concept, like, say, swinging
    >>>on a swing.
    >>>
    >>>I try to throw clues his way, but he seems to have this weird
    >>>idea that instead of catching them, he's supposed to be hitting
    >>>them back over the net.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Of course, he may be right and I may be wrong, unlikely as that
    >>>may be: if that was so, he'd probably be posting URLs ...
    >>>
    >>>-Wolfgang

    >
    >> Go to the last page of the document where you will see that this spoof
    >> patent was refused by canceling Claims 1,2,3,and 4.

    >
    >Not found at http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227
    >

    You're a genius at research. Click the "Drawings" icon, go to the
    last pate titled "Reexamination Certificate", and go to the bottom.

    >> I particularly like the spoofing where the patent allows the user to
    >> produce a "Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described".
    >> I suppose the copyright of Edgar Rice Burroughs on "Tarzan" has
    >> expired, so the spoofer is off-the-vine there.

    >
    >> It's reassuring that people like you fall for spoofs. It shows that
    >> the Nigerian email offer of sharing millions is not a dead scheme.

    >
    >> How are your shares of the company producing that perpetual motion
    >> machine doing? Have you collected any tolls on your bridge?

    >
    >Which THAT perpetual motion machine? There are so many
    >patented ideas ... even very recent ones (6 past 2000) ...
    >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Patents
    >
    >-Wolfgang


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 1, 2012
    #76
  17. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/31/2012 1:32 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Ryan McGinnis writes:
    >
    >> Trademark, maybe. It wouldn't be under copyright grounds. You can't
    >> copyright a tree that happens to be on your property. The law does not
    >> work that way; see my earlier links to an attorney who explains this.

    >
    > Breach of contract is the most reasonable way to proceed. Incidental recording
    > of a trademark or copyrighted image is not usually actionable.


    There is a major problem in proving damages. And in most commercial
    States conjunctive relief for contract violations would be even more
    difficult to obtain.

    There could be an intellectual property right in the landscaping around
    the tree.

    >
    > If there is no contract (something photographed from public property, for
    > example), there is nothing to be done.
    >
    > And trees cannot be copyrighted or trademarked.
    >

    <http://www.little-trees.com/us/legal.php?section=legal>

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 1, 2012
    #77
  18. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/31/2012 9:26 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-08-31 06:05:40 -0700, -hh <> said:
    >
    >> On Aug 31, 8:43 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>> On 2012-08-31 04:59:52 -0700, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>> Have they actually won a suit against a photographer? I can't find a

    >> ny
    >>>> record of doing so. What I have found is statements by photgraphers
    >>>> that the company threatened suit, the photographer consulted his lawyer

    >> ,
    >>>> found that it would cost him $50K to defend the suit, and rather than
    >>>> spending the money he caved and signed over his rights to his own work.
    >>>
    >>>> Do you have any evidence that they have actually gone to court over a
    >>>> photo of the tree (and not their logo) and prevailed?
    >>>
    >>>> They're essentially engaging in intimidation by threat of litigation.
    >>>
    >>>> In any case there are several images of the tree on Flickr.com, posted
    >>>> by individuals and licenseable via Getty Images. One suspects that i

    >> f
    >>>> Pebble Beach Company tries to intimidate Yahoo by litigation they are
    >>>> going to get taken down a few pegs.
    >>>
    >>> There is more than a little history and growling over the issue.
    >>>
    >>> From Wikipedia:
    >>> "Chief among the scenic attractions is the Lone Cypress Tree
    >>> (36.568738�N 121.965321�W), a salt-pruned Monterey cypres

    >> s (macrocarpa)
    >>> tree which is the official symbol of Pebble Beach and a frequent
    >>> fixture of television broadcasts from this area. In 1990 the Monterey
    >>> Journal reported that Pebble Beach's lawyer, Kerry C. Smith, said "The
    >>> image of the tree has been trademarked by us," and that it intended to
    >>> control any display of the cypress for commercial purposes. The company
    >>> had warned photographers that "they cannot even use existing pictures
    >>> of the tree for commercial purposes." Other legal commentators have
    >>> questioned the Pebble Beach Company's ability to invoke intellectual
    >>> property laws to restrict others' use of such images."

    >>
    >> An interesting situation.
    >>
    >> It appears that there's two distinct legal provisions in effect.
    >>
    >> The first is a license agreement as part of the terms of service to
    >> use the private road.
    >> The second is a specific trademark.
    >>
    >> For the first part (private property access), one could postulate that
    >> if a photographer could get to a suitable location without using the
    >> private property, then the TOS provision would not apply. For
    >> example, since this is a littoral location, one could notionally
    >> "approach from the sea" and swim in - - it varies by the State, but
    >> typically the land below the high water mark is considered to be
    >> public property. Of course, this would result in a different angle-
    >> to-subject (ie, much lower), but the possibility exists for
    >> consideration of a "Really Tall Tripod" to elevate the camera.
    >> Particularly if one documented the photographer's approach via public
    >> routes and the gear setup, this would IMO probably be legally
    >> defendable. Alternatively, one might similarly consider a "fly-over"
    >> using the public's airspace.
    >>
    >> For the second part (trademark), that would require quite a bit more
    >> research to see what the specific provisions and restrictions are.
    >>
    >>
    >> -hh

    >
    > ...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 >
    >


    As many an inventor, whose work was stolen, found out.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 1, 2012
    #78
  19. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/1/2012 1:28 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > PeterN writes:
    >
    >> There is a major problem in proving damages. And in most commercial
    >> States conjunctive relief for contract violations would be even more
    >> difficult to obtain.

    >
    > So much the better.
    >
    >> There could be an intellectual property right in the landscaping around
    >> the tree.

    >
    > No more so than the design of a streetlight is protected by copyright (that is
    > to say, very little, probably below de minimis).
    >
    >>> And trees cannot be copyrighted or trademarked.
    >>>

    >> <http://www.little-trees.com/us/legal.php?section=legal>

    >
    > Those aren't trees ... they are man-made representations of trees.
    >


    As is a representation of the Lone Cypress.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 1, 2012
    #79
  20. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/1/2012 1:14 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Savageduck writes:
    >
    >> If those images are being used commercially in violation of the terms
    >> of entry onto their property, they can and have taken legal action
    >> which has resulted in seizures of those unlicensed images. There are
    >> galleries in Carmel which learned this the hard way.

    >
    > 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.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 1, 2012
    #80
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. tony cooper

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    77
    Views:
    1,314
  2. ray

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    ray, Aug 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    301
  3. Rob

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    Rob, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    290
    PeterN
    Aug 18, 2012
  4. sms88

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    sms88, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    370
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 23, 2012
  5. Laszlo Lebrun

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    Laszlo Lebrun, Aug 20, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    311
    Laszlo Lebrun
    Aug 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page