We've banned this account for repeatedly posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait to HN. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They are at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. The basic idea is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
Hmmmm. Just to point out, that specific comment is Australian humour.
It's not good Australian humour, but it's humour. It's taking the piss out of (mocking) a "stereotypical Australian" reaction, as commonly found in pubs and other (cheaper) drinking establishments.
I don't know, I think it will deliver customer experience while also aligning revenue streams with Marketing and HR, not to mention amplify key performance indicators while aligning stakeholder engagement with PR and Legal
I played wow in korean without being able to read any of the quests. just to have my warlock pet names in korean. story is not a big part of wow. ffxiv however..
To me this is not a copyright troll, This is a guy whos photo keeps getting stolen and used without permission, If he was suing anyone using any photo of that skyline not just his then he would be a troll.
Emphasis mine
Over the years he filed more than 100 lawsuits for the unauthorized use of an Indianapolis skyline photo he claims to own the rights to.
[...]
The attorneys use the pressure of federal lawsuits and potential statutory damages of $150,000 to extract high settlement fees from defendants, without fighting a case on its merits.
[...]
When Bell contacted Carmen Commercial he was offered a $1,000 settlement. However, the attorney wanted more and requested $5,000. He threatened a lawsuit if the real estate company failed to pay up.
He is aggressively greedy, not just protecting his copyright.
Further to this, in other jurisdictions you would have to litigate this in a court that would not award costs so drastically out of step with the claim. That must be at least part of the problem?
The mere fact that 'trivial' Fotos of a skyline are copyright protected indicates that there is something wrong with the system. Fun fact: you are not allowed to take a picture of the Eiffel tower at night and publish it. Your own picture.
I've heard this before and it is mostly false: Only for commercial purposes, since 2016 it is freely available for natural persons to do so in a personal setting.
From wikipedia (easy source in this case, links for more info via them):
> "Since October 7, 2016, article L122-5 of the French Code of Intellectual Property provides for a limited freedom of panorama for works of architecture and sculpture. The code authorizes "reproductions and representations of works of architecture and sculpture, placed permanently in public places (voie publique), and created by natural persons, with the exception of any usage of a commercial character".[20]"
This is the case in most of Europe by the way. Some even allow commercial exploitation.
On this photographer, if the photo is trivial the user of it should have no problem taking their own or paying the (presumably trivial) market rate to license a photo someone else took, no?
Some classes of objects are not under copyright protection because they are ubiquitous or utilitarian. For example the design of clothes can not be copyrighted. You are paying for the material and the production costs, but not for the design, and any competitor can take the same colored cloth and sewing pattern and produce and legally market an exact copy of your clothes.
Skyline fotos, unless being really unique or special, for my understanding fall into the same category. Of course you ought to be paying for material and transportation, which is close to zero for a digital photo.
Copyright is out of whack. The general idea might well be okay and sane, but the implementation has been distorted into something grotesque.
Photographers are having a hard time, since the picture quality of comodity cameras, like the ones built into higher end phones, is really high and the cost for one picture is near zero, resulting in a maelstroem of really nice photos produced by a plethora of clicking monkeys.
Professional photography is being pushed into a niche profession.
> The court correctly mentions that Bell has filed many lawsuits over the ‘skyline’ photograph. It also notes that other judges have mentioned that his motive appears to be to extract quick and easy settlements instead of protecting his copyrights.
It is an offence to be in possession of more than 50kg of potatoes in WA, unless you have purchased the potatoes from a grower or retailer authorised by the Potato Corporation. Police also have the power to stop and search a vehicle suspected of carrying more than 50kg of potatoes. The maximum penalty is a $2,000 fine for a first offence or a $5,000 fine for subsequent offences, as well as a further penalty up to twice the value of the potatoes [Section 22, Marketing of Potatoes Act 1946 (WA)].
It was previously common in Australia for the government to form independent 'single desks' that would have a monopoly on buying or selling a particular agricultural commodity with the intention that this would provide better prices for farmers on average over time. (you could still buy potatoes at the supermarket, but you were not allowed to sell a ship of potatoes)
Of course if the single desk is paying you the farmer, better than market prices during a glut, when the market picks up, the single desk is going to have to pay down it's debt and (and Saddam Hussein) before it pays you. This is one of many scenarios under which a bear market socialist might feel a longing for the free market stirring in their soul, and the potato act is the big stick that kept farmers from cutting their own deals.
