TAKING, USING WITHOUT COMPENSATION.....DEATH OF PHOTOTOGRAPHY COPYRIGHTS
Jun 19, 2019 10:56:25 #
IDguy wrote:
Narrow applicability but shows Texas needs to change its laws to not authorize stealing from its citizens.
Agreed! This was sneaky and egregious.
Jun 19, 2019 11:37:26 #
LEGALDR wrote:
I just noted a case which many of the hoggers may be interested in. It is out of the Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District. I have attached the courts opinion.
Unbelievable and unjust! Guess it’s all in the wording, huh? And, of course, interpretation by the judge!
Jun 19, 2019 11:38:47 #
rook2c4 wrote:
Skip over the reference sections in the document, and it's not that hard to understand. I'm not sure what you mean by legal gibberish - overall, the text is rather simple and straight forward.
But a LOT of it!!!!!
Jun 19, 2019 11:39:41 #
robertjerl wrote:
Actually he wrote that as coming from a villain who is plotting how to take over the country and become a tyrant.
In his speech about how to accomplish that he said:
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
In his speech about how to accomplish that he said:
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Lmao
Jun 19, 2019 11:40:55 #
w00dy4012 wrote:
It was lost on an improper pleading. Oliver should sue his lawyer for malpractice.
EXACTLY!!!
Jun 19, 2019 11:43:44 #
rmalarz wrote:
I tend, at least on first reading, to concur with ... (show quote)
...and now we know the rest of the story...thank you
Jun 19, 2019 11:46:18 #
burkphoto wrote:
While decipherable, this evokes the old adage, “If you can’t bedazzle them with brilliance, bedaffle them with bulls—t!”
They must teach that in law school! Lol
Jun 19, 2019 12:09:29 #
I wonder what the result would have been had the university been a privately endowed university and not a state university. Apparently, at least in Texas, the state is immune from tort, as this did not amount to a physical "taking." The 11th Amendment was mentioned and, I assume that is a reference to the United States Constitution's 11th Amendment. If that is the case, then this Texas court's decision would impact all 50 states in similar situations. While this case is narrow in scope, the court's findings are wide reaching. Olive may have been screwed, but this case should serve as notice to all photographers who publish their work. It doesn't meant the end of copyright protection of intellectual property, but it does mean there are certain exceptions when the government, in any form, is involved.
Jun 19, 2019 12:09:50 #
LEGALDR wrote:
I just noted a case which many of the hoggers may be interested in. It is out of the Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District. I have attached the courts opinion.
Copy right infringement is stealing (taking) some one else's property .... He will win in the long run, but it sounds like the first filling was done wrong... He should be able to win on "taking(stealing) AND COPY RIGHT INFRINGEMENT which is a federal offense I think, so why did he not file in fed court.
This just proves how easy it is to steal someone else's photo, edit out info, and get away with it. This slap happened to my granddaughter, who doesn't have the funds to fight/sue.
Another reason we should have right click disabled, and or post only very small images of we are really concerned about our photos ...
To me it's so obvious, hope could he not win?
Will be good to see the outcome.....
Jun 19, 2019 12:13:18 #
Jun 19, 2019 12:19:16 #
You lose a lot of continuing business. Ethical Houston college stripped the copyright info so anyone who picked it up would be hard to prosecute for damages. Major news organizations have destroyed value of my wife's photos that way.
Jun 19, 2019 12:26:39 #
Well, I doubt the poor guy or his lawyer will see this, but I used to work for a company called Tektronix in Oregon. Before they hired me, the company won a ground-breaking law suit against the feds, probably in the early 70s or maybe late 60s. Seems the feds told another company that they could violate a Tektronix patent and make an oscilloscope identical to one covered by the patent if they sold it to the government. The company won that case which sounds similar to this one.
Jun 19, 2019 12:30:28 #
IDguy wrote:
Narrow applicability but shows Texas needs to change its laws to not authorize stealing from its citizens.
That may be the case but this issue was not about copyright laws and, for whatever reason, the photographer went with the "taking of property" as a reason to litigate. Copyright laws have always been difficult to enforce and will continue to be.
Jun 19, 2019 12:32:06 #
frankraney wrote:
Copy right infringement is stealing (taking) some ... (show quote)
He did not pursue the issue as a copyright violation. The case had nothing to do with copyright violation but instead was pursued as a type of eminent domain violation. It's hard to beat the government any way you look at it.
Jun 19, 2019 12:43:43 #
rmalarz wrote:
I tend, at least on first reading, to concur with ... (show quote)
Didn't pay attention to my post did you?
I didn't quote the whole thing but pointed out it came from a character plotting to become a tyrant as his first step toward that goal.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.