Freedom of Panorama

[Rob C]

Funny indeed: it is perfectly legal to stop one from talking certain type of images, and yet that person calls is not correct etc...

Or what would you say? That that situation is of course completely different? Yeah, right.

It is ridiculous not everyone shares your views...

P.S. I'm not saying Cameron is wrong with anything, I have no opinion on that. If pressed, I might even say he didn't do anything wrong indeed, legally or morally. Just admiring your way of thinking.

It's a gift...

;-)

Rob C

[Colorado David]

I'm puzzled how a large, diverse country can be assigned the moniker, Trump-land, because one bloviating reality star with a pile of money uses it to jump into politics.  I'm quite sure Europe has never had anyone like that, wink, wink, nod, nod.

[jeremyrh]

I'm puzzled how a large, diverse country can be assigned the moniker, Trump-land, because one bloviating reality star with a pile of money uses it to jump into politics.

It's not that he jumps in - it's that he gets a load of people to vote for him.

[jeremyrh]

For those of you who have seen The Night Watchman: parts are shot up here in Puerto Pollensa in a place called La Fortaleza, a beautiful little peninsula on the northern edge of the town. It was built years ago by an Argentinian; taken over and ransacked by troops during the Civil War; once owned by an English guy who runs a waste company, and recently bought by another Brit, to the tune of €40,000.000. Yes, forty million euros, according to the Spanish press. You can find all this if you google The Night Watchman. So measuring others by one's own bank balance is pretty daft.

Perhaps, but that's not what I'm doing, I'm measuring by the bank balances of 99% of the population.

(Night MANAGER, by the way)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I'm measuring by the bank balances of 99% of the population.

And those 99% of the population wrote, collectively, in their whole life, including homework assignments while in school, checkbook balancing, etc., less than the 1% of successful writers did in just one tome of their opus. So?

[Zorki5]

Oh those nasty corporations.

But seriously, qui bono? Who benefits from all that cr@ap?

OK, general public are mindless sheep, and governments simply reflect that. But somebody must have pushed for those laws, and until those groups are named here, we'll be barking at the wrong tree. Or simply lamenting the situation (which, in my book, isn't any better).

[RSL]

Qui bono? Politicians bono. Politicians tell people that with laws like these they're protecting them from those nasty corporations who'd instantly steal their livelihood without protection by politicians. Most of the people who vote these people in haven't a clue what a corporation is, but because of the extent of left-wing BS they know corporations are bad -- even though, if they checked, they'd probably find a corporation is the reason they even have a job.

[Rob C]

Perhaps, but that's not what I'm doing, I'm measuring by the bank balances of 99% of the population.

(Night MANAGER, by the way)

Glad you're paying attention! ;-)

Just shows you: nobody is willing to let the humbler ones have a meaningful rôle, even in fantasy fiction.

99%. So who owns all the fancy cars such as BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar etc. clogging up many of our cities? That 1% must be a helluva large one percent. Frankly, I don't trust any of these 'percentages' wheeled out to prove points, either way.

My bottom line is that in life you get what you deserve. From way back the belief was that what you sow you reap. That makes sense. (Naturally, one shouldn't try to sow wild oats unless one is a gentleman farmer and can afford it - only fair on the rest of the taxpayers that one retain responsibility for the harvest to follow such a sowing.)

Rob C

[Rob C]

Qui bono? Politicians bono. Politicians tell people that with laws like these they're protecting them from those nasty corporations who'd instantly steal their livelihood without protection by politicians. Most of the people who vote these people in haven't a clue what a corporation is, but because of the extent of left-wing BS they know corporations are bad -- even though, if they checked, they'd probably find a corporation is the reason they even have a job.

Not to mention a company car, company membership to a variety of clubs, company pension contributions etc. etc.

I have long been of the opinion that everyone should have to be self-employed for at least one year. The experience would wean millions from the belief that the world owes them, or anyone else, a living. Never mind the extreme test of self-employment; just having to be a salesman on the road for a year would suffice.

Rob C

[Zorki5]

Qui bono? Politicians bono.

I like politicians no more than you do. Quite probably, even less; I suspect that you could name a few "decent" politicians (Reagan? Thatcher?), while I think they are all cr@p. If not, ok, that's not the point...

The point is, people have names. In Russia, if a controversial IP-related law was passed, I'd suspect that Nikita Mikhalkov would have something to do with it (and in 90+% I'd be right). This guy runs a fund "aggregating" various IP-related payments, and keeps a percentage of that as a "managing" fee.

So who exactly benefits from the laws we're discussing here, and how? So far, alas, I regard my question unanswered.

[Rob C]

I like politicians no more than you do. Quite probably, even less; I suspect that you could name a few "decent" politicians (Reagan? Thatcher?), while I think they are all cr@p. If not, ok, that's not the point...

The point is, people have names. In Russia, if a controversial IP-related law was passed, I'd suspect that Nikita Mikhalkov would have something to do with it (and in 90+% I'd be right). This guy runs a fund "aggregating" various IP-related payments, and keeps a percentage of that as a "managing" fee.

So who exactly benefits from the laws we're discussing here, and how? So far, alas, I regard my question unanswered.

I'm not sure that anyone actually does; perhaps it's simply an inevitable confusion of various different cases where copyright has been affected/violated, and the lawmakers are just throwing them into a pile and producing forms of blanket legislation to cover all the bets.

It seems fairly obvious when copyright is really being infringed, and when similarity between two (or more) works might be accidental. However, as the world has so many thieves in it, perfectly willing to steal whatever they can grasp, the inevitable reaction is to over-protect, that is, if any legal protection is even available in that particular instance. In a sense, it's like those cases where compensation/damage payment awards are of themselves an abuse by the nature of their magnitude.

The thing about 'street' photography is really quite an interesting one, if only because the same people can hold conflicting views on it. As I do. On the one hand I see it as a fairly harmless form of photographic sport, capable of producing really interesting and lively imagery, yet I also understand - and have felt - indignation at having a camera pointed in my direction. I suppose that it's the feelng of violation of privacy that rankles. As to whether or not privacy should be regarded/respected in public, if it is even a realistic expectation - who can honestly tell? On the whole, I think street photography, if its discovered by the 'subject', is at the very least, annoying. And that on purely personal, instinctive grounds, nothing to do with being incriminated in some illicit doings such as messing about with the wrong partner, in which case, serves you bloody well right! That said, I absolutely draw the line at anyone photographing the down 'n' outs of this world. Whether self-inflicted or not, they have enough against them already. By all means, buy them a coffee or pass a buck or two, but don't expect that to be a model release.

Which brings up the interesting thing about beauty. Can it, is it ever, thought offensive by a beautiful person if that person attracts cameras in public places? I don't refer to celebs, just ordinary (extraordinary) people blessed with great looks.

Rob C

[Robert Roaldi]

It's a small point, but corporations don't give us jobs. Its employees generate the corporation's profits. And yes, unfortunately, some corporations have done nasty things.

[RSL]

The only reason there are "employees" is because there's a corporation.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The only reason there are "employees" is because there's a corporation.

--- and without 'employees' to purchase products and services, what's the use of corporations?

But that's all not very much about the topic of Copyright law, and related 'freedom of Panorama'.

Cheers,
Bart

[Colorado David]

What is a corporation really? It's a group of people bound together by common ownership in an enterprise that has some legal protection against liability.  So really when people rail against a corporation, you might as well just replace the name, corporation, with people. There are good people and there are bad people. People bring those attributes into the enterprise they're involved in. So really we can just stop using corporation and start using people. Now, where were we?

[RSL]

Hi Bartvander,

I don't know how things work in the Netherlands but for those who don't understand these things, let's look at the history of McDonald's.

McDonald's started out as a one-man food stand in California selling hot dogs and hamburgers. Later it became a single fast food restaurant run by the McDonald brothers, sons of the founder. I won't go into the details of what followed; as Casey said, "You could look it up." But nowadays McDonald's is a corporation with about 35,000 restaurants worldwide and 1.7 million employees. It would have been impossible for the McDonald brothers to expand much, even inside California, without incorporating and bringing in other stockholders (people willing to risk their butts to make a buck on a promising company.)

It's that simple. McDonald's now is an outfit big enough that politicians are bearing down on it, hoping to rip off a buck or two they can spend to buy votes. In California we see them playing to the suckers (according to Barnum there's one born every minute) with a $15 an hour minimum wage. Of course the result is going to be even fewer youngsters able to find an entry-level job. But that's just basic economics, which ought to be taught in grade school, but isn't, so most people haven't a clue.

"Employees" don't start companies. Risk-takers like the McDonalds do that, and they're the people who end up with corporations able to hire employees. It's basic economics. You could look it up.

[Rob C]

--- and without 'employees' to purchase products and services, what's the use of corporations? ;)

But that's all not very much about the topic of Copyright law, and related 'freedom of Panorama'.

Cheers,
Bart

Strange argument: it's people working for other corporations that buy the products of the first corporation, otherwise, only Ford employees would be buying Ford... on the other hand, perhaps inside knowledge makes them buy BMW when they can. Who knows? So what I'm saying is that all depend on the other: interdependence; nothing stands in a vacuum for very long. I don't see where anyone wrote that employees were not necessary - at least to some degree. What one objects to is the notion that big business is inevitably evil, an idea which smacks of so much basic leftie thought and cradle-dogma as to be a joke. Were it not so dangerous.

What I do know, is that with too much mechanisation, the time will come when nobody is employed and making the money to shift the goods being made by the robots. I forsee an international sit-down of capi dei capi to figure out just when enough robotics is enough. They better plan for it soon. At least before China is sole steel producer, on the last man standing principle.

Rob C

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

"Employees" don't start companies.

Hi Russ,

Employees are also customers, either for the same company or for other companies (who in turn are customers to other companies). Without customers, there is no viability for a company.

It's basic economics. You could look it up.

Indeed.

Here's something more on topic (professional photographers are referenced at 9min:47sec) to chew on, by Jaron Lanier (and don't let looks deceive you, he was named one of TIME's 100 most influential people in 2010). At about 19 min, he concludes why the system is not sustainable, "there aren't gonna be any customers to buy your stuff eventually."

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

Yes, without customers there's no business for companies or for independent operators. But without stuff to sell there are no customers. Stuff to sell has to come first -- before the word "customers" even can be coined. Considering that not all that long ago, except for those who had superior weapons, people lived almost entirely on the results of their own farming labor you realize that "customers" are a fairly recent development. The first step away from that situation was independent enterprise, but for any enterprise to be more than a local guild or a local store you need the means to ramp up production and distribution. That ramping up has led to employment for "the masses," as any good Socialist would say, before suggesting that the government take over the "means of production" created by the ramper. Again, it's basic economics. You can learn about it here: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3023.Basic_Economics

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yes, without customers there's no business for companies or for independent operators. But without stuff to sell there are no customers.

It takes two to tango ...  Sometimes the need for a solution is leading, and someone will find a solution, sometimes someone finds a solution for which a need or a market has to be invented. But without someone supplying the fuel, i.e. payment for, and consumption of, product or service, it's doomed.

Cheers,
Bart