The insatiable greed everywhere is stifling creativity and opportunity

On Jun 23, 2015, RichA wrote
(in ):

But not for intellectual right's holders. So, if you shoot a city-scape and
publish it, do you have to black out buildings or go to every
property-holding to ask permission to publish?


http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...phy-of-public-
b
uildings-under-threat-after-european-rule-change-mep-warns-54506

This might be problematic for commercial photographers and publication
without a release. However, they don’t address amateur, or tourist
photography.

There is a fear mongering statement by a German MEP who says the following;
“...the rule change could have a far wider impact, by affecting people
sharing images of iconic buildings on Facebook and those posted on
Wikipedia.�
This is unlikely to happen as the bulk of images on Wikipedia are not
commercial, but Creative Commons, or Public domain. As for Facebook, that is
the domain of the smartphonesnapshot who is invariably an amateur.

This is a very FUDDish article.


--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:26:34 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 23, 2015, RichA wrote
(in ):

But not for intellectual right's holders. So, if you shoot a city-scape and
publish it, do you have to black out buildings or go to every
property-holding to ask permission to publish?


http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...phy-of-public-
b
uildings-under-threat-after-european-rule-change-mep-warns-54506

This might be problematic for commercial photographers and publication
without a release. However, they don’t address amateur, or tourist
photography.

There is a fear mongering statement by a German MEP who says the following;
“...the rule change could have a far wider impact, by affecting people
sharing images of iconic buildings on Facebook and those posted on
Wikipedia.”
This is unlikely to happen as the bulk of images on Wikipedia are not
commercial, but Creative Commons, or Public domain. As for Facebook, that is
the domain of the smartphonesnapshot who is invariably an amateur.

This is a very FUDDish article.

I'm not so sure. Isn't the proposal similar the copyright rules which
already apply to photographing the lights on the Eifell tower?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Jun 23, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:26:34 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 23, 2015, RichA wrote
(in ):

But not for intellectual right's holders. So, if you shoot a city-scape
and
publish it, do you have to black out buildings or go to every
property-holding to ask permission to publish?

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...aphy-of-public
-
b
uildings-under-threat-after-european-rule-change-mep-warns-54506

This might be problematic for commercial photographers and publication
without a release. However, they don’t address amateur, or tourist
photography.

There is a fear mongering statement by a German MEP who says the following;
“...the rule change could have a far wider impact, by affecting people
sharing images of iconic buildings on Facebook and those posted on
Wikipedia.�
This is unlikely to happen as the bulk of images on Wikipedia are not
commercial, but Creative Commons, or Public domain. As for Facebook, that
is
the domain of the smartphonesnapshot who is invariably an amateur.

This is a very FUDDish article.

I'm not so sure. Isn't the proposal similar the copyright rules which
already apply to photographing the lights on the Eifell tower?

Yes. However, there are several countries which currently follow the French
model of highly restrictive photography, France, Belgium, Italy, Greece,
Ukraine,&Belarus.
Some of the others including the UK, (and fortunately for you) The
Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Austria, Czech
Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Hungary, Serbia, and Moldova all permit free
photography of all structures and works of art depending on museum/gallery
restrictions.

This French promoted rule change for the European Union is dependent on a
vote in the European Union Parliament. Hence the opposition to it being led
by a German MEP.

I suspect that this proposed new rule will not survive the vote.
....but I have been known to be wrong from time to time.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 6/24/2015 12:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:

snip


I suspect that this proposed new rule will not survive the vote.
...but I have been known to be wrong from time to time.

As have many cops, I am happy to report that last night a Village Court
Justice ruled that the cop who gave me a parking ticket was wrong. (I
admit it was not a hard case to win.) The ticket was for parking over a
line. The line was covered with snow and was not visible.

--
PeterN

On Jun 24, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

On 6/24/2015 12:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

I suspect that this proposed new rule will not survive the vote.
...but I have been known to be wrong from time to time.

As have many cops, I am happy to report that last night a Village Court
Justice ruled that the cop who gave me a parking ticket was wrong. (I
admit it was not a hard case to win.) The ticket was for parking over a
line. The line was covered with snow and was not visible.

That’s OK! I understand that attorneys have been known to be wrong from
time to time, but they are usually reluctant to admit it.


--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 6/24/2015 11:23 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 24, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

On 6/24/2015 12:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

I suspect that this proposed new rule will not survive the vote.
...but I have been known to be wrong from time to time.

As have many cops, I am happy to report that last night a Village Court
Justice ruled that the cop who gave me a parking ticket was wrong. (I
admit it was not a hard case to win.) The ticket was for parking over a
line. The line was covered with snow and was not visible.

That’s OK! I understand that attorneys have been known to be wrong from
time to time, but they are usually reluctant to admit it.



The last time I was wrong, was when I thought I was wrong.


--
PeterN

PeterN wrote:
On 6/24/2015 12:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:

snip


I suspect that this proposed new rule will not survive the vote.
...but I have been known to be wrong from time to time.

As have many cops, I am happy to report that last night a Village Court
Justice ruled that the cop who gave me a parking ticket was wrong. (I
admit it was not a hard case to win.) The ticket was for parking over a
line. The line was covered with snow and was not visible.



I had 2 worse ticket situations.

While driving with my ill and blind wife in Manhattan, I came to a
full stop at the roadside when I saw and heard an approaching hook and
ladder fire truck. While I was fully stopped in a safe place, in broad
daylight, the fire truck cut the corner too,tightly,and the swinging
rear part ripped off my car's front bumper and headlights with a
horrendous noise scaring the pants off me and my sightless wife. The
fire truck stopped,and a fireman came over and gave ME a summons. I
asked why, and he replied that he had city-wide orders that if any
N.Y.C. vehicle was in an accident, to automatically give the other
driver a summons!!!. After a period of 3 months, I received a notice
from a judge in Brooklyn that thee case was dismissed.

After visiting family in Ventura, CA, I returned home to N.Y. State, and
soon received a printout summons for $225.-, for (allegedly) running a
red light. It was generated by a red light camera via a company in
Arizona. It included a photo of me behind the wheel and a photo of my
license plate. Shades of Big Brother. At the top of the printout it
noted the number of minutes and seconds after the light turned red that
I passed through. The number was 00:00. When I first wrote them, they
demanded full payment by check. If the charges were dropped, then they
would return the check. I sent them the huge check. About 4 months
later, they returned the check with no apology.

N.B. They were outsmarted by their own technology. Time elapsed being
00:00 means that I did not run the red light.

Mort Linder

On 6/24/2015 9:15 PM, Mort wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 6/24/2015 12:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:

snip


I suspect that this proposed new rule will not survive the vote.
...but I have been known to be wrong from time to time.

As have many cops, I am happy to report that last night a Village Court
Justice ruled that the cop who gave me a parking ticket was wrong. (I
admit it was not a hard case to win.) The ticket was for parking over a
line. The line was covered with snow and was not visible.



I had 2 worse ticket situations.

While driving with my ill and blind wife in Manhattan, I came to a
full stop at the roadside when I saw and heard an approaching hook and
ladder fire truck. While I was fully stopped in a safe place, in broad
daylight, the fire truck cut the corner too,tightly,and the swinging
rear part ripped off my car's front bumper and headlights with a
horrendous noise scaring the pants off me and my sightless wife. The
fire truck stopped,and a fireman came over and gave ME a summons. I
asked why, and he replied that he had city-wide orders that if any
N.Y.C. vehicle was in an accident, to automatically give the other
driver a summons!!!. After a period of 3 months, I received a notice
from a judge in Brooklyn that thee case was dismissed.

After visiting family in Ventura, CA, I returned home to N.Y. State, and
soon received a printout summons for $225.-, for (allegedly) running a
red light. It was generated by a red light camera via a company in
Arizona. It included a photo of me behind the wheel and a photo of my
license plate. Shades of Big Brother. At the top of the printout it
noted the number of minutes and seconds after the light turned red that
I passed through. The number was 00:00. When I first wrote them, they
demanded full payment by check. If the charges were dropped, then they
would return the check. I sent them the huge check. About 4 months
later, they returned the check with no apology.

N.B. They were outsmarted by their own technology. Time elapsed being
00:00 means that I did not run the red light.


Two years ago I was T boned by a drunken cop. I had a loaner car, which
was totaled. Fortunately nobody was seriously injured. I was given a
ticket for failure to yield the right of way. After many postponments, I
agreed to a compromise plea, that only resulted in a small fine.
Although technically the charge should have been dismissed, it was not
worth my time to spend 3/4 of a day with BS.

One funny red light story I heard is that a driver was sent a photo of
him going through a red light. He sent a photo of a check in payment of
the fine. The Clerk had a sense of humor and sent the driver a photo of
a set of handcuffs. The driver sent a real check.

I heard of one guy who


--
PeterN

"Mort" wrote in message
...
PeterN wrote:
On 6/24/2015 12:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:

snip


I suspect that this proposed new rule will not survive the vote.
...but I have been known to be wrong from time to time.

As have many cops, I am happy to report that last night a Village
Court
Justice ruled that the cop who gave me a parking ticket was wrong. (I
admit it was not a hard case to win.) The ticket was for parking over
a
line. The line was covered with snow and was not visible.



I had 2 worse ticket situations.

While driving with my ill and blind wife in Manhattan, I came to a
full stop at the roadside when I saw and heard an approaching hook and
ladder fire truck. While I was fully stopped in a safe place, in
broad daylight, the fire truck cut the corner too,tightly,and the
swinging rear part ripped off my car's front bumper and headlights
with a horrendous noise scaring the pants off me and my sightless
wife. The fire truck stopped,and a fireman came over and gave ME a
summons. I asked why, and he replied that he had city-wide orders that
if any N.Y.C. vehicle was in an accident, to automatically give the
other driver a summons!!!. After a period of 3 months, I received a
notice from a judge in Brooklyn that thee case was dismissed.

After visiting family in Ventura, CA, I returned home to N.Y. State,
and soon received a printout summons for $225.-, for (allegedly)
running a red light. It was generated by a red light camera via a
company in Arizona. It included a photo of me behind the wheel and a
photo of my license plate. Shades of Big Brother. At the top of the
printout it noted the number of minutes and seconds after the light
turned red that I passed through. The number was 00:00. When I first
wrote them, they demanded full payment by check. If the charges were
dropped, then they would return the check. I sent them the huge check.
About 4 months later, they returned the check with no apology.

N.B. They were outsmarted by their own technology. Time elapsed being
00:00 means that I did not run the red light.

Mort Linder

These red light cameras are popping up everywhere on Long Island. They
exist solely for the purpose of generating revenue, despite the claims
of government that they are used for safety reasons. There was one
situation years ago when Nassau County (one of the two counties that
make up Long Island) installed a number of red light cameras. In the
town where they were installed, there was a law that stipulated that the
town gets all the revenue, none of it would go to the county. The
county took them down. So much for safety.

On 24/06/2015 15:32, PeterN wrote:
On 6/24/2015 12:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:


As have many cops, I am happy to report that last night a Village Court
Justice ruled that the cop who gave me a parking ticket was wrong. (I
admit it was not a hard case to win.) The ticket was for parking over a
line. The line was covered with snow and was not visible.



Years ago I got my colleague (who was driving) to stop in the main
street whilst I picked up a newspaper. A police traffic car slowed down
and shouted for him to move because parking was not allowed. When I got
back I said I could park there until 10:00h so called at the police
station and spoke to the same traffic policeman (not ordinary plod). He
had never read the signs which define the parking restriction so said he
would check. I rang later and got the same person, he admitted he was
wrong and I was right! Amazed me that a traffic police officer never
bothered to actual check what the restrictions were.

A year or so later a traffic warden banged on my window and told me to
move at virtually the same place. I wrote to complain and had a
personal apology from the Chief Inspector, the warden had been
reprimanded for the way he thumped my car and also I was again right
about parking restrictions.