Professional cameras not allowed

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:39:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 22:31:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Savageduck wrote:

...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

Seems the US law system is broken, if it's not a "loser pays
all" system.

The loser only pays the costs if the case comes to trial and the
decision requires that.

Well, if it's a criminal trial and the defendant is an
adolescent, the costs may be eaten by the state. Or if
someone started the case with e.g. false accusations, they
might have to pay.

The point of the discussion is a civil case involving trademark and
copyright issues. What the hell does a criminal trial have to do with
this?

The "loser does not pay the cost" cases.


A party can sue another party, in civil court, for bringing a
frivolous lawsuit. However, the suing party will be responsible for
legal costs unless the lawyer takes the case on a contingent basis.

Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
of a settlement or of winning the case. There's no reason the lawyer
should spend his/her time and money to pursue a case with no return to
the lawyer.

So I can sue you frivously as long as I'm known not to settle
and the case is not crystal clear, if you are poor. And if
you win, you'll loose what the courts grant you in damages to
your own lawyer. Isn't that fun?


There can be extensive legal costs in
preparing for a case to come to trial, and those costs may not be
recovered if the case is settled out of court or if the case is
dropped before trial.

Can't afford going to a lawyer? You'll be helped.

By whom?

By the state. At least *here*.

Public defenders take criminal cases, not civil cases.

To paraphrase you:
What the hell does a criminal case have to do with this?

Some lawyers take cases pro bono, but a lawyer isn't going to take a
case unless there's a strong possibility of winning or unless his/her
client is willing and able to foot the bill.

Well, and there we are ... *here* you can get counsel and a
lawyer, if the case is winnable.


The best that can be hoped for is that some group - like the American
Civil Liberties Union - takes on the case. What group has enough
interest in overturning Pebble Beach's right to trademark and
copyright protection?

Yep, they have copyright on a tree, and on every photograph
you shoot on their premises.

Did I mention the US law system seems broken?


If you settle and agree to split the costs (or admit complete
defeat), then you may have to pay, yes. Same as in court.

If you drop the case --- well, don't unless you know how to
recoup your costs.

In the majority of legal actions brought, there is no winner or loser
because the cases are dropped or settled.

Still, if you can't afford it, you'll be helped.

By whom?

By the state.

Equality before
the law also means that not having enough money won't exclude
your legal rights. And that's not just going to court.

That pertains primarily to criminal cases, not civil cases.

That pertains to *all* cases. It might not be practiced in the
US in order to allow the rich to ride roughshod over the poor.


The civil
cases where this comes into play are cases are deprivation of civil
rights in some form.

A person objecting to Pebble Beach's trademark and copyright
protection has to show they've been damaged to have a viable case.
The person can't just say "I want to use this and I don't want to pay
for it". There must be demonstrable damage.

Having to pay for something that you're free by the law to use
without pay would constitute damage. Not being allowed to make
money by your own works would also constitue money.

And since any painting or carving or model of some salt- and
wind-formed single cypress on a rocky shore seem to be affected
.... even if it's a different tree, or off a PD photo or completely
invented by the artist. At least that's what I've read in
this thread.

The person must also
show that they have attempted to mitigate any damage.

"I said I would not pay extortionists and blackmailers. I also
made shure I was not bound by any contractual law with PBC,
by never entering any agreement with them, including entering
their property."

What damage is there here?

Hereby I order you to pay me 1 cent every time you use the
letter 'e' or 'E' or any letter with a similarly looking glyph.
What's the damage? None, right? You just need to learn how to
live without the letter 'e'. It's possible! See here for proof:
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu...?key=olbp37063

Who is your legal advisor? Whoever it is, fire him/her.

Thanks, I'll take that advice:
"tony cooper", you're fired! No more legal advice from you!

-Wolfgang

tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:58:29 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

Seems the US law system is broken, if it's not a "loser pays
all" system.

The loser only pays the costs if the case comes to trial and the
decision requires that.

Well, if it's a criminal trial and the defendant is an
adolescent, the costs may be eaten by the state. Or if
someone started the case with e.g. false accusations, they
might have to pay.

The point of the discussion is a civil case involving trademark and
copyright issues. What the hell does a criminal trial have to do with
this?

The "loser does not pay the cost" cases.

That has nothing to do with your statement about help being available
with costs in a trademark/copyright issue.

We have long departed from that issue.

But if you like, yes, the US law system seems broken when you
need serious money to assert your rights.

A party can sue another party, in civil court, for bringing a
frivolous lawsuit. However, the suing party will be responsible for
legal costs unless the lawyer takes the case on a contingent basis.

Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
of a settlement or of winning the case. There's no reason the lawyer
should spend his/her time and money to pursue a case with no return to
the lawyer.

So I can sue you frivously as long as I'm known not to settle
and the case is not crystal clear, if you are poor. And if
you win, you'll loose what the courts grant you in damages to
your own lawyer. Isn't that fun?

What the hell are you talking about?

Me: rich, you: poor.

You can only bring a frivolous
case if you have the money to either pay a lawyer or, if you represent
yourself, to pay the court costs. If you are so poor that you can
afford neither, you can't bring the case.

And same for a non-frivolous case, right?


Whether or not you settle has nothing to do with who pays the costs
other than the settlement offer will include who pays what.

| Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
| of a settlement or of winning the case.

Try to read enough to understand the context.


[must pay the lawyer]

Assume my objective is not making money but making your life
difficult.

You need a new legal advisor

As I said: you're fired.

and an understanding of the difference
between "lose" and "loose".

Yes, it's a common spelling mistake and I am prone to it.


There can be extensive legal costs in
preparing for a case to come to trial, and those costs may not be
recovered if the case is settled out of court or if the case is
dropped before trial.

Can't afford going to a lawyer? You'll be helped.

By whom?

By the state. At least *here*.

I don't know where "here" is for you.

I thought it being mentioned so often that that's dommon
knowledge.

If your government pays for
your costs in a civil suit, your government is allowing the court
system to be jammed up with nonsense cases.

Nonsense cases aren't paid for, nor are they paid if you
could pay the money.

But getting representation and advice doesn't depend on you
having money.

Some lawyers take cases pro bono, but a lawyer isn't going to take a
case unless there's a strong possibility of winning or unless his/her
client is willing and able to foot the bill.

Well, and there we are ... *here* you can get counsel and a
lawyer, if the case is winnable.

You can here, too. A lawyer will take a "winnable" case on
contingency. What do you think I said above?

Let's see ... wasn't it
| Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
| of a settlement or of winning the case.
? Are you sure there's no difference between a case that has
a chance to win and one where such a thing (or settlement) is
*absolutely* sure?

Oh, and you did imply there must be enough money in the case to
interest the lawyer.


If you settle and agree to split the costs (or admit complete
defeat), then you may have to pay, yes. Same as in court.

If you drop the case --- well, don't unless you know how to
recoup your costs.

In the majority of legal actions brought, there is no winner or loser
because the cases are dropped or settled.

Still, if you can't afford it, you'll be helped.

By whom?

By the state.

I don't know where "here" is for you,

That's an open secret.

and what "state" covers your
costs for civil suits,

The single states of the Federation.

but the concept is both unbelievable and
ridiculous.

Well, it only covers costs if you couldn't cover them yourself,
so it's not ridiculous. It's the logical and clear consequence
that the law and your rights shouldn't depend on you having money.

The idea that that only should be true when your freedom is in
danger is prima facie ridiculous.

As to unbelievable:
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/be...006890980.html
You may need to consult a bilingual lawyer here.


Equality before
the law also means that not having enough money won't exclude
your legal rights. And that's not just going to court.

That pertains primarily to criminal cases, not civil cases.

That pertains to *all* cases. It might not be practiced in the
US in order to allow the rich to ride roughshod over the poor.

Why do you assume that only the poor would want to sue the rich in a
civil matter?

Where do I assume the rich (suing or being sued) won't have the
money to hire a lawyer?


The civil
cases where this comes into play are cases are deprivation of civil
rights in some form.

A person objecting to Pebble Beach's trademark and copyright
protection has to show they've been damaged to have a viable case.
The person can't just say "I want to use this and I don't want to pay
for it". There must be demonstrable damage.

Having to pay for something that you're free by the law to use
without pay would constitute damage. Not being allowed to make
money by your own works would also constitue money.

You don't understand the concept of "damage".

Oh, then probably
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/damages
don't understand it as well.

You can use an image of
the PB tree if you obtain a license from PB to do so. You will make
less money since you had to pay a license fee, but you have not been
deprived of making money. PB will not restrict how much you charge
for the licensed use of a photo. Just set your price to include the
fee.

Are you sure any license at any cost will never constitute
damage, even if the license was bought under duress ("we'll
sue you till you're broke, and yes, we own the courts") ---
as you can just set the price to include the fee?

Are you sure if your legal rights are restricted that's also
no damage?


Who is your legal advisor? Whoever it is, fire him/her.

Thanks, I'll take that advice:
"tony cooper", you're fired! No more legal advice from you!

Be your own lawyer. We have a saying for that: "A man who is his own
lawyer has a fool for a client". You fit that description.

So who is your lawyer, Mr. Fool?

-Wolfgang

tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:53:19 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

You can only bring a frivolous
case if you have the money to either pay a lawyer or, if you represent
yourself, to pay the court costs. If you are so poor that you can
afford neither, you can't bring the case.

And same for a non-frivolous case, right?

No, because in the non-frivolous case a lawyer would take it on
contingency.

Let yourself be blackmailed out of a huge chunk of what is
yours, yep. Legally, too. When was the US taken over by
lawyers?


Can't afford going to a lawyer? You'll be helped.

By whom?

By the state. At least *here*.

I don't know where "here" is for you.

I thought it being mentioned so often that that's dommon
knowledge.

You have an inflated sense of your own importance. If you've
mentioned it, I haven't noticed or retained that information. I
really only scan your posts and notice when you make some outrageously
mistaken comment.

Guess you only scan the Duck's posts as well ... just as an
example. For *I* didn't mention it ...


Let's see ... wasn't it
| Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
| of a settlement or of winning the case.
? Are you sure there's no difference between a case that has
a chance to win and one where such a thing (or settlement) is
*absolutely* sure?

Yes, I'm sure. There is no case that is absolutely winnable.

So you're agreeing that "lawyers don't take cases on contingent"
FULL STOP?


Are you sure any license at any cost will never constitute
damage, even if the license was bought under duress ("we'll
sue you till you're broke, and yes, we own the courts")

Another word you don't understand the legal meaning of: duress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress
Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any
unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to
act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not
[or would]"

How would "we'll sue you till you're broke, and yes, we own the
courts" not count as unlawful, and how would buying a license
when you'd not buy one otherwise not count as acting in a manner
one otherwise would not?

Is there no law against suing to harass people? Is there no law
against controlling a court from the outside?

-Wolfgang

On 2012-09-20 08:26:25 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:59:34 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Can't afford going to a lawyer? You'll be helped.

By whom?

By the state. At least *here*.

I don't know where "here" is for you.

I thought it being mentioned so often that that's dommon
knowledge.

You have an inflated sense of your own importance. If you've
mentioned it, I haven't noticed or retained that information. I
really only scan your posts and notice when you make some outrageously
mistaken comment.

Guess you only scan the Duck's posts as well ... just as an
example. For *I* didn't mention it ...

My question is; How did I get inserted into this section of this
sub-thread via non sequitur?

Where the Duck thinks you're from is his opinion.

Anyway, I always thought that he was from the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

The point of not buying something when you'd otherwise not do so is
patently ridiculous. No one would buy a vehicle license tag or
permit, pay admission to a theater, or do anything else that cost them
money if wasn't required.

no one? that's a bit absolute.

sorry to burst your bubble but some people do pay for things that
aren't required or don't need.

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

Are you willing and able to also learn something?

As soon as you post something based on reliable information about a
subject I don't know anything about, I'm willing to learn. So far,
that's not been the case.

bull****.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:26:25 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:59:34 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Can't afford going to a lawyer? You'll be helped.

By whom?

By the state. At least *here*.

I don't know where "here" is for you.

I thought it being mentioned so often that that's dommon
knowledge.

You have an inflated sense of your own importance. If you've
mentioned it, I haven't noticed or retained that information. I
really only scan your posts and notice when you make some outrageously
mistaken comment.

Guess you only scan the Duck's posts as well ... just as an
example. For *I* didn't mention it ...

Where the Duck thinks you're from is his opinion.

Let's see ... wasn't it
| Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
| of a settlement or of winning the case.
? Are you sure there's no difference between a case that has
a chance to win and one where such a thing (or settlement) is
*absolutely* sure?

Yes, I'm sure. There is no case that is absolutely winnable.

So you're agreeing that "lawyers don't take cases on contingent"
FULL STOP?

I don't agree with sentence that doesn't make sense. A case taken on
"contingent" would mean a case taken on by a group of people united by
a common cause.

That's an odd meaning. From where do you get that? Or are you playing
games with the language? It's clear what Wolfgang referred to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_fee
"A contingent fee (in the United States) or conditional fee (in
England and Wales) is any fee for services provided where the fee
is payable only if there is a favourable result. In the law, it is
defined as a "fee charged for a lawyer's services only if the
lawsuit is successful or is favorably settled out of court....
Contingent fees are usually calculated as a percentage of the
client's net recovery."


You can't play games with the language if you haven't mastered the
language.

Hmmmmmm.

Are you sure any license at any cost will never constitute
damage, even if the license was bought under duress ("we'll
sue you till you're broke, and yes, we own the courts")

Another word you don't understand the legal meaning of: duress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress
Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any
unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to
act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not
[or would]"

How would "we'll sue you till you're broke, and yes, we own the
courts" not count as unlawful, and how would buying a license
when you'd not buy one otherwise not count as acting in a manner
one otherwise would not?

The threat to sue is not an unlawful threat. It is, in fact, a
notification of intent to pursue the claim by lawful means.

The point of not buying something when you'd otherwise not do so is
patently ridiculous. No one would buy a vehicle license tag or
permit, pay admission to a theater, or do anything else that cost them
money if wasn't required.

Is there no law against suing to harass people?

You can't craft a law to determine in advance what a harassing, or
nuisance, lawsuit is. You can't define in advance what constitutes a
nuisance suit. The sued party does have recourse in asking that the
judge rule the case to be frivolous and require that the bringer of
the suit pay all charges incurred.

Is there no law against controlling a court from the outside?

I have no idea what is going on in your little mind that makes you
think that a court is controlled from the outside in an improper
manner.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:59:34 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

Let's see ... wasn't it
| Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
| of a settlement or of winning the case.
? Are you sure there's no difference between a case that has
a chance to win and one where such a thing (or settlement) is
*absolutely* sure?

Yes, I'm sure. There is no case that is absolutely winnable.

So you're agreeing that "lawyers don't take cases on contingent"
FULL STOP?

I don't agree with sentence that doesn't make sense. A case taken on
"contingent" would mean a case taken on by a group of people united by
a common cause.

You can't play games with the language if you haven't mastered the
language.

From: tony cooper
Message-ID:
| Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| of a settlement or of winning the case. There's no reason the lawyer
| should spend his/her time and money to pursue a case with no return to
| the lawyer.

There are only 2 possibilities:
a) you don't understand what you yourself said or
b) you painted yourself into a corner and now resort to ad
hominem attacks.

Case a: You really need to learn how to write and read English.
It's not necessary to *master* the language, just a touch
of comprehensive reading skills would help you.
Here are some URLs that can help you:
http://www.majortests.com/sat/reading-comprehension.php
http://classroom.jc-schools.net/basic/la-read.html
http://www.miguelmllop.com/practice/...gcompindex.htm
http://www.englishmaven.org/Pages/Re...prehension.htm
http://www.testprepreview.com/modules/reading1.htm
Until you managed to aquire some skill there, it's not
possible to discuss with you.

Case b: You're a scoundrel. You're intellectually dishonest.
You are unable to admit when someone else has a point
--- or simply admit you wrote something illogical ---
even when your own words clearly say so and any child
can prove after logic 101.
You're not worth to be discussed with.

Since a discussion is obviously not possible with you, I won't.

Someone who does't know what they say or someone who's
intellectually dishonest isn't worth being read.

And yes, I'll follow my own advice. We'll see if you've
improved in half a year.

Bye-bye.

PLONK.


-Wolfgang

Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-09-20 08:26:25 -0700, tony cooper said:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:59:34 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


Guess you only scan the Duck's posts as well ... just as an
example. For *I* didn't mention it ...

My question is; How did I get inserted into this section of this
sub-thread via non sequitur?

You popped to my mind first. You probably left a lasting
impression.


Where the Duck thinks you're from is his opinion.

Anyway, I always thought that he was from the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

Yep, and tony insists on a tin plate.

-Wolfgang