Hat Tip: Daily Mail
Yes, this is a little off topic but I think it's worth mentioning.
The U.S. Air Force Investigations into UFO sighting (Project Blue Book) are now available online. The files include some UFO pictures.
You don't necessarily need to be interested in UFOs to examine the photos. You can simply be looking to exercise your photo analysis skills by determining what the UFO actually is. (I'm pretty sure one of the UFO images is the result of problems that occurred during the film development process. The UFOs look suspiciously like the rings left behind by some kind of liquid drying on the negative.)
Many of the files are just reported sightings without any images. You'll have to hunt a little to find UFO photographs.
Showing posts with label off topic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label off topic. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Monday, January 27, 2014
Off Topic Post: Quentin Tarantino Sues Gawker for Copyright Infringement
Hat Tip: Hollywood Reporter
This does have some relevance when discussing photography. Copyright law covers photography the same way it covers things like movie scripts.
The complaint filed by Tarantino's lawyers can be viewed on the Hollywood Reporter web site in .pdf form. I find some of the language used amusing. I especially like the accusation of "predatory journalism" and "violating people's right to make a buck."
That is not language used by a professional attorney. That is language used by a Drama Queen.
I get the distinct impression that Tarantino was heavily involved in drafting the complaint.
The complaint basically boils down to Tarantino complaining that Gawker had the audacity to include a link to the script that someone else had posted online in their online article about the script being leaked.
Script leaks happen all the time in Hollywood. They usually result in creating interest in the film.
So Tarantino scraps the film after the script for his film is leaked?
Sounds like he didn't like the response he was getting from the people that read it and is now looking for a way to make money off of it that doesn't involve actually shooting the movie.
He apparently has reached the conclusion that the movie would be a money looser.
Why Does This Matter?
The cause of action against Gawker is something called "contributory infringement." Gawker itself did not engage in copying or disseminating the script. No copying on their part means no copyright violation.
They're being accused of something akin to aiding and abetting. Photographers should keep this in mind when dealing with cases involving unauthorized use of their material. The person copying and disseminating the material may not be the only party subject to a suit for damages.
The problem I see Tarantino having is that he hasn't named the actual party responsible for the copyright violation and he's going to have problem showing damages.
The movie script only has value to Tarantino if he makes the movie. He chose not to do so. His actions are why the script lost it's value, not Gawker's actions in linking to the upload. And any argument that leaking the script harmed Tarantino will face a large uphill struggle.
It's not like knowing the text of a script will prevent people from seeing the Movie. How many people read the Harry Potter books before watching them on film?
This does have some relevance when discussing photography. Copyright law covers photography the same way it covers things like movie scripts.
The complaint filed by Tarantino's lawyers can be viewed on the Hollywood Reporter web site in .pdf form. I find some of the language used amusing. I especially like the accusation of "predatory journalism" and "violating people's right to make a buck."
That is not language used by a professional attorney. That is language used by a Drama Queen.
I get the distinct impression that Tarantino was heavily involved in drafting the complaint.
The complaint basically boils down to Tarantino complaining that Gawker had the audacity to include a link to the script that someone else had posted online in their online article about the script being leaked.
Script leaks happen all the time in Hollywood. They usually result in creating interest in the film.
So Tarantino scraps the film after the script for his film is leaked?
Sounds like he didn't like the response he was getting from the people that read it and is now looking for a way to make money off of it that doesn't involve actually shooting the movie.
He apparently has reached the conclusion that the movie would be a money looser.
Why Does This Matter?
The cause of action against Gawker is something called "contributory infringement." Gawker itself did not engage in copying or disseminating the script. No copying on their part means no copyright violation.
They're being accused of something akin to aiding and abetting. Photographers should keep this in mind when dealing with cases involving unauthorized use of their material. The person copying and disseminating the material may not be the only party subject to a suit for damages.
The problem I see Tarantino having is that he hasn't named the actual party responsible for the copyright violation and he's going to have problem showing damages.
The movie script only has value to Tarantino if he makes the movie. He chose not to do so. His actions are why the script lost it's value, not Gawker's actions in linking to the upload. And any argument that leaking the script harmed Tarantino will face a large uphill struggle.
It's not like knowing the text of a script will prevent people from seeing the Movie. How many people read the Harry Potter books before watching them on film?
Friday, November 29, 2013
Off Topic Post: What the H*** was ABC Thinking?
I just had to post on this despite it being completely off topic. It has nothing to do with photography or art, (the topic limit I placed on this blog.) I just couldn't resist posting on this.
Last night, ABC ran a Muppets Thanksgiving Special. Nothing unusual there, but they decided to pair the Muppets with Lady GaGa, RuPaul and Elton John. WTH were they thinking? You pair the modern-day Queen of Burlesque (not to mention two queens of another sort) with a group based on wholesome entertainment fit for children?
Burlesque has its place, but it isn't the type of thing people want their children watching, and it showed in the ratings.
Lady Gaga and the Muppets got fewer viewers than the 40-year old Charlie Brown Thanksgiving show. (The latter drew 50% more viewers.)
The Entertainment Industry, as a whole, has no idea what the rest of the country wants to watch at this point.
I just had to share this image from last night's show:
'nuff said.
Last night, ABC ran a Muppets Thanksgiving Special. Nothing unusual there, but they decided to pair the Muppets with Lady GaGa, RuPaul and Elton John. WTH were they thinking? You pair the modern-day Queen of Burlesque (not to mention two queens of another sort) with a group based on wholesome entertainment fit for children?
Burlesque has its place, but it isn't the type of thing people want their children watching, and it showed in the ratings.
Lady Gaga and the Muppets got fewer viewers than the 40-year old Charlie Brown Thanksgiving show. (The latter drew 50% more viewers.)
The Entertainment Industry, as a whole, has no idea what the rest of the country wants to watch at this point.
I just had to share this image from last night's show:
'nuff said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)