New Terms - For Photographers - Part II

Barbro · Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:08 pm

Thank's Paulo for taking the time answer some concerns here. And, as someone said already, it's nice to see there is character behind the names here.

But..
After the server migration-thingy last fall, I was kind of optimistic about DM having learnt something about interacting with us. This is a clear sign that all the lessons were not learnt.
It is now clear to me (finally...) that A.net is only a part of what DM does. DM does a lot of stuff. This leads to an idea, that A.net will always be given only a part of "attention". Which is OK, as long as that part is good quality interaction. I was never an active member of these forums, but lately have been very interested of what's going on here.

Mistakes are very easy to identify here. Again, I feel that there is a lesson to be learnt by DM. The difference is, now I'm not sure that lesson will be taken. I find myself being drawn to two directions; on the other hand I understand that this was probably a mistake, with no ill-will, and steps have been taken to correct it. Things will be good again, and I don't have to worry about my rights being trembled on. On the other hand, I feel trust is lost. Totally, irrevocably and perpetually ( Wink

). Who in their right mind would even put that kind of TOU up? It's easy to start wandering to very interesting conclusions when you think of it.

But, maybe DM will finally learn the lesson. Maybe they DO NOT think a minor detail is only minor! Maybe they DO NOT try and think for us, the members!
When in doubt, ask, communicate!! Even when NOT in doubt, communicate anyways! It is so much easier to co-operate, when we have a clue what is going on.

halls120 · Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:40 pm

Quoting Michlis (Reply 144):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 139):
You turned your lawyers loose, apparently with little direction, so they did what lawyers invariably do in a situation like this - they looked out first and foremost for the interests of DM.

Which is what lawyers are supposed to do unless otherwise instructed.

Exactly. And in the instant case, it would appear that the lawyers weren't properly instructed.

Whose fault is that?

Cubsrule · Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:47 pm

Quoting Michlis (Reply 144):
Sometimes plain language doesn't cut it, but you'll learn this when you start practicing, especially when you have to protect your client's interests.

I'm still looking for an example... and I really don't think consideration cuts it. The place where I would argue we might come closest is a choice of law section, but I can't think of any court that would toss such a section because it doesn't contain the words "submit to personal jurisdiction." You're the one trying to prove a positive here, so I'm still looking for an example of a case where a party was injured by the lack of legalese.

paulc · Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:49 pm

Granite,

a brave and accurate post which sums up very well how I (and a lot of other feel) Plenty of people will be waiting for the revised TOU before making a decision one way or the other. Some (myself included) may still decide that enough in enough and that all trust and confidence in how DM have handled this issue + others has been totally destroyed. The bigger concern is how DM are to proceed in the future. Even if the new TOU are 'acceptable' the damage has been done and will take a long time (if ever) for DM to win it back.

dustyslides · Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:07 pm

Paulo,

A few decades ago, when I was in the marketing department of a giant monopoly in the telecommunications industry, one of our large customers described us as "well intentioned bunglers". Being charitable, I would describe DM's handling of Airliners.net so far exactly the same.

Things seem a bit topsy turvy when unpaid volunteers, like Gary Watt, appear to feel more pride and responsibility for the site, (and can communicate those sentiments more effectively), than can those paid to do so.

I'm sure Gary's concern of being shown the door is unfounded, but should he leave, that door won't be wide enough to accommodate all who will follow.

Demand Media may own a lot of websites, but my telecommunications company owned nearly the entire industry, and yet did not survive intact.

We all win if this transition proves successful in the end, but that won't happen unless we, the photographers, and the Airliners.net crew, feel that we are part of Demand Media, rather than a victim of it.

Let's make that happen.

Respectfully,

Bob Garrard

michlis · Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:30 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 152):
I'm still looking for an example... and I really don't think consideration cuts it.

That's your opinion.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 152):
You're the one trying to prove a positive here, so I'm still looking for an example of a case where a party was injured by the lack of legalese.

This isn't this about proving anything (for me anyways) but rather it's my professional opinion based on experience that depending on the situation, legalese may or may not be critical to protecting your client's interest. If you have professional expericence that lends itself alternatively, then I'll consider it, otherwise your argument is strictly academic.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 151):
Whose fault is that?

And hence the whole problem with this thread: it is easier to keep citing fault rather than look for a solution.

halls120 · Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:03 pm

Quoting Michlis (Reply 155):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 151):
Whose fault is that?

And hence the whole problem with this thread: it is easier to keep citing fault rather than look for a solution.

Determining fault is essential to making sure that the problem isn't repeated.

In any event, it seems to me that the solution is obvious. DM needs to admit they screwed up - without pointing fingers amongst their own staff here on the boards - and fix the problems that THEY have created. Seems to me I've read somewhere in this thread that they didn't even discuss the now-defunct changes with their own photo screeners. Have they now brought them into the process? Have they instructed their lawyers to prepare something other than a one size fits all solution?

LTU932 · Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:19 pm

Quoting Michlis (Reply 144):
I.e. let's find a reason to keep the negative undertones of this thread and the gossip going.

It's not a negative undertone and/or gossip, it's a fact. If you had followed events from the takeover until today the way I and many others did, you'd know exactly what I mean.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 156):
DM needs to admit they screwed up - without pointing fingers amongst their own staff here on the boards - and fix the problems that THEY have created.

AFAIK, it has been done, but this admission was only sent via e-mail and to a photographer who posted that e-mail on another site.

PITingres · Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:19 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 156):
Determining fault is essential to making sure that the problem isn't repeated.

Don't mean to go too off-topic, but I couldn't let that one go.

Determining CAUSE is essential to fix the problem; determining FAULT (by which we usually mean BLAME) is most certainly not. The difference is subtle, but the former tends to solution-oriented thinking, while the latter tends to blame and risk-avoidance. Just look at the difference between how the aviation industry handles accidents and incidents, vs medical malpractice. Malpractice is all about punishment and enrichment, it does little to solve the underlying causes.

This doesn't invalidate your second paragraph by any means; the more forthright DM can be about this, the better off they'll be. Whether they have or have not already made sufficient admission is something I don't care to get into at the moment.

Cubsrule · Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:20 pm

Quoting Michlis (Reply 155):
If you have professional expericence that lends itself alternatively, then I'll consider it, otherwise your argument is strictly academic.

I'm approaching things from a litigation viewpoint, which I think is why we disagree. Unless there's a case somewhere where the lack of legalese has hurt a party, I continue to think it's completely unnecessary.

codeshare · Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:51 pm

I think the whole thing which is happening right now will make it as a case study in e-commerce/business books some day.

KS/codeshare

D L X · Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:57 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 159):
Unless there's a case somewhere where the lack of legalese has hurt a party, I continue to think it's completely unnecessary.

I agree completely. It's not a lack of legalese that hurts a party, but lack of foresight in contracting the issue they wanted to contract that causes the problem in plainly written contracts. Things like "oh, I meant the red AND the blue ones" instead of just "the red ones."

Cubsrule · Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:59 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 161):
I agree completely. It's not a lack of legalese that hurts a party, but lack of foresight in contracting the issue they wanted to contract that causes the problem in plainly written contracts.

I have never seen anything written in a contract that I could not rewrite, with equivalent legal effect, in plain English. Lawyers frequently use terms of art (aka legalese) to obscure their own incompetence (that is perhaps a stronger word than I'd like, but you get the idea).

D L X · Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:17 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 162):
Lawyers frequently use terms of art (aka legalese) to obscure their own incompetence (that is perhaps a stronger word than I'd like, but you get the idea).

I would say that lawyers use legalese to obscure what they actually mean, so that if the deal goes bad, they can always argue that it means something different, more favorable to their clients.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case where the plain language contract was misinterpreted causing the issue.

This is ESPECIALLY true when dealing with lay people, such as photographers on A.net who are by and large not lawyers. (Thankfully!) Dont forget, DM, if you do not use plain language in your terms of use, any ambiguity will be resolved in favor of your opponents in a court of law since you are the ones drafting the contract.

mikephotos · Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:18 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 161):
Things like "oh, I meant the red AND the blue ones" instead of just "the red ones."

So does that mean my AA photos are safe from the new TOU and all I need to worry about are the Northwest & Virgin shots Smile

I too currently await the new-new tou in the coming days/weeks.

Mike

michlis · Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:24 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 161):
It's not a lack of legalese that hurts a party, but lack of foresight in contracting the issue they wanted to contract that causes the problem in plainly written contracts.

Which comes back to the point of who is the intended audience of the contract, i.e. who are the parties and what is the intended outcome of the agreement. My drafting style (including prose and terminology) for a merger and acquisition would be different than say the sale of a personal piece of property or real property for that matter.

Regardless, you have your opinion and I have mine on the subject, and I think we can agree that we disagree. Smile

deeplight · Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:28 pm

Granite is right - rack it to inexperience and a huge lesson to me.
I hope I've apologized to everyone this has affected across Anet. Thanks Gary for chiming in. The Crew and Photographers are Anet - inside and out.

Also
Bob G.- I completely respect your opinion and can appreciate your wisdom but your analogy of an ATT type company vs me and Demand Media is far fetched and a bit of dusty thinking...oops.
DM is a content company and people have a choice to view or not to view.....although we have a three dimensional exception - on the Anet axis - you the photographer the Crew / community are Anets biggest asset.

Quoting DustySlides (Reply 154):
A few decades ago, when I was in the marketing department of a giant monopoly in the telecommunications industry, one of our large customers described us as "well intentioned bunglers". Being charitable, I would describe DM's handling of Airliners.net so far exactly the same.

I will personally accept your charitable extol as a 'bungler' but I will not let it permeate into my company as I made the push not DM.
Although you salvaged me with your profound overview for which I will write down and stick on my monitor.

Quoting DustySlides (Reply 154):
We all win if this transition proves successful in the end, but that won't happen unless we, the photographers, and the Airliners.net crew, feel that we are part of Demand Media, rather than a victim of it.

I promise you I will live by this as it sums up how we will operate and are perceived by you. Going forward, if anyone needs to discuss anything directly with me regarding this thread please do so by emailing me at [email protected]

Thanks
Paulo

halls120 · Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:49 pm

Quoting PITIngres (Reply 158):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 156):
Determining fault is essential to making sure that the problem isn't repeated.

Don't mean to go too off-topic, but I couldn't let that one go.

Determining CAUSE is essential to fix the problem; determining FAULT (by which we usually mean BLAME) is most certainly not.

Good point. I should have been more precise. I was in fact equating fault with cause, and I should have used the latter term.

We already know who is to blame. Smile

shep2 · Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:01 pm

Great to hear Granite (Gary) will be staying. He has done alot for this site and he has always been here for the "right" reasons...

Bob G's photos on Airliners.net are getting a bit "dusty"... he hasn't added anything new for a while now - come on Bob - show us some new uploads when you find the time !! Smile

dustyslides · Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:14 pm

Paulo,

Fair enough. Thanks for the response--we're in this together.

Bob Garrard (aka Dusty Thinking)

Granite · Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:57 pm

Shep2

Bob still has plenty of stuff to come......I saw a very nice Delta Hercules this evening Smile

I'd love to get my hands on his collection!

Regards

Gary

dustyslides · Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:05 pm

Quoting Granite (Reply 170):
I'd love to get my hands on his collection!

Would you now. Perhaps I'LL get my hands on my collection again myself.

michlis · Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:11 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 162):
I have never seen anything written in a contract that I could not rewrite, with equivalent legal effect, in plain English.

Lol, in all your years as a law student right. Big grin

Quoting D L X (Reply 163):
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case where the plain language contract was misinterpreted causing the issue.

This is ESPECIALLY true when dealing with lay people, such as photographers on A.net who are by and large not lawyers.

But DM's legal staff is not representing the photographers so who are we to say that they should use "plain english" to protect their client? I'm not trying to prolong this, but I'm pretty sure DM's legal staff knows what it's saying when it posts.

Quoting D L X (Reply 163):
Dont forget, DM, if you do not use plain language in your terms of use, any ambiguity will be resolved in favor of your opponents in a court of law since you are the ones drafting the contract.

I'm sure they're well aware of this and I'm sure they're well equipped to explain any ambiguities not to mention that they likely have significant legal resources to draw upon.

I've said all I'm going to say on this issue. I await the new TOU and I'm pretty confident that it will meet the expectations of most of the community.

Granite · Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:13 pm

Bob

Come on then.......let's see more scans tongue

Regards

Gary

N1120A · Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:15 pm

Quoting Michlis (Reply 172):
but I'm pretty sure DM's legal staff knows what it's saying when it posts.

DM's legal staff hasn't posted on this forum.

Granite · Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:28 pm

Cruiser

Quoting Cruiser (Reply 149):
I was also just checking out the frontpage of A.net, and it still has a little 'addy' to check out the new TOU and Privacy Policy. I was excited when I logged on this morning - I thought the new one was posted. It might be an idea to take that down until the new TOU is ready

Thanks for mentioning that. Link has now been removed and will not appear until the new terms have been discussed and agreed upon.

Regards

Gary

michlis · Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:47 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 174):
DM's legal staff hasn't posted on this forum.

Leave it to a lawyer, lol. I stand corrected.

Instead of being lazy, I should have said:

'...but but I'm pretty sure DM's legal staff knows what it's saying when they post any legal notices on this site.'

9VSMS · Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:21 pm

Quoting Granite (Reply 170):
I'd love to get my hands on his collection!

Pervert...
biggrin

Cubsrule · Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:32 am

Quoting Michlis (Reply 172):
Lol, in all your years as a law student right.

Again, if you have an example, post it.

Tommy Mogren · Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:52 am

Quoting Deeplight (Reply 44):
We have pulled
disputed sections out, redlined areas of concern and will post with
all to review on Thursday.

Am I missing something or shouldn't we have something to read by now ?

...or aren't we part of the 'all' people.. ?

Tommy Mogren

KarlADrage · Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:00 am

Like Tommy, I was expecting to be getting up this morning to have something to read. Can we please be given some kind of time-frame where we can expect to see some revised TOUs? I, and I imagine quite a few others, am putting off uploading until I've seen what's going to be tabled.

mclaudio · Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:09 am

Quoting Shep2 (Reply 168):
Bob - show us some new uploads when you find the time !!

count me in on those waiting to see more and more from those classics
Wink

Granite · Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:12 am

Guys

First draft has been issued to crew for reviewing.

You can understand that many of the crew are photographers themselves so it is in their interest to make sure it is right.

Regards

Gary

Kukkudrill · Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:22 am

OK thanks Gary.

I trust the crew but I hope and expect that afterwards the rest of us photographers will also be consulted.

Charles

Tommy Mogren · Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:35 am

Why not post it in the forum for ALL photographers to review ?????????

Tommy Mogren

Granite · Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:11 am

Tommy

One question mark would suffice.

At the moment it is a Demand Media/Crew document. It will be fine tuned then the photographers will get to review it to see if it needs tuned more. Too many fingers in the pie at this stage would not be good.

Regards

Gary

bjcc · Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:32 am

Granite

Any fingers with no knowladge or little experience of reading legalese is not a good idea. Hence why the suggestion has been made it should go out to all. Photoscreening does not qualify, or give experience in reading legalese, where a comma or full stop can and does change entire meaning.

I accept it is in your interests as well, but as I am sure you will be aware there are those that will accept your word for it being OK, when in fact, it may not be.

dendrobatid · Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:51 am

Quoting Bjcc (Reply 186):
Photoscreening does not qualify, or give experience in reading legalese, where a comma or full stop can and does change entire meaning.

Bernie
The crew consist of far more than just screeners and we are from all walks of life. I, for one, do understand legal language. Gary's comment that too many fingers in the pie at the moment is very pertinent and subtle changes are being suggested within the crew already, for the benefit of everyone as we all have different perspectives.
Everyone will be given a chance to have a thorough read once we are happy that the rules are close to finalisation to avoid being swamped with conjecture, suggestions, doom-mongering and hypothetical scenarios.
From what I have already seen, everyone will soon be satisfied and things can return to normal.
Mick Bajcar

Granite · Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:07 am

Bernie

Thanks for your concerns. All have been noted.

Mick sums it up well. While it did not happen the first time around, there are a lot of crew members needing to see it while at the draft stage.

Regards

Gary

michlis · Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:46 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 178):
Quoting Michlis (Reply 172):
Lol, in all your years as a law student right.

Again, if you have an example, post it.

Here's a little quiz for you that was suggested by a former A.net member:

In 10 words of less, explain the following terms in a legally rigorous and concise manner:

1. First Serial Rights

2. Moral Rights

3. Reasonable use

4. Indemnification

5. Hold Harmless

(the last two terms are my contribution.)

For the benefit of the non-legal professionals, also define the term Fowler Flaps using the same criteria as the above terms.

[Edited 2008-02-15 03:56:00]

walter2222 · Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:39 pm

Quoting Michlis (Reply 189):
In 10 words of less, explain the following terms in a legally rigorous and concise manner:

I wonder if anybody can do that in 10 words or less Smile

What about "adaptation rights" (that's probably what DM wants too...)?

It might be a good idea to have a section in the TOU with definitions (in plain English), so that the whole community here can understand what is meant...

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 187):
The crew consist of far more than just screeners and we are from all walks of life. I, for one, do understand legal language. Gary's comment that too many fingers in the pie at the moment is very pertinent and subtle changes are being suggested within the crew already, for the benefit of everyone as we all have different perspectives.

Seems good! I agree that the first round of review should be performed within a small, qualified team!

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 187):
Everyone will be given a chance to have a thorough read once we are happy that the rules are close to finalisation to avoid being swamped with conjecture, suggestions, doom-mongering and hypothetical scenarios.

Any idea when it will be in a form that can be shown to the whole community again?

Thanks and regards,

Walter

Granite · Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:28 pm

Walter

Things are being talked about today but we have stressed not to have the available for viewing until Monday earliest. Don't want to have the carry on of them being issued last thing on a Friday with no one from Demand Media being there to talk to for amending.

Regards

Gary

walter2222 · Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:24 pm

Quoting Granite (Reply 191):
Things are being talked about today but we have stressed not to have the available for viewing until Monday earliest. Don't want to have the carry on of them being issued last thing on a Friday with no one from Demand Media being there to talk to for amending.

Thanks Gary, that's a very sound decision!

Best regards,

Walter

apgphoto · Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:52 pm

I have been watching this all going on from the sidelines and I have to say that its right that the Screening team should take a look at the revised terms first. Tim's and Gary's posts from a neutrals point of view (me) seem very much to have the site and the photographers as their priority in all of this. Not all the screeners are as "dumb" (my word not yours) as they are being made out to be, well some are of course box

If DM released another crock of cr$p for T&C's then you would all be on them pretty quick. This way we can lynch the screening team as well as the management if they get it wrong Big grin

Hello Gary btw wave

bjcc · Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:11 pm

Mick

I half take your point, but I also refer you to a screener, who after the last effort, said on the thread then running, he'd spoken to 2 lawyers, and could see no issue with those terms. Clearly, there was however. In my experience of socilictors (to use the UK expression) they are more often than not, happy to answer the question asked, not the question you think you asked, and they know full well you meant to.

The point I am trying to make, isn't that screeners all all stupid, but that there is a greater (because there are greater numbers) knowladge base available outside the screening team. Irrespective of the hue & cry that may ensure, that pool should be used, not confined to a small and lay group. If DM are genuine in the promises made, then posting the new TOU's should cause little concern.

There was little doom mongering after the last release, that wasn't based on a correct interpretation. What there was, was a very sucsinct summary of the fool hardiness of agreeing to the those TOU's. What scare stories there were resulted from the silence from DM, something I continualy suggested they remedy quickly.

Lastly, because there are some, and some of those who have already expressed that they will trust the screening crew to make a decision as to fairness, that puts you in a position where if you screw it up, you affect a large number of people. For a smallish group of lay people, that is perhaps not the best position to be in, however well meaning.

As these TOU will have an effect on all, in my opinion publication to all would have been better. If nothing else it absolves yourselves from responsibility should it all go wrong, and protects your reputation if those circumstances re occur.

Cubsrule · Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:47 pm

With an assist from Black's...

Quoting Michlis (Reply 189):
1. First Serial Rights

"Right to first production in a serial" is a good place to start, but electronic publication has begun to warp this term some, and I might avoid it (serial is itself a term of art).

Quoting Michlis (Reply 189):
2. Moral Rights

I would never use "moral rights," in an American contract because it's a civil law term. This is actually a great example of where trying to use legalese could get you in to trouble. I would list the rights I intended to confer or reserve explicitly rather than grouping them under "moral rights"

Quoting Michlis (Reply 189):
3. Reasonable use

You'll have to give me more context on this one...

Quoting Michlis (Reply 189):
4. Indemnification

(We're going to use indemnify, since the verb is typically what shows up in contracts): To promise to reimburse another suffered because of a third party's act or omission

Quoting Michlis (Reply 189):
5. Hold Harmless

To absolve another from liability arising from the transaction

Kukkudrill · Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:15 pm

Quoting Bjcc (Reply 194):
Lastly, because there are some, and some of those who have already expressed that they will trust the screening crew to make a decision as to fairness, that puts you in a position where if you screw it up, you affect a large number of people. For a smallish group of lay people, that is perhaps not the best position to be in, however well meaning.

??? Nobody's saying that the screeners are going to make a decision on behalf of everybody else. I think it's been made quite clear that after the screeners have okayed the draft terms everyone else will get the chance to go over them before they are finalised. I'm happy with this.

Quoting Granite (Reply 185):
It will be fine tuned then the photographers will get to review it to see if it needs tuned more.

Charles

halls120 · Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:45 pm

Quoting Granite (Reply 191):
Things are being talked about today but we have stressed not to have the available for viewing until Monday earliest. Don't want to have the carry on of them being issued last thing on a Friday with no one from Demand Media being there to talk to for amending.

Good news at least on one front - somebody finally understands the value of proper communication.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 195):
Quoting Michlis (Reply 189):
2. Moral Rights

I would never use "moral rights," in an American contract because it's a civil law term. This is actually a great example of where trying to use legalese could get you in to trouble. I would list the rights I intended to confer or reserve explicitly rather than grouping them under "moral rights"

There is nothing wrong with using "moral rights" in the Anet context, since the commonly accepted definition is "A right protecting a visual artist's work beyond the ordinary protections of copyright."

Cubsrule · Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:58 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 197):
There is nothing wrong with using "moral rights" in the Anet context, since the commonly accepted definition is "A right protecting a visual artist's work beyond the ordinary protections of copyright."

Agreed, completely, but I be very careful with it outside of a.net because there are at least 3 definitions of it (the Berne Convention definition, the Canadian definition- which I would probably argue is the best definition for use in the States, and the limited rights provided under American copyright law which mostly apply to visual art). It might be all right in the limited context where we are sure that we only want to discuss visual art, but I would tread very lightly outside of that context.

halls120 · Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:07 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 198):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 197):
There is nothing wrong with using "moral rights" in the Anet context, since the commonly accepted definition is "A right protecting a visual artist's work beyond the ordinary protections of copyright."

Agreed, completely, but I be very careful with it outside of a.net because there are at least 3 definitions of it (the Berne Convention definition, the Canadian definition- which I would probably argue is the best definition for use in the States, and the limited rights provided under American copyright law which mostly apply to visual art). It might be all right in the limited context where we are sure that we only want to discuss visual art, but I would tread very lightly outside of that context.

Well, then isn't the solution to adopt the US version - the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (“VARA”), 17 U.S.C. § 106A - outright? duck

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net