An image can only do so much and if you want an image to create the context without referring to already established tropes and at stock prices good luck there. I am a photographer and when of the clock and talking to people in business they will ask why is there no business stock photography they can use which is UK style-specific I have to point out that the US has 50 odd markets plus Canada while the UK does not. In EU terms there are style differences which make that market difficult. The real issue is that if you want to have good stock you can use you need to pay for a shoot or create a market by paying what the US pay for good level stock. Most UK business who use stock images, paid or otherwise, tech sector as well, are transmitting to the world how cheap they are.
65 posts • joined 26 Apr 2012
The root of the problem is that Youtube/Google exposed the user to legal action by having the default mode as broadcast to the world rather than share with family and friends which was the intention of the user. Youtube/Google wants all the benefits of being a publisher without the risks and the creative work of producing content, treating creators with contempt -- as in effect serfs.
Google = "the companies dominating the space". More like colonising so much of the internet that it becomes a form of imperialism where they cannibalise economic activity in order to create channels to feed money to themselves, starving local, regional and national economies of resources. At the same time turning creative workers into serfs creating the content they need to run advertising over and the rest into nothing more than consumer drones to exploit at every level and in every posable way.
The cold hard economic benefit of cultural artefacts that have not been digitised is that to see and experience them you have to get of your shiny arse and pay to get to them. Then you get an unmediated experience that cannot be blown up or reduced to fit a screen with texture and colour range that is not limited by technology. Rarely is flat art all that flat so however well lit a reproduction is, it can only ever be a singular reference. Scale is one of the most important choices an artist makes and in a way everything that follows is bound up in that decision. It may seem arty farty but if you value seeing your favourite film in a cinema it is not all that different. Mind you it may be a digitally enhanced version that is just not the same.......
Warning. Sometimes there will be an emotional event that will be hard to describe.
The original reports kicked up a minor shit storm in the 3D printing community (some of whom are makers though not "The Maker" as far as I know) largely because the initial and secondary reporting media jumped on the "3d printer" angle because it generates clicks and thus traffic and not because it might be reasonable to wait and find out what actual happened using all that sexy CSI science stuff. I am surprised that CSI wherever have not included additive manufacturing processes in there storylines because surely the first question any detective worth their salt should ask is "where is the 3D printer responsible for this carnage". Maybe the makers of CSI have a firmer grip on reality as well as a huge stock of meaningful pauses.
There is already an open source 3D printer on the way that can print in four colours and more.
While at the moment it is four individual unmixed colours there is the possibility of mixing colours on the fly in the future. CMKY is a bit optimistic because there is no way that just mixing secondary colours with black, in effect as pigments, are going to produce an acceptable gamut without white. To get the sort of gamut that designers would need there would need to be a few more pigments as well possibly as many as nine in total.
So there is your lock in system because to step up to another supplier you would have to dump the unused HP stock including the rarely use extra ones. Then of course we are not talking grams here it will be environmentally sealed 5 Kg capacity cartridges.
Re: Submit Offshore Tax Returns
But the profit generated by online advertising is not by selling consumers widgets to consumers in another country but by selling consumers to advertisers. So any value generated from the transaction is done where the consumers are and often the advertisers are in the same country as the consumers as well. We only matter as consumers and nothing else.
Considering San Francisco is one of the most liberal cities in the US the city government has done SFA about mental health issues, substance abuse and homelessness in 40 year in my experience of traveling and working there. These issues seems to have become a part of the furniture, that like most US cities, just becomes invisible as people learn not to go to places and not to see stuff. There is a enormous number of people who as civilians help out and for most it is a real thing and for some it is a sort of good-person-kudos tourism trip. But there is a political and cultural acceptance that the unfortunate are the victims of the system, part of the Hobbesian contract and to some extent a warning and an element of social control.
It us just that SF tolerates and does not harass, move on and ghettoize in the way that they do where Justin comes from. And there will never be a disruptive tech solution because there is no place to insert a profit taking layer.
Journalists are supposed to be witnessing and reporting on what goes on in the world and therefore should not be stuck at their desks. Too many of our quality papers rely on rehashed, repurposed reports from other newspapers and press releases with a light sprinkling of what might pass as real journalism if you did not look too closely. The main index of how sedentary journalism has become is the acknowledgement on the photographs. If its PA it could have something to do and related in time with the story. If its Corbis, Alamy, Rex or some other stock agency then the chances are that the image could have been taken at any time in the past and is chosen to suit the bias of the paper. The Telegraph have used a photograph of a monolithic slab of flats in south London to "illustrate" a story on social housing at the other end of the country even though the flats in the photograph were knocked down years before and don't bear any relation to present conditions anywhere in the country.
As far as the British Library are concerned it is perpetual because everything in their newspaper archive the BL claim is their copyright even though most of it was printed in the nineteenth century. According to the UK Intellectual Property Office guidance:
"....in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work."
The BL are profiteering from millions of documents and images that should be in the public domain by asserting copyright over the copies they made when it is clear that no copyright can subsist in the copies they have made.
No shit Sherlock
The EU bods fall for some half baked idea dreamed up by Google glove puppets and their brainless meat bots that sounds like something the EU should be behind. EU bods start bleating on about Geoblocking as usual without a clue of how the AV markets work and how difficult it is to get a script made into a film and the economics of the multitude of national industries across Europe. EU Bod crap themselves on mass when they discover what a straw man Geoblocking is and how it would fuck up the EU wide film industries.
Cue next "crisis/problem of copyright"..........................
Not unlike the Orphan Works problem that was not so much a problem as a minor issue that could be used to mobilise anti copyright lobby groups. So the UK has an OW scheme which while has many problems (It is run by the IPO nuf said) it requires minimum effort by a prospective user and the payment of a nominal licence fee. It has allowed a number of publishers to cash in but as for the release of all the masses of pent up Orphan Works that will have such a massive impact on internet and mass culture SFA. This is because it is competing with free and anyway that was not the purpose because the purpose is to give the anti copyright walkers a sniff of blood.
Believing in your product is for losers
It is no surprise that Twitter has not been able to harvest the sort of user information that would allow it to target advertising more directly to users. Twitter having a limited character count lends it self to condensed messages that have little or no extraneous information from which to harvest user information. The way that Twitter is used to fanboy, propagate jokes and hash tag punnery is less about things as it is about people makes it more difficult again to harvest the advertising life blood of internet entrepreneurship.
But of course the only thing that matters is puffing up you concept enough to generate the most sellable value and palming it off to some deep pockets -- believing in your product is for losers.
Missing the point.
Film production companies rarely distribute and certainly not in all the markets (countries) in the EU. They rely on licencing the distribution rights to distributers and so have the liquidity to carry on producing films without having to wait to get all the money in. Distributers act as a sort of buffer smoothing out the risk and making sure that the folk who make the films, so many people think that they should not pay for but really, really want, keep getting made more frequently than they would if the film companies had to wait for all the dosh from the showings. The distributers take a load of risk but also add value because they know their markets and how to get the best returns for their market that often has a lot to do with just when is best time to release a film into the mix of their own local production. No blockbusters when 90% of your audience is at the beach for the month etc..
Its analogous to other cultural production that has a pan EU appeal.
Buy a tech gift and you are indentured to be technical support for that and any subsequent device for the rest of your life. Not just the tech support who at the other end of a phone can bale and gets paid but the tech support who deals with the rage, recriminations and the emotional fallout in fucking person.
Even normal shit like updates slowing the system and badly built websites that take an age to load, ISP outages and the eternal fuckup that is Trusteer Rapport that periodically gets installed are your fault. FFS spend an hour every so often clearing shit out of your partners system and leaving it on long enough for updates to complete will add years to you life and sanity.
It's Transactional Cost Economics
One of the economists advising the Hargreaves (we don't have a clue but we will pretend anyway) Review was an expert on TCE. Since most of the economics of the exercise involved plucking figures out of the air, ignoring how the economics of the creative industries worked and was there to brown nose the "vision" that David Cameron had when he was so impressed by visiting Google, it lacked any real basis. So having an expert on something was at least one thing that could be pointed at and applauded.
TCE is all about understanding and reducing the costs of transactions mostly between large businesses and working out how all the businesses involved can benefit. The HUB is the outcome of that expertise and is based on the need to simplify the difficulties of obtaining licences for specific pieces of work and to solve the complaint from unauthorised users that it so difficult to get permission to use copyright works and that is why there is so much infringement. The trouble is that what the HUB is supposed to solve is not so much a problem as an excuse. It may prove useful in making some types of works more available for licencing and provide one less excuse for works listed on it but it is not going to change the fundamental problem.
The Hargreaves (we don't care what you say we are going to do what David wants anyway) Review only plucked one straw from the bundle that is TCE in that the HUB should provide a simple easy mechanism for obtaining a licence. What it failed to take into account is the cost to police and enforce the licences. It seems that to have a creative business that is profitable the cost of running it increase because there is no point in licencing something at a price that you cannot afford to enforce.
@ Teresa Orlowski --- Nothing can stop vexatious use of copyright, design rights or patent law (or any other legal process) being absurd. But that does not make all of IP law absurd and I imagine you would have a different view. There is a bit of a difference between rounded corners and packing millions more transistors onto a processer chip when you are up against the physics and you need to be nice to the shareholders so that you can get a new fabrication plant built to make it. I am afraid that market forces do not cause the spontaneous generation of innovation without investment and a costly and complex technological infrastructure. More often real innovation like VisiCalc creates markets that did not even exist, and again VisiCalc, while not being the only reason, is one of the main reasons that you and I can afford to post here.
Yes Roman and Greek civilisations contributed to what is and was good and bad in the west but compared to the innovation explosion of the industrial revolutions contribution to technology and scientific thought and changes it brought about in society it was A level stuff at best. If you are referring to the US patent secrecy act of WWII it did not stop patents but kept secret important military technologies and the US government actually filed patents during the conflict. The UK patent office is quite clear about monitoring patent submissions that may contain or disclose sensitive technologies.
The article is about the copyright hub and has nothing to do with patents or design rights so if you understood the difference between each type of IP and maybe read the act or actual accounts of how it is supposed to work then you could put up a critique.
@Teresa Orlowski --------What strikes me as somewhat ironic when I see this argument pop up again is that the only reason that you could contribute to these comments is because of the progress that was made in integrated circuits as a result of a long series of developments protected by IP forcing other inventors to find new ways to invent better technology. Intel and AMD are continually striving to out do each other as I write because they cannot just copy the others technology and if they could they would never make a profit and so be able to invest in research to develop new good stuff. Without IP you would be lucky to be apprenticed to a member of the Tallow Chandlers Guild.
Its a property right _______.
In EU and UK law copyright is a property right and as so confers ownership. Denial that copyright is a property right does make it easy to excuse ones self from violating those rights. The friction around copyright come from the wanton ignorance and lack of common decency of those who think that everything on the internet is there for the taking.
You need to go back to the 30's
According to this:
As early as the 30's radio manufacturers in the US saw TV as a way of selling families to advertisers. They sold the concept of Public Benefit to legislators who were then convinced that broadcast TV with programs interrupting the advertising stream would be a good thing. Well as least they paid for and created the content from the advertising income.
What is the point of protest.....
While this was an unfocused damp squid as Anonymous events tend to be and dulled the keen mind of the reporter to the point where their brain almost shut down leaving only the sub Daily Fail part of the brain working, without some people fighting for our current freedoms we would not have them. So just slagging off people as the usual suspects only betrays the writers frustration at being helpless and impotent in so many ways. You where there, you looked at stuff, you applied your prejudices, you failed to ask why or show any insight, then you wrote about yourself. Sad really.
Re: New Business Models
So everyone who is not an entrepreneur or one of the very few employed within the magic circle will be dependent on the philanthropic generosity, or not, of the entrepreneur class who hold power. The Thatcherite illusion that everyone can just pull themselves up by their boot strings is as much a fantasy as the inevitability of proletarian revolution. Unfortunately for the future entrepreneurs Google already has total control of all the lucrative areas of the internet and whoever comes up with a new idea can only hope to be bought out and not bypassed. The illusion of democratic control of our lives is slipping away as the corporate feudalism takes control and we become nothing more that UGC workers and whatever we create becomes fodder for Google to advertise over. The best we can hope for is a return to philanthropic Victorian values and the virtual poor house.
And they say I'm cynical.
The main problem with springboard, catapult, pogo stick startups is that if by chance one does come up with the next big thing --that will allow the masses of web serf to generate income for the owners of the platform by letting the web serfs do web shit and advertising to them-- then it is going to be folded into (insert web corporation here). Even if it did not it would only generate a handful of jobs because the whole point of the thing is to be automated (computers are good at that) so SFA payback for the economy. The clever bod who owns the rights to the whole shebang (see copyright is useful) will be anointed with a big pile of fuckoff money and will indeed fuck off, with all looking on in awe and the shear wonder of the size of the fuckoff pile. The other clever bods who actually did the work will find a vista of opportunities opening up at their feet that will be about as welcome as Vista. Since said Web Corp pay SFA tax there is SFA payback for the economy.
It's about the beam stupid
The resistance to bending is dependent on the Second Moment of Area of the cross section of the object being used as a beam. It is a power 4 relationship so reducing the cross section of a simple square beam by 10% reduces the resistance of the beam to bending by 34%. Compound the dumbassery by failing to understand that the distribution of material as far away as possible from the neutral axis can improve resistance to bending in the same power 4 relationship and you have the IPhone 6.
Watch out Google. It will be the “Sun wot did IT”………….
Oh good, tax fail Google get to appear to do something to boost tech skills of the young through the most populist organ to the demographic least likely to be boosted. Even less likely on Merseyside where the Sun is not welcome. What has Google got against Liverpool?
Google can now get polishing its philanthropic credentials, to the extent that they becomes entirely composed of shine. And its friends in the Government can claim to be doing something without ever having to understand the question because they have the best brains in the tech world to do that for them. They must be ...look at how rich the are......... and they are American.....and they pay SFA tax....now that is really clever.
Why do you assume that copyright is only for the mega rich. Most photographs and illustrations, for instance, are produced by one person businesses. No large organization actually employs artists or photographers any more so most of the images you see are made by freelancers who have to buy their own equipment and materials as well as public liability insurance. They pay for the place they work or run their own studio with the overheads and do all the admin. and accounts often spending time chasing late payers and people who undermine their business and standing with their clients by using their images without paying or even asking can they use an image. The most simple decent thing to actually ask for permission seem to have almost disappeared and instead people at best are thoughtless or at worst know precisely that they are publishing other peoples intellectual property without permission.
What me, you and every person has lost today it the right to control and profit from our skill, imagination and vision in order to satisfy some jumped up PR twat who happens to be the Prime Minister and who has a deluded wet dream of a UK Google springing forth from the plague of faux entrepreneur hipsters infesting East London. The best that shower hope for is for is that their start ups might one day become noticed by Google and that Google might just be kind enough to give them some money and not just steal it from under them (most are candid enough to say so). The only way that is going to happen is if they have their IP zipped up water tight. I effect they are funded by the government to be no different than the hope filled drones that want to make it on YouTube as Google serfs. (now Twitch as well).
Re: Maybe I missed it...
Apparently you did. or did you imagine that the internet was for you/us. If you go back to the early day of broadcasting Radio stations saw the entertainment (content) saw their way to make money was to "sell families to advertisers". Here in Europe we had a public broadcast ethos that carried into the TV age that did not have adverts.
The only reason that anything like Facebook starts free/without advertising is to build a hooked user base and because they are US based in order to be able to shrug off copyright challenges historically internet businesses built on user generated content could use the fact that they were providing "public benefit" out of the goodness of their collective expressly non-evil hearts for leverage in such challenges. That is also why they want to graft a fair use doctrine on every ones copyright system.
Eventually all the nice free stuff ends and people squeal "no fair". Well actual it was never free because users were already generating the all important content with their time, interaction and their intellectual property.
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 excludes copyright
The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 specifically excludes copyright from its protection. Why should producers of IP, who are mostly self employed individuals, not be protected by this legislation which covers every other aspect of commercial activity when they are such an important part of our economy. This was brought to the attention of the Hargreaves review, the IPO and the minster/s in charge and it was ignored.
What no mass.....
"Because when it reaches the ISS it won't be 5000lbs at all. So they won't be unpacking 5000lbs of goods just a certain volume which when on Earth weighs 5000lbs. Simples"
This seems to imply that just because its in spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace that the payload has just become a volume without mass. I find this hard to believe because to get it there, in orbit, a significant force was applied over time to accelerate it the speed necessary to achieve that orbit. Even if it had left the earths gravity it would still have mass and force, in pounds force if you like or newtons in SI, would still have to be applied to move the payload about.
The BB rider that photos of the band taken at a gig should only be used for specific editorial purposes is slight overkill, as a non-editorial use would require their specific permission anyway. BBs appear to be just as much up themselves and deluded about their cultural signibficance as most other bands which plays against the irrevent posture of their music. These days many bands demand that professional photographers are only allowed access to gigs on the proviso that they only are allowed to photograph a short segment of the gig and that all photographs must be handed over for the bands sole use. It makes the BBs look like towers of enlightenment.
I hope that there is a metal insert tripod bush for this sucker because the plastic produced by printing is not up to the job and will strip the threads on the first use. hand holding is useless because the exposure time will be seconds for a sunny day.
Wait a mo - what am I thinking - why would anyone care about this piece of shit.
3d printing seem to more about the buzz and hype rather than utility. Utility is quite important for thing you need to actualy do stuff. It is brilliant as a design, debugging and learning tool but you still need knowledge of industrial design to make something that you can sell without generating an army of unhappy customers bringing your business down.
Of course to be a modern cultural hero in a complete sense one not only needs to be hailed a brilliant (which takes the stink off being fabulously well to do) but one has to be troubled or have a dark side and been through the fall/redemption cycle at least once. One does not have to worry too much about arranging such things for oneself it is a service the media are happy to provide.