RE: FW: Windows Live and Privacy

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Richard M. Smith wrote:

> I understand the difference.  However, Brian Loe made the point in his
> original message that we are "free" to take photos in public.  He wasn't
> only making a legal argument.  Our actions are controlled not just by laws,
> but also by social convention.  Clearly there are many settings where taking
> photos are not allowed by these social conventions.  But also people are
> arrested for taking photos when they are asked to stop, but the charges are
> indirect:  disorderly conduct, trespassing, etc.    
 
You're certainly free to take whatever photos you like; I'm pointing out 
that, in some cases, copying something can be an infringement of 
copyright. And when you take a photo pf something, you're making a copy of 
it, it's a derivative work.

You might try arguing "fair use" for some situations, but I believe that 
the law in England is quite clear on the subject of copying other people's 
works of art, or making derivative works. I imagine the law in America is 
similar.

As an example, I would cite the practice of surreptitiously videoing a new 
movie in the theater.

> Richard 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dude VanWinkle [mailto:dudevanwinkle () gmail com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 10:38 AM
> To: Richard M. Smith
> Cc: funsec () linuxbox org
> Subject: Re: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy
>
> > Pretty clearly, we are not "free" to take all photos in public places 
> > in the U.S. and we never have been.  Nowadays the restrictions have 
> > just been tighten in the name of security.
>
> What people tell you can do and what you are legally allowed to do are two
> separate things.
>
> Try not to confuse them
>
> -JP
>
>
>
> On 12/5/06, Richard M. Smith <rms () computerbytesman com> wrote:
> > I tried taking the Wynn photo from the sidewalk along Las Vegas Blvd. 
> > and got yelled at by a rent-a-cop.  The rent-a-cop clearly was out of 
> > line, but was probably acting on orders from above.
>
> > Richard
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Larry Seltzer [mailto:Larry () larryseltzer com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:22 AM
> > To: Richard M. Smith; funsec () linuxbox org
> > Subject: RE: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy
> >
> > > > ...Over the past few years, I've been yelled at for taking a photo 
> > > > of
> > a sign inside of an airport about the U.S. Visit program, a 
> > surveillance camera at a Starbucks, and the Wynn Casino in Las Vegas 
> > while it was under construction...
> >
> > The Starbucks and (probably) the casino examples are different than, 
> > for example, the airport ones. It's nothing new that stores don't want 
> > you taking pictures of their insides, and ironically it's also about 
> > IP protection, specifically "trade dress." I heard of people getting 
> > in trouble for this 20 years ago.
> >
> > Larry Seltzer
> > eWEEK.com Security Center Editor
> > http://security.eweek.com/
> > http://blog.eweek.com/blogs/larry%5Fseltzer/
> > Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
> > larryseltzer () ziffdavis com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.