Lisa Westveld 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (247) comment rss

  • On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2019 @ 07:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Location matters, though...

    I'm not sure about laws in Detroit but if they are similar to Europe then those murals would be protected by copyright and Mercedes would have violated it. It's that simple. It's just that in Europe, there have been various cases in court similar to this and the artists generally won.
    The main difference is that the US has a "Fair use" system that might allow an escape. But as the pictures are used for their own commercial promotions, that would be unlikely.
    As for people taking pictures of these murals to make profits, that's not fair either. You're basically profiting from someone else's work.
    As for Instagram... That's where the safe harbors laws apply. As a provider, they are not responsible for any content as long as they remove some content after receiving a DMCA complaint. This they do.

  • On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2019 @ 07:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Location matters, though...

    In Europe? In many cases, yes!
    But it must be clear the buildings have an artistic value, the same as with any other copyrighted material. Most houses aren't built to be artistic. But in Europe houses are actually protected by copyright if they qualify as works of art. Same with statues, btw.
    Even a car could be considered artistic but they're generally aren't. As for the use of these murals in those Mercedes pictures. The murals are still very noticeable in the pictures and you don't have to use all of a piece of work to violate copyrights. The murals do add value to the pictures as they add colors to something that would otherwise be very greyish...

  • On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2019 @ 07:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Location matters, though...

    Public space or not, the artwork is still private property. So if you leave your car on a public road, would I be allowed to take it and drive it away?
    The same is true about art. The artist intended their art to be shown in a specific location for a specific audience. By making pictures of it and publishing them, the author basically loses control over their own work. That cannot be allowed without compensation. And this compensation is the royalties they demand.

  • On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2019 @ 07:06am

    Re: Re: Re:

    But you're not the one who decides how much royalties an artist can charge. If you think it's worthless then don't use it in your advertisements!

  • On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2019 @ 07:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Why would they need to make art for profit? They make it to beautify the area but if someone uses it for commercial purposes then paying royalties would be a requirement in my opinion. Mercedes is trying to sell more cars by using their art so the artists deserve a share.

  • On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2019 @ 04:58am

    Re:

    No one is asking money if you see it. The artist is demanding to be paid for the use of his work in the advertisements by Mercedes. So Mercedes is making profit from work created by someone else and refuses to pay the original author a fair amount.

  • On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2019 @ 04:56am

    Re:

    Most art isn't permanent. Some art might survive for centuries but like the fire in the Notre Dame recently, art can also go up in smoke real fast.
    And all that matters is if the murals are artistic or not and who the authors of the murals is. If the restaurant-owner hired the artist to paint the mural then this would be work-for-hire and the restaurant would be the author of the work, not the artist.
    But that's not very likely...

  • On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2019 @ 04:53am

    Re:

    No, they're asking money from Mercedes for the use of their art in the advertisements of Mercedes. Big difference...

  • On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2019 @ 04:52am

    Re: Re: Location matters, though...

    Charging for looking? Nope.
    Charging for making copies and using them for commercial purposes, definitely yes!

  • On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2019 @ 04:51am

    Re: Re: Location matters, though...

    Actually, the pictures were taken in Detroit, as mentioned in the related article. But as I said, location matters as Europe doesn't recognize fair use in the same way. They're more strict.

  • On the post: Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2019 @ 03:27am

    Location matters, though...

    Problem is that the location of the mural is important, as Europe doesn't have fair-use laws like the US. In Europe, buildings and murals can be protected by copyright, making such pictures a violation. As Mercedes is also located in Europe, they would have to comply to European laws, if the mural is in Europe.
    A good example of this is the Eiffel Tower in Paris. The tower itself is too old and thus public domain, but the lights in this tower are pretty recent and considered artistic enough to qualify for copyrights. This means that you can't take pictures of the Eiffel tower at night when the lights are on without paying royalties!
    Problem is that Mercedes has paid royalties before in similar situations so I don't understand why they didn't this time. I doubt it's fair use as it is used to promote their own product in a commercial way so I agree with the artists: Mercedes has to cough up royalties...

  • On the post: The Latest On Shiva Ayyadurai's Failed Libel Suit Against BestNetTech

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2017 @ 06:51pm

    Money back?

    So, if BestNetTech wins the Anti-Slapp and this dude has to pay back all the legal costs of BestNetTech, does that mean that all of us who donated to this great Cause will get our money back? :)

  • On the post: Canadian Rapper Sends Rap Video Cease & Desist Letter To Coca Cola For 'Jacking' His Catchphrase

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2017 @ 03:59am

    Respond RAPidly?

    It would be fun if Coca Cola would respond to this video with their own video in which they explain why the trademark on "Out for a rip" would be invalid. I wonder if Coca Cola has enough humor to do so, as it would bring a lot of new exposure to this rapper that's likely worth more than the trademark itself...
    Especially since Coca Cola is trading in sugar-water, not rap-songs. :-) It is a trademark issue after all and I don't think people would confuse black liquids with a white rapper.
    Ehm, wait... Maybe they will...

  • On the post: This Makes No Sense: US To Ban Laptops On All Flights From Europe

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 10 May, 2017 @ 03:47pm

    It makes sense...

    It makes sense to ban those laptops as it would encourage people to use Cloud services instead. That way, they could just use a simple laptop with a web browser, fly to the USA with the laptop as baggage and once in the USA, they would use the Cloudapps instead.
    But Cloudapps often have servers located inside the USA as they are likely hosted by Google, Microsoft/Azure of Amazon. It means that the USA can also listen to all the web traffic of all those foreigners visiting the USA and gain access to an enormous amount of data. All in all, it allows the USA to better spy on the whole world...
    ---
    Removing my aluminum foil hat now. Just wanted to have some crazy thoughts for a change. Then again, how crazy are they? :-)

  • On the post: Police Union Sues Toy Gun Maker For Not Doing Enough To Keep Cleveland Cops From Killing 12-Year-Old Boys

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 06 May, 2017 @ 02:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Simple solution

    Yeah, well. Unfortunately that's not true. A white man can walk around with a gun and while people might ask questions about why is is carrying, he will generally be allowed to carry his weapon.
    A person of color, any color, will more likely be stopped and temporarily detained for questioning. It is also possible that he will be shot first by the police.
    Race also matters! See this experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXv2Pjtc3Zk
    I think this boy would have still been alive if he was white...

  • On the post: Police Union Sues Toy Gun Maker For Not Doing Enough To Keep Cleveland Cops From Killing 12-Year-Old Boys

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 06 May, 2017 @ 12:27am

    Re: Search For Pink M16

    Well, pink or not, if it looks realistic enough, people will feel threatened by it. It is that simple. When it is unclear if the weapon is real or not, you have to wonder what the risks are.
    But again, this situation had two problems, one of them being a very trigger-happy police who shot an armed child even though gun ownership in the USA is legal. This boy wasn't shot because he had a gun, but because they considered him dangerous.
    So had his gun clearly looked like a fake then he would not be considered dangerous and still be alive. Many of those pink M16's and pink AR-15's still look realistic enough to confuse people. People feel less threatened if you point a Buzz Lightyear raygun at them, no matter if it is a real gun or not.

  • On the post: Police Union Sues Toy Gun Maker For Not Doing Enough To Keep Cleveland Cops From Killing 12-Year-Old Boys

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 06 May, 2017 @ 07:15am

    Just wondering what your skin color is. Why? Because the kid that was shot and killed was black, and many people in the USA still have plenty of prejudism towards non-Caucasians.

  • On the post: Police Union Sues Toy Gun Maker For Not Doing Enough To Keep Cleveland Cops From Killing 12-Year-Old Boys

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 05 May, 2017 @ 03:35pm

    Re: Simple solution

    Just to make things more clear: a ban of realistic-looking toy weapons won't solve the trigger-happy police problem. Police in the USA tends to shoot first and ask questions later. Solving that problem is a whole different problem.

    But, it started with a realistic-looking toy that this boy was playing with. A toy that some people thought was real! People would have been less suspicious if the whole thing was orange. It could have even been a real orange gun and people would be much less worried about it until they realize it is real. But people want to feel safe and a gun-wielding person in the streets seems very unsafe. People aren't paranoid enough to consider anything as a possible weapon. Well, not yet anyways...

    In this case, the police has an excuse that they thought the weapon was real. It was a fake gun but the only way to know this was by an orange tip, which had been removed. So they shoot, as they have been trained to do! The boy dies but the "dangerous situation" has been resolved.

    When you walk around with a gun, you could expect that someone will consider you hostile and they will shoot you before you can shoot them. Even if the gun is fake. By removing any fake weapons from the market that are too realistic, you can avoid this. You can make people less scared of a kid with a toy gun if the gun is bright orange and looks fake. (Yes, even if it is still real!) It is all about perceived threat.

  • On the post: Police Union Sues Toy Gun Maker For Not Doing Enough To Keep Cleveland Cops From Killing 12-Year-Old Boys

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 05 May, 2017 @ 12:41pm

    Simple solution

    The solution is reasonably simple, and countries like the Netherlands use this solution and are extremely strict with this: Ban all realistic-looking toy guns! Simply put, if you own something that could be mistaken for a real gun then you can be arrested and the toy will be confiscated as evidence and be destroyed. You will get a warning or fine. (Worst case? 9 months imprisonment or €20,900 fine if you have a collection or used it to commit a crime.) But possession of realistic-looking toy weapons is severely discouraged in the Netherlands. So ban the realistic-looking toy weapons and this mistake should never have to happen. The next time a 12-year old will be shot by the police will be because he had a real gun instead. Which is still no excuse to shoot immediately on sight!

  • On the post: Police To Google: Make Our Site More Secure By Delisting It

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2016 @ 01:01am

    Has anyone even looked at this site?

    Come on, guys! They don't want it off the Google-index because it's all secret but worse: it's butt-ugly! You need Internet Explorer to correctly see the page, else things look a bit weird. And it has been developed in an Ancient .NET version in a pretty bad way. And it would not surprise me if a hacker gets inside within 15 minutes of experimenting.
    But the page... And the Code... Oh, it hurts my eyes so badly! Quick! Close it, forget it, BURN IT DOWN! I agree with them and this should be DMCA'd because no one should be able to see such ugliness...
    It's Geocities all over again...

Next >>