• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Was asked to DELETE a photo today!

I looked at the front cover, back cover, title page, all the small print, the introduction and the index, and found nothing. The book was printed in England, but I would think it could not be sold anywhere it would violate copyright or trademark laws.
 
Steve Smith said:
I know the defendant can counter sue but that's not the same as the judge imposing penalties for frivolousness as in Lxdude's post... or is it?
Click to expand...
The defendant can sue for damages. The judge can impose penalties on a plaintiff at the time the original suit is thrown out, with or without a countersuit by the defendant. The judge has considerable latitude in what sanctions can be imposed. The judge can also toss a countersuit or allow it to go forward.

EDIT: Mr Lxdude answered at the same time as I wrote this. I assume a US judge can impose penalties without the defendant counter suing then?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

It doesn't really matter if it does or doesn't violate any copyright or trademark laws. If Bronica are (were) happy with it existing then it's no one else's business to complain.

It is such a comprehensive and well written and presented book that I'm sure they were more than happy with it being published.


Steve.
 

You should check all the book. The colophon can be anywhere, even in the very middle Even if Bronica was happy and gave explicit written permission to the editor, it would be quite abnormal that they didn't ask a note stating that the Zenza Bronica trademarks belong to Zenza-Bronica-Kogyu-Nasai-Masaruti-whatever. (not very good in Japanese I admit).

EDIT -Kogaku- somewhere could be added I think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. But if he had to get any kind of permission and had not, they might have sent him a letter informing him of that and inviting him to do so. Our courts here have said trademarks must be vigorously protected, which is one reason companies go to such lengths to do so.

I'm sure they were quite pleased with the quality and tone of the book. Indeed written and presented well.
 

As I understand it most tort law is state specific, so any rule concerning it will vary from (US) state to state.

And "prosecution" generally refers to a criminal law or similar proceeding, not a civil claim in tort for damages. So damages for "malicious prosecution" could not flow from a civil claim.

At least up here a counter-suit for damages might include a claim for costs, including court costs and increased costs. The availability of such costs will vary with each jurisdiction, according to that jurisdiction's rules.

If a claim is made that has no standing in law, an application can be made to have it dismissed early in the proceeding. In addition, even if the claim could have a legal basis, the factual situation may indicate that the claim is without any potential merit (in my jurisdiction the phrase used is "frivolous and vexatious") and another, different application can be made to have it dismissed early in the proceeding.

The first such application requires a purely legal decision, and therefore little or no evidence will be referred to. The second type of application requires a decision that involves a mixture of law and fact, and therefore at least some evidence will need to be be referred to. As such, it is a more complex application, and may result in a judge referring the issue to a full trial, especially if issues of credibility arise.
 
lxdude said:
They can file a suit, though it's up to a judge to allow it to progress. The judge can impose penalties for clearly frivolous or meritless lawsuits.
Click to expand...

And for obviously frivolous suits it would be tossed out immediately.

But the trick to winning the game is to have a claim that is "plausible" even it is wrong and the money to cowering the opponent. There's no looser pays rule.

In real life, a suit between neighbors Fred and George about damage caused by or to one or the others cow will likely end in an equitable decision. Nobody has any real money, so no Herculean battle occurs.

A suit between Microsoft and Google likely results in a stalemate.

A suit by an out of work laborer against an industrial giant is going to net millions to a law firm, and perhaps something to the worker or perhaps a class. This regardless of the facts of the case and who is right or wrong.

A suit by an industrial giant against someone small with some valuable item - perhaps a competing product - the deep pockets usually win. This is not to imply that all corporate lawyers are corrupt.

In the overall scheme in the USA the rules favor the rich, not the right.
 
Don't they have Traffic cams in Florida? Surely that is not just one of those Crazy California Things. Come to think of it, one cannot go anywhere these days without having ones picture taken. Every store has security cameras. Try asking your local 7-11 store assistant manager for all the frames that contain your face. Welcome to the 21st century! The lady who demanded that you delite her ,undoubtably beautiful, image is stuck somewhere in the 1990s! That was long long ago, even for an old fert like me.

Bill
 
The colophon appears on the page facing the table of contents, and says nothing about Bronica trademarks or permission. I've read the book through, and have not seen anything.
BTW, I said the Bronica script with the star on the cover is similar.
I just looked at a manual for the EC-TL model, and it is identical to the script with star on the cover of that.
 
michaelbsc said:
A suit by an out of work laborer against an industrial giant is going to net millions to a law firm.
Click to expand...

Not if the industrial giant wins the case. They won't get much from the out of work labourer.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Not if the industrial giant wins the case. They won't get much from the out of work labourer.


Steve.
Click to expand...

True. But in the vast majority the attorney taking the work on "speculation" will evaluate that before starting.

I still assert that in the USA the rules favor the money.
 
Steve Smith said:
Not if the industrial giant wins the case. They won't get much from the out of work labourer.
Click to expand...

Normally in a case between employer and employee it is the employee seeking money from the employer and not the other way around. Usually the case is about an unjustified firing, or compensation for a work incident, or anti-trade-union-ist behaviour, or a dispute over pay.

It's quite uncommon that it is the employer who goes to court against an employee. The employer cannot be fired by the employee, is not normally going to receive an injury, and pays according to how he interprets the contract.
 
In different jurisdicitons different standards apply but generally, there is a delineation between journalism with its 1st amendment protection that allows certain exemptions form the I.P. rules and publication for profit that is outside of journalism that does not have such exemptions. As case law developed journalism has generally come to mean someone writing of a news worthy event of interest to the public and published in a periodical. Authorship lies outside journalism and is identified with a dedicated publishment such as a book. Of course a person may be both in a lifetime but perform each function at differnt times. The use of a trademark or copyright outside of jounalism and for nonpersonal and nonprofit use requires consent of the I.P. holder. It does not require the author to so state he has received permission to use it unless stated in the contract for use. That said, if there is a violation, the question then arises whether there were damages as a result. In a number of instances there may be liability but no damages. An example would be each time a piece is sold and the seller publishes the name of the maker, in theory since there is a profit motive, he would need to get permission and when required give credit to the I.P. owner. However, selling a used Bronica on the auction site may create liability, the damages to Tamron are none as it has not sold the product in years nor currently offers any under that name. However, another company can not make a product and market it under the Bronica name as Tamron owns it and the use by another may be detrimental as to the value of the name and its use in the future. For instance, a company makes a Lomo grade camera and markets it as a Bronica thereby creating a reputation that Bronica and its owner, Tamron, make low grade cameras. It would hurt the reputation of Tamron and reduce the value of the Bronica name when and if Tamron decided to bring out another Bronica product equal to the original Bronica's name.

Most I.P. lawyers would know when to advise the client to get permission from an I.P. holder and negotiate the license. Also, most (I assume) know and understand the difference between liabiltiy and damages and would advise their clients to pursue a court action and when to quietly settle the issue and just when to ignore the issue.
 
BrianL said:
Also, most (I assume) know and understand the difference between liabiltiy and damages.
Click to expand...

Most would also know that in civil cases, what you are referring to as damages are really called remedies. Something I only learned this week!


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Most would also know that in civil cases, what you are referring to as damages are really called remedies. Something I only learned this week!


Steve.
Click to expand...

Steve:

"remedies" include damages, but they can include a lot more as well - e.g. injunctive relief.
 
So is remedy a more general term which includes things like damages with damages being more specific?


Steve.
 
you could have made your day even better:
"I'm not deleting any photographs from my youtube-linked x-ray camera."
 
Steve Smith said:
So is remedy a more general term which includes things like damages with damages being more specific?


Steve.
Click to expand...

Correct.

There is a whole school of legal thought out there that essentially says that all law is really about remedies.

There are entire law school courses devoted to the subject of remedies, and the law concerning remedies can be very complex.

Just as an example, Canadian law struggled for over a century with the question of whether one could obtain compensation for purely economic loss arising indirectly from tortious conduct.

Any time you encounter a court action that has been commenced in an unusual location, or in one appropriate location rather than another appropriate location, it is very likely that the location was chosen because the law there makes available one or more advantageous remedies.
 
I remember in law school a discussion as to remedy vs damages. The topic was Mrs. O'Leary and her famous cow. While the discussion was around proximate cause for damages. We concluded an appropriate remedy was was for financial comepnsation and an injunction against leaving lighted lanterns in the barn and her cow for remedies. Damages is generally considered in financial terms and remedies may be broader. In the case of the cow, it was appropriate for the court to issue an injunction to order the cow henceforth to not kick a lantern over and in the case of him violating the court order to be served up as steak and burgers. In the court case there was no mention whether the cow died in the original fire so as good budding lawyers we made no assumption it did.
 
Only once was I ever asked to delete a photo (yes, digital...meh). I was working as a reporter for a daily newspaper last winter and I went to a house fire in a blizzard. Turns out the kid of the building's tenant was on the fire department and didn't like me there, started screaming, pushing and swearing at me. I just stood my ground until the chief of police came over and pulled the jerk off. I was standing on an icy bridge, too, and I was praying for him to hit me, mostly so I could take a dive off the bridge into the water and sue the living crap out of him, his family, the fire department, the village, the county emergency services department and NYDOT.

Kinda weird, but I planned (while standing there) to buy a house on each end of town, a "normal" car and a bright yellow Corvette with "Paid for by XXXXXX, New York village government Tax Dollars" professionally painted on the doors, hood, trunk and convertible top. Every time I'd drive through town (it was on my daily commute at the time), I'd park my current beater at the first house, drive the Corvette through town veeeeeery slowly with the radio blaring (think Blues Brothers' speaker-on-the-car kind of sound setup), just to park at the other house and drive my other beater to where I was going, repeating the process on the way home again. Yeah, I'm a d**k...

There's a fuzzy picture of the jerk on my wall at the office.
 
Actually, anytime a police officer stops you to talk to you in his official capacity you are "under arrest", including being talked to about things such as being a witness to a crime. If he takes you into custody that's a different story.
 
David Goldstein said:
Actually, anytime a police officer stops you to talk to you in his official capacity you are "under arrest", including being talked to about things such as being a witness to a crime. If he takes you into custody that's a different story.
Click to expand...

Not true, at least not in the US. He can make a "stop" but not an arrest on "reasonsble suspicion." They generally can't delay you more than 30 minutes or so (varies with jurisdiction) after which you can tell him to arrest you or pound sand, and an arrest requires probable cause. Provable cause legally requires two things: 1) KNOWLEDGE not hunch or suspicion, that a crime has definitely been committed and 2) some reason to connect you with the crime. Absent either if those you can tell him to go away and leave you alone and he has to do so. It's just sense to be polite about it though.
 
David Goldstein said:
Actually, anytime a police officer stops you to talk to you in his official capacity you are "under arrest", including being talked to about things such as being a witness to a crime.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are being "detained".
 
Michelle's is an old Winchell's. Winchell's signs used to be that shape.
I figure it was called Michelle's to save money by reusing letters in the sign. Years ago there was a Texaco truck stop near here on I-10. On the freeway sign the letters, all capitals, were mounted individually on internally illuminated frames. The new owners renamed the place EXACTO, so all they had to do was move five of the six letters on each side of the sign.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lxdude said:
Actually, you are being "detained".
Click to expand...

In the UK you can ask an officer if you are being detained. If the answer is no, you can walk away.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register