No Photos! at the Louvre

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:53:53 GMT, (Carole Allen)
wrote:

Is this Mixi?

http://www.mcphee.com/items/10898.html



On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:13:58 +0100, Keith Anderson
wrote:
Seeing as he's broke, he could also be:
http://www.12move.de/home/crumb/char_shuman.htm



No, he's not wearing hiking boots....or red socks

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Keith W writes:

The public performance right allows the copyright holder to control
the public performance of certain copyrighted works.

Yes.

Perfomers rights are the rights granted to a performer by virtue
of a performance.

I didn't mention those. I mentioned the copyright that exists for the
recording of a performance, which is distinct from the copyright that
may exist on the material being performed. That's why a television
network can copyright a recording of a Mozart concert, even though
Mozart's works are in the public domain.

A performer has the right to control the broadcasting of his or
her live performance to the public. The permission of a performer
must also be sought before a recording of the live performance is made.

That may be so in the UK,

It is

but that part can vary a lot by
jurisdiction.


True but it applies across the EU, Australasia, and North America


None of this has anything to do with photos in the Louvre.

No **** Sherlock

Keith

Tim Challenger wrote:



How about the person who WROTE the music? Who PERFORMED it?

The copyright belongs to the writer. The performance rights generally go to
the publisher.
The definition of "copyright", "performance rights" and "originator's
rights" differ from country to country, in any case.


In theory, it belongs to the writer. Unfortunately, there are cases of people
new to the scene who sent their work out to be produced, they get the usual
letters of rejection, and then the work ends up being produced. Their may be a
few minor changes, the biggest alteration being the name of the author.

This happened to a friend of mine. He wrote a treatment for a movie, and was
asked to develop it. It was eventually rejected. I had read the script (still
have it around the house). Then one night I saw it on television. It was the
same story, same characters (with specific traits) , same issues, but at the
end of the movie the credits listed a well known writer and a prominent lawyer
as the authors.

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 15:38:20 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

Tim Challenger wrote:



How about the person who WROTE the music? Who PERFORMED it?

The copyright belongs to the writer. The performance rights generally go to
the publisher.
The definition of "copyright", "performance rights" and "originator's
rights" differ from country to country, in any case.


In theory, it belongs to the writer. Unfortunately, there are cases of people
new to the scene who sent their work out to be produced, they get the usual
letters of rejection, and then the work ends up being produced. Their may be a
few minor changes, the biggest alteration being the name of the author.

Well, yes. Everything in law must be taken with the pinch of caveat.

This happened to a friend of mine. He wrote a treatment for a movie, and was
asked to develop it. It was eventually rejected. I had read the script (still
have it around the house). Then one night I saw it on television. It was the
same story, same characters (with specific traits) , same issues, but at the
end of the movie the credits listed a well known writer and a prominent lawyer
as the authors.

*******s. They know damn well he can't prove it, of can't afford to prove
it.

--
Tim C.

On 2005-09-30, Timothy Kroesen wrote:
You are ASSuming they weren't taking pictures of a closer subject on the
top...

They aren't. Go up there and see for yourself.

This is unbelievable, if Mixi said the sun rises in the East, you people
would insist it rises in the North.

On 11 Oct 2005 21:52:15 GMT, Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

On 2005-09-30, Timothy Kroesen wrote:
You are ASSuming they weren't taking pictures of a closer subject on the
top...

They aren't. Go up there and see for yourself.

This is unbelievable, if Mixi said the sun rises in the East, you people
would insist it rises in the North.

We would just to see if he could *actually* explain it. :-)

--
Tim C.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:14:59 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:49:23 +0200, "Tim C."
wrote:

On 11 Oct 2005 21:52:15 GMT, Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

On 2005-09-30, Timothy Kroesen wrote:
You are ASSuming they weren't taking pictures of a closer subject on the
top...

They aren't. Go up there and see for yourself.

This is unbelievable, if Mixi said the sun rises in the East, you people
would insist it rises in the North.

We would just to see if he could *actually* explain it. :-)

Of course Mixi wouldn;t claim anything so foolish. Only on two days of
the year does the sun rise in the East yaddah yaddah yaddah thread of
300 posts coming up folks.

Spot the rocket scientist. ;-)
--
Tim C.

It's no stretch of the imagination to think someone on the observation
decks are photographing someone else on the deck; Paris being the
*backdrop*. In any case the flash could easily be visible from the
ground no matter what the photo composition was...

Tim K

"Jesper Lauridsen" wrote in message
...
On 2005-09-30, Timothy Kroesen wrote:
You are ASSuming they weren't taking pictures of a closer subject on
the
top...

They aren't. Go up there and see for yourself.

This is unbelievable, if Mixi said the sun rises in the East, you
people
would insist it rises in the North.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:13:22 GMT, Timothy Kroesen wrote:

It's no stretch of the imagination to think someone on the observation
decks are photographing someone else on the deck;

It's not for most people. Only Mix seems to not be able to make that leap
of faith.
--
Tim C.

On 11 Oct 2005 21:52:15 GMT, Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

On 2005-09-30, Timothy Kroesen wrote:
You are ASSuming they weren't taking pictures of a closer subject on the
top...

They aren't. Go up there and see for yourself.

This is unbelievable, if Mixi said the sun rises in the East, you people
would insist it rises in the North.

They were when I was up there - ok it was 1983, and times and people may
have changed.
Everyone was taking photos of their groups, and they needed flash.

--
Tim C.