Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: "Amputating" Limbs

  1. #21

    Default Re: "Amputating" Limbs

    guys, chill please.

    olyflyer - i'm sure if you had bothered to answer the ts' question instead of digressing into another area altogether, and effectively hijacking the thread to rant about what seems like a pet peeve of yours.. the response would have been much warmer. also, the tone in which you phrase your replies is to me, not offensive, but some may mistake it for an holier-than-thou tone. trust me.

    p7m13 - live and learn. i'm sure olyflyer means well.

    cheers.

  2. #22

    Default Re: "Amputating" Limbs

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    guys, chill please.

    olyflyer - i'm sure if you had bothered to answer the ts' question instead of digressing into another area altogether, and effectively hijacking the thread to rant about what seems like a pet peeve of yours.. the response would have been much warmer. also, the tone in which you phrase your replies is to me, not offensive, but some may mistake it for an holier-than-thou tone. trust me.

    p7m13 - live and learn. i'm sure olyflyer means well.

    cheers.
    The question about amputating limbs was answered already in post #2, your post. Not much more to say about that.

    I am far from holie, but would never try to convince others that something which is wrong is actually right because others do it, or because it is a different country and so on. Several posters tried that here. I am glad p7m13 admitted it was wrong, even if some people will never go that far. As for hijacking, well, I answered to, and kept my answer to the words of TS in my post. It is unfortunate that other steped in, leading to a lengthy discussion. If you feel I hijacked this thread, I am sorry. IMO, not much more can be said about the amputating business, would you agree?

    TS and admin has always the right to close the thread, unfortunately, TS was not very active, but I am sure he has his reasons.

    Yes, I meant well, and no I am no holie man.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default Re: "Amputating" Limbs

    Ah just like the good old days

    Quote Originally Posted by OlyFlyer View Post
    It is unfortunate that other steped in, leading to a lengthy discussion.
    That's funny... if you look at the thread... yours is the first off topic post. I stepped in because you were accusing the OP of something that he wasn't guilty of in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by OlyFlyer View Post
    Just have a look on this map.

    (map truncated for brevity)

    You will find Singapore, UK and most other countries in blue, indicating they have signed the agreement. Since CS is Singapore based it MUST follow the same law, regardless what you personally think or where I live.

    The Berne Convention is valid whatever you say
    I'm not dismissing the validity of the Berne Convention, the fact here is that you're completely missing the point. The point is, the Berne Convention (as well as specific US, UK, and I believe Singapore legislation) specifically permits the reproduction of the photograph in the context of this thread (subject to acknowledgement as I have been saying).

    I'm glad you've done the research and dug up the map of the signatories to Berne, but it would really help if you do the research on the Convention itself (try Article 10), before using it as your authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by OlyFlyer View Post
    I am far from holie, but would never try to convince others that something which is wrong is actually right because others do it, or because it is a different country and so on. Several posters tried that here.
    No, what you're trying to do is convince people that something "which is right is actually wrong". This is a classic case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Go and do some research on copyright legislation in Singapore, and find out about the provisions for fair use.

    In fact I've decided to go and do a bit of legwork, took about 3 minutes if that, to find the specific position in Singapore. Copyright Act (Chapter 63) 1987, sections 35-37 relate to copying that doesn't constitute an infringement for the purposes of fair dealing.

    35. (1A) The purposes for which a dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, may constitute a fair dealing under subsection (1) shall include research and study.

    36. A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of criticism or review, whether of that work or of another work, and a sufficient acknowledgment of the work is made.


    As I have been saying all along, this quite reasonably falls under research/study purposes, and/or as a review of photographic technique. I have also stressed on each occasion that the OP has failed to provide sufficient acknowledgement of the author. But the actual act of reproducing the image in this thread isn't a violation of copyright on its own. The Berne Convention that you so happily go on about, says essentially the same thing in Article 10.

    I am not a lawyer as you point out, nor am I an authority on matters such as this, but I have a law degree having majored in intellectual property, and a follow up MA in the photographic image. I am also a full time photographer with a reasonable appreciation of my rights so I certainly wouldn't play down a photographer's rights because it's not in my best interest. That's the basis and the background of my information.

  4. #24

    Default Re: "Amputating" Limbs

    Go on with your life. I have no more time with this, I have to go on with mine, I am tired of repeating things. I think it is more of a question of attitude than law and justice, but I will not continue this lengthy discussion. I may went too far according to some, but TS has admitted he was wrong for not asking. To me that is more than enough. Be the expert you think you are, but, remember, a court may think differently and may disagree with you, even in Singapore.

    End of the story.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default Re: "Amputating" Limbs

    Person A stabs person B with a kitchen knife in self defence after having been sexually assaulted by person B.


    Concerned Citizen comes in shouting, stop stop! I would like to know why person A stabbed person B. The law says you cannot stab person B so person A should be thrown into jail.

    Jed says, I don't think so, under the circumstances the law will not hold person A criminally responsible for those actions.

    Concerned Citizen says, stabbing someone is wrong, period. It's not up to Jed to decide if it's wrong or not (strange how OlyFlyer has decided it's up to him)

    Jed says, no, the law provides for circumstances in which you can legally defend yourself, so it's not wrong for person A to stab person B in this context.

    Concerned Citizen says, look at this lovely map I just found of countries that have basic human rights. It includes Singapore, so that means person A should be thrown in jail. I would never try to say that someone was guilty when they're not, unlike some other people here.

    Jed quotes statutory evidence to support the fact that self-defence is a valid defence.

    Concerned Citizen says well you keeping thinking you're an expert, this is a waste of my time. End of story.


    Bottom line for everyone else btw: There has been no infringement here. Beyond not acknowledging the author, as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, which incidentally OlyFlyer hasn't.

  6. #26

    Thumbs down Re: "Amputating" Limbs

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed View Post
    Person A stabs person B with a kitchen knife in self defence after having been sexually assaulted by person B.


    Concerned Citizen comes in shouting, stop stop! I would like to know why person A stabbed person B. The law says you cannot stab person B so person A should be thrown into jail.

    Jed says, I don't think so, under the circumstances the law will not hold person A criminally responsible for those actions.

    Concerned Citizen says, stabbing someone is wrong, period. It's not up to Jed to decide if it's wrong or not (strange how OlyFlyer has decided it's up to him)

    Jed says, no, the law provides for circumstances in which you can legally defend yourself, so it's not wrong for person A to stab person B in this context.

    Concerned Citizen says, look at this lovely map I just found of countries that have basic human rights. It includes Singapore, so that means person A should be thrown in jail. I would never try to say that someone was guilty when they're not, unlike some other people here.

    Jed quotes statutory evidence to support the fact that self-defence is a valid defence.

    Concerned Citizen says well you keeping thinking you're an expert, this is a waste of my time. End of story.


    Bottom line for everyone else btw: There has been no infringement here. Beyond not acknowledging the author, as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, which incidentally OlyFlyer hasn't.
    You are a funny guy, Jed.

    But there is no self defense here, I pointed out something, it is your freedom to disagree with me, just like it is my right to disagree with you.

    Bottom line is:

    Talking about off topic, you are way off the line here, doing nothing else than offending.

    Last edited by OlyFlyer; 24th January 2008 at 06:24 AM.

  7. #27

    Default Re: "Amputating" Limbs

    This has gone wayyyy off topic. I don't wanna do this but I'm closing this thread otherwise the "war" is gonna wage on forever.

    Thread closed

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •