Well, I made it out to see X-Files: I Want TO Believe. For only having come out Friday, I was only one of 3 people in the theater, kind of disappointing. I was an avid watcher of the show, I missed my share of them in the last few seasons, but I found the series entertaining. The movie has picked up quite some time after the series ended. I was hoping for something along the lines of the previous feature, but I felt something was missing. I enjoyed the plot line of Mulder & Scully, something that was tantalizingly glazed over in the series. The story they were wrapped up in seemed to lack something. I believed in the characters, but got the impression they were being led into the story, more so than in the series. I didn't always get the impression that the characters were working for the story, leaving the story a bit hollow. Overall the movie was executed very well, though everything wasn't in sync for a good flow. Good for an X-Files buff, but not many others I would imagine.
If you can't decide whether to see it or not, I hope this helps.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Journey To The Center Of The Earth 3D
I know most people are out helping The Dark Knight shatter new box office records this weekend, but I was catching "Journey To The Center Of The Earth 3D", to see the 3D process used. There are competing processes, one being RealD, the other Dolby 3D. Journey used the Dolby process. Both seem to be employing a polarized lens to trick the eye to see stereoscopic depth. The process was used quite well for most of the movie, with plenty of emphasis in the first fifteen minutes to let you know the film makers were having fun setting up how much 3D was going to be used to an extreme sense of depth. Even with one eye closed, there was only one of the two images visible. A drawback for me was a reflection I got off my glasses that showed up on the inside of the 3D glasses which got very annoying, prompting me to take my glasses off[Others will not be so lucky with this, depending on their prescription].
For a family action romp, the movie succeeded in keeping a good pace. Brendan Fraser's character was about the same as his "Mummy" alter ego, with a dash of science geek thrown in, but entertaining none the less. Josh Hutcherson looks even more comfortable in front of the camera, than he did for "Bridge to Terabithia". Anita Briem I had only seen before in a Doctor Who episode, and was happy to see her do so much more. Overall, I'd say "Journey To The Center Of The Earth 3D" was a fun romp, entertaining to see at least once, thought I suspect I won't see it again, there is a crowded cinema this summer, and a few more movie I'd like to see.
For a family action romp, the movie succeeded in keeping a good pace. Brendan Fraser's character was about the same as his "Mummy" alter ego, with a dash of science geek thrown in, but entertaining none the less. Josh Hutcherson looks even more comfortable in front of the camera, than he did for "Bridge to Terabithia". Anita Briem I had only seen before in a Doctor Who episode, and was happy to see her do so much more. Overall, I'd say "Journey To The Center Of The Earth 3D" was a fun romp, entertaining to see at least once, thought I suspect I won't see it again, there is a crowded cinema this summer, and a few more movie I'd like to see.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Orphan Works Delay
Well, the legislation will not make it to the floor this week. More time to e-mail your elected officials[As I have been, and will continue to do]. Anyone who intends to have a copyright on any image they create, be it photo, drawing, painting, collage, digital manipulation, etc... You need to let your elected officials know how you feel! Be proactive!
Monday, July 14, 2008
Orphan Works Legislation
I am posting here information on the "Orphan Works" legislation ,which, if passed will radically alter how you copyright your own work, putting the burden of proof on you, rather than those who would use your work to their own ends. If this legislation should pass, I will pull all of my images from the web, recommending that anyone I know do the same, as this is the easiest way for others to use images that are not theirs. Please read the following information, so that you may better understand what is going to happen if this legislation passes.
Thank you,
Buckaroo
FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP
We've had word that the House Judiciary Committee may mark-up the Orphan Works Bill this week. This is the session where Committee Members will propose, accept and reject amendments to H.R. 5889. After markup, the bill could be reported out of the House Committee and go to the floor for a vote.We've submitted several critical amendments for consideration: These would limit the scope of the bill to affect only true orphaned work. Unless such amendments are adopted, we believe the bill should not be reported out until its impact on small businesses can be determined. Here's our summary of the issues at stake in the House version of this bill:
Q What is the Orphan Works Act?
A: A proposed amendment to copyright law that would impose a radically new business model on the licensing of copyrighted work.
Q: How would it do that?
A: It would force all creators to digitize their life's work and hand it over to privately-owned commercial databases or see it exposed to widespread infringement by anyone, for any purpose, however commercial or distasteful.
Q: How would it hurt me if I didn't register my work?
A: The bill would let infringers rely on for-profit registries to search for your work. If your work is not in the databases, it's a potential "orphan."
Q: What about my unpublished work?
A: The bill would apply to any work, from professional paintings to family snapshots, home videos, etc., including published and unpublished work and any work ever placed on the internet.
Q: How would these databases work?
A: No one has yet unveiled a business plan, but we suspect they'd operate like stock houses, promoting themselves as one-stop shopping centers for licensing art. If you've registered your work with them, they'll probably charge you maintenance fees and commissions for clearing your work. If you're a publisher or art director, they'll probably charge you search fees. If you're an infringer, they'll probably charge you a search fee and issue orphan certificates for any unregistered work you'd like to infringe. We assume different registries may have different terms, and any start-up terms will of course be subject to change.
Q: How will the bill affect the market for commissioned work?
A: It will be a gold mine for opportunists, favoring giant image banks over working artists. Some companies will probably sell access to orphans as royalty-free work -- or they'll harvest orphans and bundle them for sale as clip art. Other companies can harvest orphans, alter them slightly to make "derivative works" and register the derivatives as their own copyrighted product. Freelancers would then be forced to compete against their own lost art - and that of their colleagues - for the new commissions they need to make a living.
Q: But the bill's sponsors say the bill is just a small adjustment to copyright law.
A: No, it's actually a reversal of copyright law. It presumes that the public is entitled to use your work as a primary right and that it's your legal obligation to make your work available.
Q: But isn't the House bill an improvement over the Senate version?
A: Only for those who intend to operate commercial databases. These registries will exist to make money. To make money, they'll have to do a lively business in clearing work for infringements. That means making their databases infringer-friendly.
Q: But isn't the House bill better because it requires an infringer to file a Notice of Use, documenting their intent to infringe?
A: The House bill creates a very low threshold for infringers to meet. They'd only have to file a text description (not the image itself) of the work they want to infringe, plus information about their search and any ownership information they've found.
Q: But won't that let artists consult the archive to see if their work has been infringed?
A: No, as currently written, the Notice of Use is a dark archive, which means you won't have access to it. If someone infringes your work and has filed a Notice of Use, you wouldn't know about it.
Q: Then how would I know if my work is in the Dark Archive?
A: You wouldn't, unless a.) you discover you've been infringed; b.) you sue the infringer in federal court; c.) the infringer asserts an Orphan Works defense. Then you can file a request to see if the infringer has filed a Notice of Use to infringe your work.
Q: Then what good does it do me for the infringer to file a Notice of Use?
A: It's of no probative value to you at all unless you go to court. And if you do, you'd better be sure of winning because otherwise, without the possibility of statutory damages and attorneys' fees, it will be too expensive for you to sue. If the Notice of Use helps anyone, it actually helps the infringer: it lets him prove in court that he followed the prescribed protocol to "legally" infringe your work.
Q: Then shouldn't we ask Congress to change the Dark Archive to an open one?
A: This would still place an impossible burden on you. Can you imagine routinely slogging through a "lost and found" containing millions of text descriptions of works to see if something sounds like one of the hundreds or thousands of illustrations you may have done?
Q: So should the infringement archive be changed to display images rather than text descriptions?
A: If so, you'd have a come-and-get-it archive for new infringers to exploit works that have already been identified as orphans by previous infringers.
Q: The bill's sponsors say the House version includes specific instructions on the requirements for diligent searches.
A: No, read the bill. It's full of ambiguous terms like "reasonable" and "diligent" that can only be decided by courts on a case-by-case basis. That could take a decade of expensive lawsuits and appeals. How many millions of copyrights will be orphaned before we learn how the courts ultimately define these vague terms?
Q: Then what can we do to improve this bill?
A: We don't believe the bill can be patched up to mitigate its harm to creators. The Orphan Works matter should be solved with carefully defined expansions of fair use to permit reproduction by libraries and archives, or for family photo restoration and duplication. Narrow exceptions like these would also meet the needs of other orphan works usage without violating artists' rights as defined by the 1976 Copyright Act, The Berne Convention and Article 13 of the TRIPs Agreement. These copyright-related international trade treaties are not just a matter of law. They codify longstanding business practices that have passed the test of time.
Q: What can we do now to oppose this legislation?
A: If you're opposed to the House bill in its current form, contact members of the full House Judiciary Committee. Ask them to adopt our amendments limiting the scope of the bill to affect only true orphaned work. Tomorrow, we'll email you a short basic letter which you may use as a template.--Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators' PartnershipOver 60 organizations are united in opposing this bill in its current form. Illustrators, photographers, fine artists, songwriters, musicians, and countless licensing firms all believe this bill will harm their small businesses.Don't Let Congress Orphan Your WorkTo use the Orphan Works Opposition Website just go to this link: http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=0010RBpBs6nIrcarXZ3WnB6FmlILUl3lNhgwfElMax33ACTs-8O-CYKCliJzlMQsN8x_64SWfqzLsEMcrUP9la1Pgpk5n_L0BV7HodX3Sj1LZZW7trljjZ-xmlq6X_aFPDowSNOXg-vkq0N9QuIVScITw==Put in your zip code and follow the instructions. Your letters will be addressed and sent automatically. It takes less than 2 minutes to fight for your copyright.If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com Place "Add Name" in the subject line, and provide your name and the email address you want used in the message area.
Please post or forward this message in its entirety to any interested party.
Thank you,
Buckaroo
FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP
We've had word that the House Judiciary Committee may mark-up the Orphan Works Bill this week. This is the session where Committee Members will propose, accept and reject amendments to H.R. 5889. After markup, the bill could be reported out of the House Committee and go to the floor for a vote.We've submitted several critical amendments for consideration: These would limit the scope of the bill to affect only true orphaned work. Unless such amendments are adopted, we believe the bill should not be reported out until its impact on small businesses can be determined. Here's our summary of the issues at stake in the House version of this bill:
Q What is the Orphan Works Act?
A: A proposed amendment to copyright law that would impose a radically new business model on the licensing of copyrighted work.
Q: How would it do that?
A: It would force all creators to digitize their life's work and hand it over to privately-owned commercial databases or see it exposed to widespread infringement by anyone, for any purpose, however commercial or distasteful.
Q: How would it hurt me if I didn't register my work?
A: The bill would let infringers rely on for-profit registries to search for your work. If your work is not in the databases, it's a potential "orphan."
Q: What about my unpublished work?
A: The bill would apply to any work, from professional paintings to family snapshots, home videos, etc., including published and unpublished work and any work ever placed on the internet.
Q: How would these databases work?
A: No one has yet unveiled a business plan, but we suspect they'd operate like stock houses, promoting themselves as one-stop shopping centers for licensing art. If you've registered your work with them, they'll probably charge you maintenance fees and commissions for clearing your work. If you're a publisher or art director, they'll probably charge you search fees. If you're an infringer, they'll probably charge you a search fee and issue orphan certificates for any unregistered work you'd like to infringe. We assume different registries may have different terms, and any start-up terms will of course be subject to change.
Q: How will the bill affect the market for commissioned work?
A: It will be a gold mine for opportunists, favoring giant image banks over working artists. Some companies will probably sell access to orphans as royalty-free work -- or they'll harvest orphans and bundle them for sale as clip art. Other companies can harvest orphans, alter them slightly to make "derivative works" and register the derivatives as their own copyrighted product. Freelancers would then be forced to compete against their own lost art - and that of their colleagues - for the new commissions they need to make a living.
Q: But the bill's sponsors say the bill is just a small adjustment to copyright law.
A: No, it's actually a reversal of copyright law. It presumes that the public is entitled to use your work as a primary right and that it's your legal obligation to make your work available.
Q: But isn't the House bill an improvement over the Senate version?
A: Only for those who intend to operate commercial databases. These registries will exist to make money. To make money, they'll have to do a lively business in clearing work for infringements. That means making their databases infringer-friendly.
Q: But isn't the House bill better because it requires an infringer to file a Notice of Use, documenting their intent to infringe?
A: The House bill creates a very low threshold for infringers to meet. They'd only have to file a text description (not the image itself) of the work they want to infringe, plus information about their search and any ownership information they've found.
Q: But won't that let artists consult the archive to see if their work has been infringed?
A: No, as currently written, the Notice of Use is a dark archive, which means you won't have access to it. If someone infringes your work and has filed a Notice of Use, you wouldn't know about it.
Q: Then how would I know if my work is in the Dark Archive?
A: You wouldn't, unless a.) you discover you've been infringed; b.) you sue the infringer in federal court; c.) the infringer asserts an Orphan Works defense. Then you can file a request to see if the infringer has filed a Notice of Use to infringe your work.
Q: Then what good does it do me for the infringer to file a Notice of Use?
A: It's of no probative value to you at all unless you go to court. And if you do, you'd better be sure of winning because otherwise, without the possibility of statutory damages and attorneys' fees, it will be too expensive for you to sue. If the Notice of Use helps anyone, it actually helps the infringer: it lets him prove in court that he followed the prescribed protocol to "legally" infringe your work.
Q: Then shouldn't we ask Congress to change the Dark Archive to an open one?
A: This would still place an impossible burden on you. Can you imagine routinely slogging through a "lost and found" containing millions of text descriptions of works to see if something sounds like one of the hundreds or thousands of illustrations you may have done?
Q: So should the infringement archive be changed to display images rather than text descriptions?
A: If so, you'd have a come-and-get-it archive for new infringers to exploit works that have already been identified as orphans by previous infringers.
Q: The bill's sponsors say the House version includes specific instructions on the requirements for diligent searches.
A: No, read the bill. It's full of ambiguous terms like "reasonable" and "diligent" that can only be decided by courts on a case-by-case basis. That could take a decade of expensive lawsuits and appeals. How many millions of copyrights will be orphaned before we learn how the courts ultimately define these vague terms?
Q: Then what can we do to improve this bill?
A: We don't believe the bill can be patched up to mitigate its harm to creators. The Orphan Works matter should be solved with carefully defined expansions of fair use to permit reproduction by libraries and archives, or for family photo restoration and duplication. Narrow exceptions like these would also meet the needs of other orphan works usage without violating artists' rights as defined by the 1976 Copyright Act, The Berne Convention and Article 13 of the TRIPs Agreement. These copyright-related international trade treaties are not just a matter of law. They codify longstanding business practices that have passed the test of time.
Q: What can we do now to oppose this legislation?
A: If you're opposed to the House bill in its current form, contact members of the full House Judiciary Committee. Ask them to adopt our amendments limiting the scope of the bill to affect only true orphaned work. Tomorrow, we'll email you a short basic letter which you may use as a template.--Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators' PartnershipOver 60 organizations are united in opposing this bill in its current form. Illustrators, photographers, fine artists, songwriters, musicians, and countless licensing firms all believe this bill will harm their small businesses.Don't Let Congress Orphan Your WorkTo use the Orphan Works Opposition Website just go to this link: http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=0010RBpBs6nIrcarXZ3WnB6FmlILUl3lNhgwfElMax33ACTs-8O-CYKCliJzlMQsN8x_64SWfqzLsEMcrUP9la1Pgpk5n_L0BV7HodX3Sj1LZZW7trljjZ-xmlq6X_aFPDowSNOXg-vkq0N9QuIVScITw==Put in your zip code and follow the instructions. Your letters will be addressed and sent automatically. It takes less than 2 minutes to fight for your copyright.If you received our mail as a forwarded message, and wish to be added to our mailing list, email us at: illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com Place "Add Name" in the subject line, and provide your name and the email address you want used in the message area.
Please post or forward this message in its entirety to any interested party.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Gas well
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
The Mackinac Bridge
Day trip to the U P
Tent City
More to follow...
Monday, July 7, 2008
Safe arrival.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Hancock
Well, the movie had some good plot twists. It basically comes down to this, Will Smith builds an interesting character. I'd like to see it again, though I suspect Wall e will come first. Hancock is a good action movie, and worth the view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)