NU04 OCH
Frank2016-11-24 10:45:04
Seem's a s this taxi driver has an anger issue
You should report him for his behaviour in public even if the other driver was in the wrong this taxi driver has a duty and from the sounds of it he totally ignored those guidelines etc
Maybe the other driver was innocent in all this but i cannot speak for him/her as i was not there at the time but the law would question both drivers and if the other driver has health issues and a disability then this taxi driver could find himself in deeper water even though hi colleagues would tell him differently as no doubt if he has taken photographs of these people he has no doubt shared them with other fellow taxi drivers
But this is where this taxi driver could find himself in more trouble than Anticipated as he now could be arrested or his colleagues for copyright etc
The intellectual property rights on photographs are protected in different jurisdictions by the laws governing copyright and moral rights. In some cases photography may be restricted by civil or criminal law. Publishing certain photographs can be restricted by privacy or other laws. Photography of certain subject matter can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children.
Copyright
Copyright can subsist in an original photograph, i.e. a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film.Whilst photographs are classified as artistic works, the subsistence of copyright does not depend on artistic merit] The owner of the copyright in the photograph is the photographer – the person who creates it, by default.However, where a photograph is taken by an employee in the course of employment, the first owner of the copyright is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
Copyright which subsists in a photograph protects not merely the photographer from direct copying of his/her work, but also from indirect copying to reproduce his/her work, where a substantial part of his/her work has been copied.
Copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies. A consequence of this lengthy period of existence of the copyright is that many family photographs which have no market value, but significant emotional value, remain subject to copyright, even when the original photographer cannot be traced (a problem known as copyright orphan), has given up photography, or died. In the absence of a licence, it will be an infringement of copyright in the photographs to copy them. When someone dies the rights will have transferred to someone else, perhaps through testamentary deposition (a will) or by inheritance. If there was no will, or if the photographer has not specified where the rights in the material should go, then the normal rules of inheritance will apply (although these rules are not specific to copyright and legal advice should be sought). Scanning old family photographs, without permission, to a digital file for personal use is prima facie an infringement of copyright.
Certain photographs may not be protected by copyright. Section 171 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 gives courts jurisdiction to refrain from enforcing the copyright which subsists in works on the grounds of public interest. For example, patent diagrams are held to be in the public domain, and are thus not subject to copyright.
Infringement
"No photographs" sticker. Designed for persons at conferences who do not want any digital likeness of them taken, including video, photography, audio, etc.
Infringement of the copyright which subsists in a photograph can be performed through copying the photograph. This is because the owner of the copyright in the photograph has the exclusive right to copy the photograph. For there to be infringement of the copyright in a photograph, there must be copying of a substantial part of the photograph. A photograph can also be a mechanism of infringement of the copyright which subsists in another work. For example, a photograph which copies a substantial part of an artistic work, such as a sculpture, painting or another photograph (without permission) would infringe the copyright which subsists in those works.
However, the subject matter of a photograph is not necessarily subject to an independent copyright. For example, in the Creation Records case, a photographer, attempting to create a photograph for an album cover, set up an elaborate and artificial scene. A photographer from a newspaper covertly photographed the scene and published it in the newspaper. The court held that the newspaper photographer did not infringe the official photographer's copyright. Copyright did not subsist in the scene itself – it was too temporary to be a collage, and could not be categorised as any other form of artistic work.
The protection of photographs in this manner has been criticised on two grounds. Firstly, it is argued that photographs should not be protected as artistic works, but should instead be protected in a manner similar to that of sound recordings and films. In other words, copyright should not protect the subject matter of a photograph as a matter of course as a consequence of a photograph being taken. It is argued that protection of photographs as artistic works is anomalous, in that photography is ultimately a medium of reproduction, rather than creation. As such, it is more similar to a film, or sound recording than a painting or sculpture. Some photographers share this view. For example, Michael Reichmann described photography as an art of disclosure, as opposed to an art of inclusion. Secondly, it is argued that the protection of photographs as artistic works leads to bizarre results.Subject matter is protected irrespective of the artistic merit of a photograph. The subject matter of a photograph is protected even when it is not deserving of protection. For copyright to subsist in photographs as artistic works, the photographs must be original, since the English test for originality is based on skill, labour and judgment.That said, it is possible that the threshold of originality is very low. Essentially, by this, Arnold is arguing that whilst the subject matter of some photographs may deserve protection, it is inappropriate for the law to presume that the subject matter of all photographs is deserving of protection.
It is possible to say with a high degree of confidence that photographs of three-dimensional objects, including artistic works, will be treated by a court as themselves original artistic works, and as such, will be subject to copyright. It is likely that a photograph (including a scan – digital scanning counts as photography for the purposes of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) of a two dimensional artistic work, such as another photograph or a painting will also be subject to copyright if a significant amount of skill, labour and judgment went into its creation
Photography and privacy
A right to privacy came into existence in UK law as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.
Whether this right is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a matter of some controversy. The right to privacy is protected by Article 8 of the convention. In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression. As such, courts will consider the public interest in balancing the rights through the legal test of proportionality.
A very limited statutory right to privacy exists in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. This right is held, for example, by someone who hires a photographer to photograph their wedding. The commissioner, irrespective of any copyright which he does or does not hold in the photograph of a photograph which was commissioned for private and domestic purposes, where copyright subsists in the photograph, has the right not to have copies of the work issued to the public, the work exhibited in public or the work communicated to the public.However, this right will not be infringed if the rightholder gives permission. It will not be infringed if the photograph is incidentally included in an artistic work, film, or broadcast
Any filming with the intent of doing unlawful harm against a subject may be a violation of the law in itself.
Seem's a s this taxi driver has an anger issue
You should report him for his behaviour in public even if the other driver was in the wrong this taxi driver has a duty and from the sounds of it he totally ignored those guidelines etc
Maybe the other driver was innocent in all this but i cannot speak for him/her as i was not there at the time but the law would question both drivers and if the other driver has health issues and a disability then this taxi driver could find himself in deeper water even though hi colleagues would tell him differently as no doubt if he has taken photographs of these people he has no doubt shared them with other fellow taxi drivers
But this is where this taxi driver could find himself in more trouble than Anticipated as he now could be arrested or his colleagues for copyright etc
The intellectual property rights on photographs are protected in different jurisdictions by the laws governing copyright and moral rights. In some cases photography may be restricted by civil or criminal law. Publishing certain photographs can be restricted by privacy or other laws. Photography of certain subject matter can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children.
Copyright
Copyright can subsist in an original photograph, i.e. a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film.Whilst photographs are classified as artistic works, the subsistence of copyright does not depend on artistic merit] The owner of the copyright in the photograph is the photographer – the person who creates it, by default.However, where a photograph is taken by an employee in the course of employment, the first owner of the copyright is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
Copyright which subsists in a photograph protects not merely the photographer from direct copying of his/her work, but also from indirect copying to reproduce his/her work, where a substantial part of his/her work has been copied.
Copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies. A consequence of this lengthy period of existence of the copyright is that many family photographs which have no market value, but significant emotional value, remain subject to copyright, even when the original photographer cannot be traced (a problem known as copyright orphan), has given up photography, or died. In the absence of a licence, it will be an infringement of copyright in the photographs to copy them. When someone dies the rights will have transferred to someone else, perhaps through testamentary deposition (a will) or by inheritance. If there was no will, or if the photographer has not specified where the rights in the material should go, then the normal rules of inheritance will apply (although these rules are not specific to copyright and legal advice should be sought). Scanning old family photographs, without permission, to a digital file for personal use is prima facie an infringement of copyright.
Certain photographs may not be protected by copyright. Section 171 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 gives courts jurisdiction to refrain from enforcing the copyright which subsists in works on the grounds of public interest. For example, patent diagrams are held to be in the public domain, and are thus not subject to copyright.
Infringement
"No photographs" sticker. Designed for persons at conferences who do not want any digital likeness of them taken, including video, photography, audio, etc.
Infringement of the copyright which subsists in a photograph can be performed through copying the photograph. This is because the owner of the copyright in the photograph has the exclusive right to copy the photograph. For there to be infringement of the copyright in a photograph, there must be copying of a substantial part of the photograph. A photograph can also be a mechanism of infringement of the copyright which subsists in another work. For example, a photograph which copies a substantial part of an artistic work, such as a sculpture, painting or another photograph (without permission) would infringe the copyright which subsists in those works.
However, the subject matter of a photograph is not necessarily subject to an independent copyright. For example, in the Creation Records case, a photographer, attempting to create a photograph for an album cover, set up an elaborate and artificial scene. A photographer from a newspaper covertly photographed the scene and published it in the newspaper. The court held that the newspaper photographer did not infringe the official photographer's copyright. Copyright did not subsist in the scene itself – it was too temporary to be a collage, and could not be categorised as any other form of artistic work.
The protection of photographs in this manner has been criticised on two grounds. Firstly, it is argued that photographs should not be protected as artistic works, but should instead be protected in a manner similar to that of sound recordings and films. In other words, copyright should not protect the subject matter of a photograph as a matter of course as a consequence of a photograph being taken. It is argued that protection of photographs as artistic works is anomalous, in that photography is ultimately a medium of reproduction, rather than creation. As such, it is more similar to a film, or sound recording than a painting or sculpture. Some photographers share this view. For example, Michael Reichmann described photography as an art of disclosure, as opposed to an art of inclusion. Secondly, it is argued that the protection of photographs as artistic works leads to bizarre results.Subject matter is protected irrespective of the artistic merit of a photograph. The subject matter of a photograph is protected even when it is not deserving of protection. For copyright to subsist in photographs as artistic works, the photographs must be original, since the English test for originality is based on skill, labour and judgment.That said, it is possible that the threshold of originality is very low. Essentially, by this, Arnold is arguing that whilst the subject matter of some photographs may deserve protection, it is inappropriate for the law to presume that the subject matter of all photographs is deserving of protection.
It is possible to say with a high degree of confidence that photographs of three-dimensional objects, including artistic works, will be treated by a court as themselves original artistic works, and as such, will be subject to copyright. It is likely that a photograph (including a scan – digital scanning counts as photography for the purposes of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) of a two dimensional artistic work, such as another photograph or a painting will also be subject to copyright if a significant amount of skill, labour and judgment went into its creation
Photography and privacy
A right to privacy came into existence in UK law as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.
Whether this right is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a matter of some controversy. The right to privacy is protected by Article 8 of the convention. In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression. As such, courts will consider the public interest in balancing the rights through the legal test of proportionality.
A very limited statutory right to privacy exists in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. This right is held, for example, by someone who hires a photographer to photograph their wedding. The commissioner, irrespective of any copyright which he does or does not hold in the photograph of a photograph which was commissioned for private and domestic purposes, where copyright subsists in the photograph, has the right not to have copies of the work issued to the public, the work exhibited in public or the work communicated to the public.However, this right will not be infringed if the rightholder gives permission. It will not be infringed if the photograph is incidentally included in an artistic work, film, or broadcast
Any filming with the intent of doing unlawful harm against a subject may be a violation of the law in itself.
NU04 OCH
2016-11-24 08:18:29
bloody cabbies think they own the fucking roads, only thing missing is fucking blue lights as they think they are above the law, i would put this arse holes face on here and let future customers know who to avoid in future
bloody cabbies think they own the fucking roads, only thing missing is fucking blue lights as they think they are above the law, i would put this arse holes face on here and let future customers know who to avoid in future
NA15 OSK
Carmen2016-11-23 19:38:17
Usually i only come on here to comment or watch a few videos but this driver got really got my back up as he parked in a disabled bay without a blue badge
Usually i ignore stuff like this but today it was a little different as an old couple looked at him as he got out of his car and when the couple shook their heads at him for not displaying a blue badge he just smirked at them and walked away with his nose up in the air
So today i became a snapshot bandit and took a few snapshots of this driver
Let me know what you think and please be gentle with me as it's my first time : [
Usually i only come on here to comment or watch a few videos but this driver got really got my back up as he parked in a disabled bay without a blue badge
Usually i ignore stuff like this but today it was a little different as an old couple looked at him as he got out of his car and when the couple shook their heads at him for not displaying a blue badge he just smirked at them and walked away with his nose up in the air
So today i became a snapshot bandit and took a few snapshots of this driver
Let me know what you think and please be gentle with me as it's my first time : [
NA14 RYH
Aaron the faggot 2016-11-30 22:16:51
They call me the biggest faggot ever as I have taken 12 Dicks at once
They call me the biggest faggot ever as I have taken 12 Dicks at once
NU04 OCH
Franz2016-11-23 17:08:01
New Taxi Driver
Bertie Evan hailed a taxi outside Paddington station in London. The cabbie had only gone a couple of hundred yards when Bertie leaned forward and tapped him gently on the shoulder. The driver screamed, mounted the pavement, almost hitting a cyclist, then an old lady, but managed to swerved back on to the road, only to over-correct and glance off a coach into the 'Historical London Souvenirs' shop window. Incredibly, no one was hurt.
Both the men got out of the taxi and Bertie asked the cabbie "What on earth was that all about?" I only wanted you to stop so I could buy souvenir!"
"I'm sorry," said the taxi driver, "but this is my first day driving a cab; for the last twenty five years I was driving a hearse!"
New Taxi Driver
Bertie Evan hailed a taxi outside Paddington station in London. The cabbie had only gone a couple of hundred yards when Bertie leaned forward and tapped him gently on the shoulder. The driver screamed, mounted the pavement, almost hitting a cyclist, then an old lady, but managed to swerved back on to the road, only to over-correct and glance off a coach into the 'Historical London Souvenirs' shop window. Incredibly, no one was hurt.
Both the men got out of the taxi and Bertie asked the cabbie "What on earth was that all about?" I only wanted you to stop so I could buy souvenir!"
"I'm sorry," said the taxi driver, "but this is my first day driving a cab; for the last twenty five years I was driving a hearse!"
NU04 OCH
Franz2016-11-23 17:06:50
Taxi to the Hospital
A woman flagged down a cab.
"Where to?" the cabbie asked.
"The hospital," the woman answered.
"Where at the hospital?" the cabbie asked.
"Maternity ward." the woman answered.
A determined look crossed the cabbie's face. "Okay, I'll get you there. Don't you worry!" He then floored it and started weaving past cars.
"No no, you don't need to drive so fast," the woman said. "I only work there!"
Taxi to the Hospital
A woman flagged down a cab.
"Where to?" the cabbie asked.
"The hospital," the woman answered.
"Where at the hospital?" the cabbie asked.
"Maternity ward." the woman answered.
A determined look crossed the cabbie's face. "Okay, I'll get you there. Don't you worry!" He then floored it and started weaving past cars.
"No no, you don't need to drive so fast," the woman said. "I only work there!"
It's been a long time coming but I thought I would announce it from within the comfort of my own house. Ok here it goes, I have fetishistic syndrome for car tires ok? I just love their rubber feel and corressing them turns me on and release a rush of adrenaline. The tires on this car were simply wonderful! Wonderful I tell you!