text:
As a copyright owner, I generally have the authority to restrict any printing or reproduction of an image.
If I grant permission to use the image on 5,000 copies of a brochure, then that's it. You may not make an additional 5,000 copies without further permission from me.
Obviously, I could grant an unlimited license, if I so choose but that's not typical.
If the contract meant to convey only those rights that the OP had, it would not say "all copyright" it would say "any and all copyrights that I own in this image", or perhaps just "copyright".
By your interpretation, the OP could have previously granted a third party an exclusive license to use the image, and there would be nothing wrong with the OP subsequently licensing the image to the NCC. Your position is that "all copyright" means only those rights he still has, even if there are no rights left.
Why make it exclusive? I don't know if I missed a description of what the photos are for so I don't know if that's relevant. Why not make it 10 years with the first year exclusive, or make the term in perpetuity, with one year exclusive?
"Rights and permissions may not be transferred to a third party without written permission of photographer and photographer retains copyright of all images"
Why even bother with "written permission...."? ""Rights and permissions may not be transferred to a third party." says it all. "Or this license is non-transferable."
You said that you didn't like the idea of them re-licensing the images to a magazine for $2,000. Are you ok with them making posters and selling 20,000 of them for $50? If you are, I'm not clear why you'd be bothered by the license to a magazine (obviously my opinion doesn't matter). Also, why would the magazine pay them when they could get stock photos for next to nothing?
More likely when someone writes an article about the NCC, they're going to ask for a photo. In theory that publisher should be paying you for the use, but when people pay for publicity photos, that's what they're paying to be able to do.
If I were writing my own, I'd refer to it as a "gratis license" and not bother with "value received". Then describe the term of the use and how much of that term is exclusive.
Next, identify which photos they're getting use of - for instance image numbers or, "photos provided on a CD" rather than leave it open to any photo the decide to pull from your website now or during the term of the license.
Then describe the usage "for web/print" "unrestricted" with no exceptions or "unrestricted with the following exceptions" and then list those - "this license is non-transferable" "any use except merchandise"
Generally the categories of use to consider are web, publicity, advertising, merch, and packaging. Merch could be broken in to for sale or promotion - for instance, can they make a postcard and sell them for $1 or can they make a postcard that any visitor can take for free?
One last thing to consider is their experience and perception. They obviously like your work. Will they come back if there's a paid job? Maybe, or maybe they'll expect free, but what about referrals? If you make too much of a deal out of every little unlikely detail and leave them thinking, "Wow, all this for a couple of photos to put on our website and Facebook???" that's going to leave them with a bad taste, even if they're going to think of a new use six months down the road that you're already addressing.
It's common to address the jurisdiction where disputes will be settled, but are you really going to sue a charity for how they use your donation?
As long as your clear in what you're allowing it's very unlikely you're going to have a problem.
You can sign it and also have a spot where it says "read and acknowledged" for someone to indicate that the NCC is aware of the terms.
If you don't specify that copyright is being transferred, it's not. You can specify that it's not if you want to be extra clear, and also be sure they know that. You can also specify that this is not a work-made-for-hire agreement.
You can also specify that any use that's not addressed in the agreement is restricted.
I'd try to make it one page, or just slightly longer and use the second page mainly for signatures.
No need for the witness signature, especially from your point of view.
It's a gift. I think it's best to keep it casual. The biggest issue that you face the people you dealing with leaving 2-3 years from now, and the images being so standard in their use the new people assume that they own the copyright and use them in a way you didn't agree to. What will you do at that point, sue? Can you really see yourself doing that with this particular organization?
And really that's not true. Copyright doesn't give you the right to restrict other people from doing anything. It only gives you the right to grant permission.
In practical terms they're the same thing, but it's this idea of "restriction" and power that gets people's panties all bunched up over this stuff.
Exactly. +1
Can you tell more about where you're getting this information?
The author is the author regardless of originality.
If the word "creative" is used in copyright law, I bet it's in the sense that an ideas isn't enough, something must be "created". It's not being used to describe originality.
If he's granted an exclusive license he doesn't have the right to use it himself.
All he'd have is the right to call himself "copyright owner". The only right he'd have is to license out that title.
If there was a non-exclusive license, then he could keep licensing.
As far as the brochure example, the person is restricted by law, not by you, in the first place. They don't have the right to make the first 5,000 until you give it to them. You're not restricting them from making more, you're giving them permission to make that many.
In practical terms it's the same result, but I think the mischaracterization contributes to confusion in other aspects of the discussions that come up in the forums. Like a model asking what rights they have to restrict.
http://www.copyright.gov is a good source of copyright information.
I suggest starting with Copyright Basics
Again, I seem to have chosen my words poorly. A work must contain "original authorship" in order to be protected by copyright. Without "original authorship", the work is not copyrightable.
Yes. If he grants an exclusive license he has given up the right to use the work himself.
The agreement requested by the NCC actually asks that he assign "all copyright", which would, in effect, give them an exclusive license.
Whether or not this is something the OP is interested in doing is a very different question. My concern is that he understand what is being asked of him. That way he can make an informed decision in whether or not he wants to proceed.
In subsequent posts it appears he does want to retain some control over the image. For instance he does not want the NCC to have the right to license the image to others. This suggests that a copyright assignment will not meet his needs, and he should consider granting them a usage license. This license should enumerate those uses he wishes them to have. Remember, he can always decide to grant them additional rights. It's difficult to rescind permission that you have already granted.
Interestingly, even if you know nothing, you are pretty close to right on.
I am involved with 2 other charitable organizations. I have been to a number of CRA seminars, and many of the loop holes have been closed. What was permitted a few few years ago, is no-longer. And the donation of a certifiable piece of art must have an evaluation by an accredited appraiser for any tax receipts to be valid. The cost of a good appraiser is usually greater then the objects value for small donations.
And services can be donated, at market value. But you have to prove that you would normally get that particular value for that service. You might get away with a value based upon common value for that service, but if questioned you will have to prove that "you" could have gotten that value.
Original authorship means not the author of a derivative work.
There doesn't have to be "creativity" and "originality" for someone to hold a copyright. Nearly identical photos will have separate copyrights.
"All" is redundant.
Maybe it's not even a lawyer writing their contract.
Sorry for the caps. My way to point out my responses.
You went to a lot of trouble, so I will have to look at it closely.
Being a little lazy, I took their so called "release" and added what I wanted.
I know, usually creates more of a headache then starting from scratch.
I will answer your questions in the body of your comment.
I don't believe that the term "original authorship" means "Not a derivative work." If it did, then derivative would not be copyrightable, as copyright is only available to works containing "original authorship". As derivative works can be copyrighted,
original authorship" must mean something else.
The Copyright Basics publication specifically uses the term "original authorship" in the context of the work actually containing some sort or creative originality.
They point out that works consisting entirely of information that is common
property and containing no original authorship, are not copyrightable.
For example standard calendars, height and weight charts,
tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from
public documents or other common sources are not copyrightable.
Circular 32 further states: "To be protect by copyright, a work must contain a certain minimum, amount of original literary, pictorial, or musical expression"
I stand by my statement that creativity is a necessary factor in order for something to qualify for copyright protection.
This diverts us from the real issue of whether or not two subsequent frames, intended to have identical appearances, can have separate copyrights. Assume the photographer has a legitimate copyright claim on the first photo. The second photo, intended to look the same as the first, is likely a derivative work.
Circular 14 fromt he copyright office defines a derivative work as a work based on, or derived from one or more already existing works. As in our example the second image is based on the first image, the second image must be a derivative work.
We see this very differently. To me, the contract looks exactly like it was written by an attorney. Not that authorship is important. Even if it was written by a monkey, the words that are in the document are more important than how they got there.
The contract calls for the photographer to assign all his rights to the NCC. It then enumerates that the transferred rights include "all copyright". If the intent was merely to transfer whatever rights the photographer happened to have, then there would be no need to mention either "copyright" or "all copyright".
To me the term "all copyright" clearly indicates that the rights transferred include all copyright rights, not just the ones that the photographer hasn't already licensed.
Of course, I am not an attorney, don't listen to me. Perhaps we could get one to chime in on how a court would typically interpret this document.
This is sounding like way to big of a pain in the rear. When I do my volunteer stuff, there is typically a form. For organizations which deal mostly with families, I shoot photos, show the parents, and have them sign a consent form. If they don't want the images used by the organization, I delete them there, and we part ways.
If I shoot a photo of the buildings architecture, or attractions, I'm allowed to use the photos for non-monetary purposes and that's the whole deal. I don't get to use any photos of people who attended charity events, which I'm fine with.
Last year I shot in Fenway Park here in Boston. The deal was pretty straight forward. I was allowed to shoot as many images and I liked, and was allowed to post them to online ports. I was not allowed to gain from this financially. I did shoot a pretty kick ass photo of Fenway Park from the pitcher's mound. Since the agreement says I can't sell it, I've simply given it to a few people I'm close to. It's not like I'd make enough money off of a photo to make the tax paperwork worth it anyways.
If they're giving you this much trouble, why not just find another place to shoot for?
You need a standard usage license agreement. If you are a member of a photographic professionals association, they may be able to provide you with one. If not you may want to have an attorney to draft you a document you can use today, and in the future.
Basically the document needs to address what usage you are granting them and what you get in return.
- It should list the allowed uses for the image (i.e. use by the NCC for advertising the NCC, marketing the NCC, NCC branded calendars, NCC branded postcards, etc.)
- It should say whether or not the license is assignable and/or transferable (I suspect you want it non-transferable).
- It should say how long the license is for (the NCC wants it forever).
- It should state what your compensation should be (perhaps zero dollars, but each use of the image should be credited as "image courtesy and ©year your name)
- It should include any warranties you are making (i.e. you have the right to license, image does not infringe on others), and list any limitations on liability (i.e. your liability is limited to amount of any monetary licensing fee they paid).
- It should include whatever other terms your attorney believes appropriate.
- It may stipulate what the fees will be should they use the image in a way that exceeds the license.
Obviously the above is just a rough outline. The specifics will vary from country to country.
It may seem like overkill to have an attorney involved to give away this one image. The real reason for involving an attorney is to get a licensing agreement that you can use for this project, and on future projects.
As always, don't listen to me, I am not an attorney. Don't take legal advice from the web. Go talk to a real attorney for advice you can trust.
in most jurisdictions, copyright must be explicitly assigned (and executed via a written document). so there is a need to mention it if the intent was to assign. There is also a need to be explicit about licencing. At least thats the case in Canada. I'm too tired to look up US copyright law on licencing (especially since you Americans spell licencing wrong).
As for how a Canadian court would interpret? I can guarantee an answer. Long before this ever got to a trial judge some clerk or prothonotary or motions judge or mediation judge would say "settle this, you idiots".
A derivative work is a separate new work. It may have a piece or a whole of something in it, but it's a separate work. I shouldn't have said derivative. Original meaning first first, like the source for the copy, not creative. Otherwise we'd have no copyrights for photos now "since everything has been done before".
You can't shoot a photo that doesn't have its own copyright.
It must contain an actual part of the original work.
"A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted."
Two photos of the same landscape are separate copyrights because there's no copyright for landscape which is what the second photo has in it. You'd have to shot the back of the camera, for example, to make a derivative of the first photo.
It's the equivalent of "all 100%".
A license to use an image is not a copyright. If two people jointly own a copyright, there are not two copyrights, there's still just one that two people own. If he owned 90% and someone owned 10% selling 90% is not all of it. "The copyright" refers to the whole.
Copyright allows you to restrict the reproduction of an image.
A usage license is a transfer of some of the copyright rights. Once I grant you a usage license, I no longer have control over the covered usages. You now have control over those specific copyright rights.
The NCC agreement is clear. They want the photographer to transfer all rights the photographer may have in the image, and they want that transfer to include "all copyright". They do not simply want a usage license, they want to control the copyright.
Our point of disagreement is "how much of the copyright do they want?"
If they simply wanted the ability to use the image, they would only need to ask for a usage license. They specifically ask for the copyright. In other words, they are specifically asking for the ability to restrict others from using the image.
How much of the copyright do they want? Are they willing to accept a copyright that is encumbered by previous licensing agreements, or do they want 100% of the copyright - free and clear of any other licenses or restrictions?
The answer here is that they want "all copyright". This means "100%". You cannot have 100% of the rights if you have already transferred away some of those rights via a usage license.
Imagine the following scenario: The photographer takes an image, and grants his mom an exclusive, transferable usage license for the image. He then asks his mom to do him a favor and to allow the NCC to use the image. His mom says "Yes". He then signs the NCC's agreement.
My position is that he should not have signed the agreement, as he no longer has legal authority to transfer 100% of the copyright to the NCC (he has already transferred most of the copyright rights to his mom).
Your position seems to be that he is OK signing the agreement, as a transfer of a copyright encumbered by an exclusive usage license still counts as "all copyright"
Of course, the photographer is also warranting that the NCC can use the images, and that shouldn't be a problem as his mom said she would allow them to use it.
It is clear that the intent of the agreement is to transfer complete control of the image to the NCC. If a usage license has already been granted, then complete control can no longer be granted. An existing usage license would be a violation of the letter and spirit of the agreement.
Of course, these are just my unprofessional thoughts. This is not legal advice, it is simply how it appears to me (and I am NOT a lawyer). Please don't listen to anything I have suggested. For reliable legal advice talk to an attorney.
I think you are getting wrapped up in useless terminology.
There are a few basic scenarios here:
Someone wants to see them an image, in whole or in part. NCC isn't interested.
Someone wants to donate an image to them because they want to donate an image. NCC will take the donation.
Someone wants to donate an image and has an ulterior motive, such as capitalizing on NCC's use of the image (maybe my producing their own calendar, later). NCC wants to stop this. That's the intent.
Now the language is, of course, different from the intent.
The language says you will sell/donate 100% of an image. However, you can't donate what you don't own. So if you don't own full usage, you can't donate it. So you can only donate what you own. If NCC wished to accept it, fine. If they don't, then that's up to them. That's really the long and short of it. So that where the photographer has to decide what rights he wants to dispose of, first, and then see if NCC still wants the image.
There are similar situations in real estate. You can sell a rental property with a tenant in it, even though you don't have the right of occupancy (the tenant does). You can also use a quit-claim deed to transfer less-than-full ownership or nebulous interests. Yeah, this isn't real estate but it does show how less-than-full transfers happen routinely. You can only sell what you own.
Now for certain images, there could be similar pictures where donating one still might benefit the photographer's reputation, while keeping other images. For example, if there was a deer walking through a field, you could donate one and keep the rest. Would NCC like that, probably not, but it would be within the agreement.
I have no problems skirting the rules. I do it all the time. But the donor needs to ponder why (s)he is making the donation. If (s)he is doing it to give NCC a nice image for a calendar, then great. If (s)he's doing it for exposure and wants to reuse the image for something else; they are trying to do what NCC doesn't want to happen. It really isn't a heart-felt gift but rather a marketing methodology. So yeah, there's ways around it, but is that the right thing to do?
My point was that the agreement provided by NCC precluded other usage licenses. Also, once signed the photographer would no longer be allowed to use the image without the permission of NCC.
I agree that you can't sell what you don't own, hence you can't sign this particular agreement if there is already a usage license in place. If you wanted to use this agreement, it would need to be modified to specify exceptions for existing usage licenses.
I was not commenting on whether or not this was a good agreement for the photographer to sign, just that this was the meaning of the agreement.
If I were buying an image from someone, this is exactly the sort of agreement I would like. It transfers all benefits of the image to me, and leaves the liabilities with the photographer. As a buyer, this is the ideal situation. As a photographer, I would be very hesitant to sign this agreement.
The OP has stated that he wants to retain some control over the image. The supplied NCC agreement is incompatible with this goal. This suggests that this agreement is not appropriate for this situation.
My suggestion was that the OP speak to an attorney, and draft a usage license granting the NCC those rights that the photographer wishes to give them. Depending on their needs, these may be exclusive rights. It appears that the key issues is that the photographer does not want the NCC to profit by reselling the photo. He should make sure his usage license does not give them this right.
Whether or not it is reasonable for the NCC to resell the photo at a profit is a different question. Image donating an old coat to GoodWill instead of throwing it away. It turns out it is a collectible, and GoodWill sells it for $10,000. Should I be upset that GoodWill made more money than I expected? It's doubtful I would have made the money had I not donated it.
As to granting someone exclusive use of an image while licensing similar image elsewhere. Depending on the situation, this may or may not be legal. If it is a method of bypassing an exclusive license then the real danger is that it may harm your reputation. If the client thinks they are getting one thing, but they get another, they will be unhappy. They may feel deceived and they may spread the word. This could very easily lead to the photographer getting a bad reputation, and losing business.
My suggestion is that in any given arrangement, both parties should have a clear understanding of what they are getting. Misunderstandings generally lead to trouble. If I sell an exclusive image of a bridge collapsing, the buyer may reasonably be upset if I sell the next frame to a competitor. I may legally be allowed to do so, but it wasn't what the client thought he was getting with his exclusivity.
Your understanding of a license, the scenario of the mother and my position on it are very convoluted.
A standard license does not give control, it gives permission.
Having a copyright does not give to the ability to restrict usage, it's already restrict for everyone. It gives you the right to give permission.
The scenario with the mother was a hypothetical scenario and not set up in a way that permission had to be asked, so you've made up a new scenario, changed my words and applied it to this new scenario. Rather than telling me what my opinion is, you might want to ask.
When you lease a car it's "yours" but you don't own it. You can control it. Copyright is the equivalent of title. A license is the equivalent of the lease. If the title holder sells the car they can sell 100% of the ownership rights even with the lease in place. The owner may not have the right to drive it because of the lease agreement, but 100% of the ownership rights have been transferred.
You aren't getting why clients want copyright. It's not for exclusivity of use. It's because they don't want their use restricted, they don't want a term with an ending, and they want to be able to give permission to other people to use the images, like a publicity scenario. It's to about restriction. And again, they can't cause restrictions with copyright. The restriction is already in place, they can only lift restrictions.
You get it.
It's really not skirting the rules when your the copyright holder. The rules are to protect you, so anything weird you come up with is fine. You can certainly come up with things that are deceitful, but that's not against the rules, it's unethical.
The best analogy for copyright is stock. Copyright is stock in the image. You can sell options and derivatives and anything else you can come up with.
Their agreement didn't preclude existing agreements because an agreement can't do that.
That was the premise behind the mother scenario.
An agreement can be contingent upon there being no encumbrances. The person who presented the mother scenario was doing that because they saw that there wasn't any wording where the photographer was warranting that there are no previous agreements.
They can warrant that they are fully able to enter in to the agreement and there are no encumbrances if they've issued licenses, because giving permission doesn't create an encumbrance.
The things that can encumber the copyright are part ownership, and agreement where the photographer agreed not to transfer the copyright, or a scenario where the copyright was used as collateral.
A standard license does not encumber the copyright.
Clients want copyright for may reasons. Sometimes they want to guarantee usage rights, sometimes they want to restrict others from using the image, sometimes they don't understand the law and think they need it.
However, why NCC wants the copyright is not the issue. The issue is that their agreement calls for them to have "all copyright". It does not matter why they want it.
Copyright gives you the right to control reproduction of an image. A usage license voluntarily reduces your right to control. When your rights are reduced, you have less rights. If you have fewer rights you do not have "all" rights. This is simply plain English.
If a usage license exists, you can not give someone "all copyright" rights, as some of those have already been assigned to others.
Although there may be similarities between car titles/leases and copyright ownership/usage agreements, they are governed by different laws. Something that is true for cars, may not be true for copyright.
Imagine I sell options on my shares to my brother. I then sell you "all" ownership in my shares. I suspect you will think you have been cheated when my brother exercises his option and buys your shares at a below market price.
Again, perhaps a poor choice of words on my part. instead of "precludes" I should have said "incompatible". Instead of "encumbered" I should have said "reduced"
The NCC agreement as written is incompatible with a situation where there is an existing usage agreement. If there is an existing usage agreement, then one cannot sell "all" rights to the image.
The wording "all copyright" is there to ensure that all copyright rights are being included, and they are not reduced by any pre-existing agreements.
Copyright does it give you the right, it is the right.
A usage agreement is a control. It's not a reduction.
When you grant a usage license you have not granted them any portion of the copyright.
You have taken the question out of context.
The question was whether or not a photographer could legitimately sign NCC's supplied agreement if there was a pre-existing usage license on the image.
The NCC agreement calls for the photographer to transfer all rights, including all copyright rights.
The right to authorize and/or restrict duplication is one of the primary copyright rights.
Let us suppose I grant person A a usage license allowing them to make copies of my image.
Person B then offers me $2,000 to license all of the copyright rights to the image. I can not legitimately sell/license/transfer person B all of the rights, as I have already licensed some of them to person A.
NCC's form specifically states that the photographer is transferring all the copyright rights to NCC. The photographer cannot legitimately do this is he has already licensed away some of those rights.
It is sad to see people and companys, try to hoodwink the photographer, and other suppliers.. You can release one time use.. one time North American use.. You can release all North American rights, You can release all European rights.. This is a field that I work in... and it goes on and on... I have sold rights to England, and Spain at the same time and on and on..
This is incorrect.
A license is a set of permissions, not a set of rights.
Are you disagreeing with my use of words, or the interpretation of the NCC agreement?
Copyright gives you the "right" to withhold permission. It does not matter what you have licensed, if after the you have licensed it you have given up some of your rights. Once you have given someone permission, you no longer have the "right" to withhold it.
Do you believe that someone who has given person A a usage license, can then transfer all the rights associated with copyright to person B?
Without the previous usage license, person B could prohibit person A from making copies. If the prior usage license is in place person B may not prohibit person A from making copies. Certainly you see this as a difference in the rights being granted to person B?
The next question is does the previous usage license increase or decrease the rights being granted to person B? Obviously, person B is getting less rights. By definition this means he is not getting all rights. The NCC agreement specifies all rights. A previous usage agreement precludes this.
I can see how and why you're interpreting it the way you are, but you're wrong.
One thing that makes it really difficult is that neither of us are specifying the terms in the hypothetical license that's been granted. For instance if the license allows the copyright holder to revoke it at any time, then even with your misinterpretation, you can see how the's no reduction in rights.
One way that may help you see it is this: if I give you a usage license, do you see how I am still prohibiting your use?
Another way that you're looking at it wrong is there is only one right: copyright. It's not a list if rights. There not an amount. It's partly because you're looking at it backwards ith copyright being about restricting use. The default is that all use is restricted. Copyright is the right to allow copies to be made. A person with a license can not allow copies to be made. They can make them, but the can't give permissions. A copyright holder can't excercise a right to restrict someone's use use because the person didn't have the right to use it in the first place.
You're view is essentially right in practical terms. Whether it's ethical or not to transfer "100% of copyright" to someone depends on what they care about, what they ask and what the terms of the deal are.
When it's important that there are no previously existing licenses that discussed, it has nothing to do with the definition of copyright. Someone make make it a term of the deal and the seller may have to warrant that there are no previously existing licenses. On the other hand, someone may be buying a copyright because of the previously existing licenses. Copyright goes beyond photographs. There are licenses that generate royalties, so sometimes people are buying copyrights because of the existing licenses.
A license doesn't reduce the number of rights of a copyright which is only one right. It may reduce the market or it may reduce the value, but it does not reduce the copyright or copyrights as you're thinking of it.
sorry but you are mistaken. Open any text on copyright (modern or ancient) and before the end of the first paragraph they are talking about the list, more specifically the copyright bundle that is an enumeration of the various rights (which varies by medium). And sorry again but you also have it backwards. Copyright is the right to prevent others from doing stuff.
Thinking about it some more, your example is wrong as well. A person with a licence may or may not have the right to sub-licence (which is the right to use or make copies) all or a subset of the materials covered by the licence agreement. It all depends on how the licence agreement was drafted. This happens all the time with images, songs, stories, videos pretty much everything.
You seem passionate about this subject. Why not take a real course in copyright at a law school? Or at least an Intellectual Property course which will give you copyright for 1/3 of the time. Patents are cool so you won't regret that part either. Trademarks????? I won't lie. much more fun to work in that to study. Join INTA to enjoy trademarks while you are stuck learning about them.
I wonder if an idea can be so utterly and completely wrong that it takes a full loop around wrongness and comes back for seconds.
"Expression", in this context, means it must be put forth. A song not sung nor written cannot be copyrighted. A picture not drawn cannot be copyrighted. It also does not mean it must be creative, merely unique
Consider this example. You walk out of your house while carrying your camera. You trip over your cat and your camera goes flying. It hits the ground and -- while pointing up -- the shutter is released. This is strictly accidental and there was no intentional act by you (or your cat). Amazingly, it even turned itself on in mid-flight. Okay, you're mad and concerned about your camera. So you check it over and see an image was taken. You take a look at it and WHOA, you have a picture of UFO beaming Elvis back to Earth. Wow. You've got THE PICTURE OF THE CENTURY and it's going to earn you a LOT of money. You know everyone from Fox News to the National Enquirer to the Vatican is going to want this baby. You know that copyright law is what going to protect you and make you millions. There's only one problem. According to your theory, it isn't copyrightable. There was no creative content. You said, "creativity is a necessary factor in order for something to qualify for copyright protection." There's no creativity here. It's just accidental. Heck, some could argue that you didn't even take the picture.
Now let's take a second example. A person is profoundly mentally disabled. They live in a group home with similar persons. The home wants to have a fundraiser so it straps a paintbrush into the person's hand. The person has no bodily control, no concept that (s)he is painting, not intending to paint something. It's just sort-of-random movements. However, it's paint on paper. The art director does this for 12 people and assembles them into a calendar for sale. The calendar, per se, isn't copyrightable - only the art is. But, there's no creativity here. So again, it's not copyrightable under your theory.
Again, NO. It is.
The issue isn't creativity. It is uniqueness.
Copyright works must be unique and must be physical.
So now you are going to go photocopy a form. You are going to make a copy. You are going to decide how to lay it on the glass. You decide the copy settings. Do you want the cover up or put it down? There are lots of decisions here. You can let your creativity flow. You hit "copy" and create a derivative work that you can copyright. You've been a creative copier!
No. It's a copy. It's not copyrightable even with all of your creative juices flowing. And it's not a derivative work. It's a photocopy. I litho produced by a skilled craftsman who had to create CYMB plates to make the print, get the color right, choose the colors, etc. is also a copy. It is not a derivative work even though it's not an exact copy.
Now, let's look at separate frames.
Are they the same. Maybe, or maybe not? If you shot a burned-out exposure of a white wall, they may be exactly the same.
So, I'm at Disneyworld at a Photospot or whatever they call those places where they've set up things to look good for you. I have my wife and 2.4 kids carefully framed in my camera and take a picture. Being the clutz that I am, I hold the shutter down too long and shoot two frames. Ooops. Now obviously the 2nd shot can't be copyrighted because it's just a repeat of the first shot. The wife and kids didn't move. The sky was cloudless and I had no artistic intent to take a second frame. But WOW, the UFO showed up again and I have the ONLY picture. You already made your millions. This is my chance to make my millions. Oh, but that's right. I can't copyright it because the copyright is for the first frame that didn't have the inadvertent UFO.
Oh, did someone say the pictures are different so I can do it? They are unique! Excellent. I'll go copyright it and be rich!!!!!
Okay, but what if the UFO wasn't in the picture? Would they still be unique? Didn't the angle of the sun change minutely? Didn't my kids grow just a tiny bit? Didn't my wife get just a touch prettier? Didn't my camera angle change just a bit? Didn't it all happen in 1/50th of a second. Didn't the fact that 1/50th of a second go by mean anything. How much time can go by before there is a difference? If I don't move my camera and wait from a lush summer to a snowy winter, is it the same picture, but with a longer delay? How much delay is needed?
If I shoot two frames with bracketing the exposure or lengthening the shutter, isn't that expressing creative intent to take a different picture? Are the pictures different because the wind blew that piece of grass?
Finally, a picture. A very important picture, at that. It's a horse and a rider and a white background. It has a few reference lines and nothing else. Obviously under your idea, any image after the first one is not, in fact, a separate image but just a repeat of the original/first image - taken a fraction of a second apart. After all, there is nothing changing but some minor movements of the subjects and the camera.
From the US Copyright Office:
"Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
• reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords
• prepare derivative works based upon the work
• distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending
• perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audio visual works
• display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
• perform the work publicly (in the case of sound recordings*) by means of a digital audio transmission
In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribu tion and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, see Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the
Visual Arts.
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright
law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 122 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which
is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further infor mation about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office. "
Do you see the words "restroct" or "prevent" anywhere?
Do you see the word "authorize"?
Yes, everything is dependent on what's written in the license. I said that in my post but gave a different example.
We've referred to a "standard" license a couple of times. I'm pretty sure that we all consider that to mean a license that does not allow transfer or sub-licensing.
I have two IP lawyers who write my contracts and answer questions when I have them. I've co-authored magazine articles with third IP lawyer. Coincidentally one of these lawyers is in one of my MM ports. I have not called one of them to double check the statements in this discussion, but I've done that for previous ones and I get the same answer over and over again - it's the right to make/authorize copies. It's far easier to send a text or make a call to get the information I need than to sit through a class.
As far as the bundle of rights, I assume you mean this:
"The Bundle of Rights Called "Copyright"
The bundle of rights given to the owner of copyright in literary works, such as computer programs, are the rights to control 1) reproduction of the work, 2) preparation of derivative works, 3) distribution of copies of the work, 4) public performances of the work and 5) public display of the work."
Which of those rights are given up or authorize transfer or sub-licensing in a standard agreement?
Those are all descriptions of copies. They are referred to as "rights" by some lawyer and may be discussed as a "bundle". I can find the term all over the place when people are explaining copyright, but it's not something I've been able to find in the actual copyright law.
Once you have the right to control 1) reproduction of the work in any format, the rest is all covered from that right. It's copyright. That's what it is.
A license doesn't break those up. You can break it up by dividing the ownership of the copyright. You can also assign administration rights for derivative works - for instance a music publisher or a stock photo company. That could be done in a way that a photographer couldn't transfer their right without that assignment - as we've both said, it depends on wording. But standard usage licenses for photos do not assign those rights.
Your take on this is correct.
When this idea came up, it was presented in a way that could be interpreted as unethical rather than a clever compromise.
There's no question that those are all separate copyrights, plus the one for them as a whole (collection).
I think his interpretation was not something along the lines of two shots with the difference handheld movement makes, but with the difference that being on a rock solid tripod with mirror lock up makes - your blade of grass example.
In practical terms they end up the same trademark. If you can't see the difference and someone licensed image 123, but published 124, is that an infringement?
In the most academic interpretation, we know that they are difference because the angle of light will have changed because of the rotation of the earth. We don't have to worry about a copyright suit because there wasn't enough wind to blow a single blade of grass.
In the end, I think there's not going to be a case where this matters.
Although if you took one image, 123.jpg, and duplicated it to be 124.jpg, that might be a valid debate. That happens in music all of the time where a writer re-titles a song so that multiple agents can make placements and have a way to track which one generated the PRO income. That's a parallel to a stock agency.
But you're correct that back to back images are each an "original" work. Original is being used as the opposite of duplicate. Even with a derivative work, there's still the original/first creation of the derivative and that is a separate copyright because it's the original fixation in that form.
That's an interesting argument.
What if they are prints?
Actually what difference does the frame rate make? is it not a moving picture at 4 fps? What about 3?
What about 1 second? Or an hour? And the scene in motion pictures change, right?
So why not argue that all still photos are moving pictures that may have a frame rate measured in days for parts and has extreme pans and zooms?
Maybe motion pictures have "two" copyrights, one for each frame and one for the edit.
It's an interesting angle. I don't know if it makes any difference, but as IQ improves there are going to be more and more frame grabs.
He wants to donate USE of the images. That's his choice, and he seems to have tried to make that clear to them, and to us. Just as I can allow a charity to use my car for their purposes without transferring ownership, if I choose.
more modelmayhem on: | | | edu
©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms |
Privacy |


text:
When I first started posting regularly on this blog, an editor assured me that I would not need to haul a big camera around. A semi-decent cellphone pic would be just fine.
Now, nearly a year later, I end up taking pictures of my food even when I don't intend to post them on the blog. It's become almost second nature to reach for my iPhone the second food hits the table in a restaurant.
I can never resist taking pictures at Dynamic Dish, where the food is as photogenic as it is delicious. The restaurant is also ideally lit during the daytime, and the unvarnished wooden tables provide just the right background. I also think that chef/owner David Sweeney has a very keen understanding of how people eat with their eyes.
I'm curious if anyone else has gotten into the habit of taking pictures of restaurant food as a matter of course. I'm noticing this more and more when I go out; I don't imagine all these photo takers are food bloggers.
October 14th, 2010
12:51 pm
I'm definitely guilty. Never use a flash, be quick, ask permission when possible.
October 14th, 2010
1:11 pm
I do it at home, and in restaurants as well. It's a great way to remember a great (or not so great) meal.
October 14th, 2010
1:46 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ajcdinecritic, John Kessler. John Kessler said: Taking pictures of food in restaurants http://bit.ly/9hEp0o [...]
October 14th, 2010
2:46 pm
I think that we've talked about this before on this blog. I think that you mentioned that you only do it if the restaurant/chef is ok with it.
I know some places get very annoyed with people taking twenty minutes photographing their food before they even touch it which ties up the table. They tend to swallow their frustration because it shows people's interest and can generate interest online.
I think one place in SF actually set-up a spot in the dinining room that could be used to take beauty shots of the dishes. Until the chef walked out and yelled at them to just eat the food.
October 14th, 2010
3:09 pm
I am embarrassed as it never occurred to me to ask permission. I just figured when they set the food down in front of me it officially became mine to do with what I please. I do try to be courteous to others around (flash/no flash). I love sending the pics to friends as we are all self proclaimed foodies!!
October 14th, 2010
3:33 pm
…we are amazed at how many people take pictures of the food that is served at dinner in the main dining rooms…
October 14th, 2010
3:37 pm
I do it all the time — it's really the only way I can remember the details of a great meal months or years later.
October 14th, 2010
3:59 pm
Enter your comments here Hi Kar: They were introduced into Britain and France by the Romans in the 4th century BC. From there they were introduced into Africa and the Africans brought the seeds with them on slave ships to North America. I'm not sure when the North Africans were introduced to them but I assume somewhere between the 4th century BC and the early 1600's which is when they first showed up in the U. S. colonies.
October 14th, 2010
4:26 pm
I usually have a picture posted on FaceBook before I take a bite.
October 14th, 2010
4:30 pm
Thank Beatriz.
October 14th, 2010
5:28 pm
Glad I'm not your girlfriend. Hate to think what you'd want to do to me.
October 14th, 2010
5:34 pm
We do! Especially if we are out of town doing a trip report, eating in lovely places. I have friends who love the "food porn" aspect of it all. I use a Canon point and shoot and my husband uses a bigger Canon camera.
October 14th, 2010
5:44 pm
You people should get a life. You have a picture posted on Facebook before you take a bit? Who the X$%@ cares?
October 14th, 2010
6:30 pm
I travel a lot for business and I'm a bit of a foodie. My Windows phone helps me pass the time while eating out. I post comments and statuses on Facebook with it. So it was natural for me to start taking pictures and uploading them. I usually do it when the food or the restaurant motivates me to capture the moment. My friends have fun commenting (and sometimes drooling) over my pictures. My latest ones were taken last night at Jasper's in Austin (Kent Rathburn's restaurant). Unfortunately, the yummy ribs didn't stay on my plate long enough to be photographed. I also like to take pictures of the kitchen if possible. My photos run the gamut from the Beacon Drive-in in Spartanburg (heart attack on a plate) to Pink's in L.A.; the dessert room at the Four Season's Las Colinas brunch or the tableside preparation of Bananas Foster at Brennan's in N.O. Sometimes my home cooking will turn out good enough to post, too.
October 14th, 2010
6:32 pm
I am sooo guilty and my friends tease me. I am quick to post to Facebook and share with friends all over the world. On a trip to NYC my travel buddies thought it was strange that I snapped pictures of food and drinks every place we stopped. Later when we retuned home they were happy I captured the memories. Hmmm… my favorite upload…. has to be the Martini I had at Surin the day I "quit" lent. Classic picture indeed!
October 14th, 2010
6:40 pm
I agree with loukeeda. Once the food is set down, it's mine to photograph, eat, pack, whatever. It's nice not to be disruptive to other diners, though.
The people at Dynamic Dish used to maintain a blog with amazing glamour shots of the food.
Also see Running With Tweezers, which is linked here on the right.
October 14th, 2010
7:10 pm
I'm completely guilty…though I do my best to make it quick as I can. I know most chefs can't stand the foodies that show up with a mini tripod and spend 10 minutes trying to get a good shot while their food gets cold. Plus, as soon as a server sees you taking pictures of your plate, you might as well have a giant neon sign on your head that screams "BLOGGER".
October 14th, 2010
7:54 pm
One should certainly respect the sensibilities of fellow diners. Having said that, once the food hits the table, there's no functional distinction between wolfing it down or using it as a photo prop. For that matter, scoop it into a doggy bag and carry it back to the Keys to feed Spooner Your Old Hound.
As for Louise: Not having seen you, we're not sure what our reaction would be, or how interested we'd be in having you as a girlfriend. Just sayin'
October 14th, 2010
8:51 pm
My friends and I all do this, and we call it food porn. "Oh, you're heading to Napa? Don't forget to send food porn."
October 14th, 2010
10:40 pm
Really??? I understand a widely read food journalist like Mr. Kessler taking pictures of his food to share with the rest of us, but I am shocked that self absorbed "foodies" take pictures of their meals as well. Well, I suppose I should not be too surprised. Message to picture taking facebookers- NO ONE CARES what your bistro steak or your rissoto with truffle shavings looks like. None of your friends after looking at your slideshow of your dinner say, "Man look at that marbling" or "Wow, RAMPS, what a surprise and look how they compliment that fine piece of ahi, truly sublime". You may think, "how foodie of me" while snapping away at your meal, but trust me the other patrons and restaurant staff are laughing their tails off and in the back of their head's thinking how lucky they are that they are not related to or friends with the foodpic table.
October 14th, 2010
11:29 pm
Food pictures serve a utilitarian purpose. If I'm served something I want to share with a friend who might not 'get' the dish, I take a picture of it. Asian restaurants commonly have picture books that show what the 'Happy Family" or "Three Dragons" dish that would show breaded or grilled items, veggies used is you're allergic to, say, mushrooms (like I am).
As for other reasons: if you're someone like Jeff Varasano (pizza tech extraordinaire) who started a personal mission to master the science & art of pizza (and the owner of Varasano's in Buckhead), you take pictures of every crust, every cheese & at what temperature and with which flour and… well, it paid off in an amazing product. Remember: you can't copyright food. The name 'Big Mac" can be copyrighted, but ask the folks at Shoneys (or Bob's Big Boy to be more exact) about a triple decker burger idea.
As for anyone that thinks that people shouldn't take pictures of their food (or folks who like using the shift key on keyboard to insert cartoon swear words), deal with it. We bought it, and we can put it in a baggie and stick it in our pocket if we want. Stop worrying about what others are doing that don't affect you. Go get a hobby.
October 15th, 2010
1:31 am
Food is one of most remarkable subjects for photography since every person just could not live without eating. It also helps to sell food in restaurants when it displays the dishes on the menu and on billboards.We really Love to take pictures of Food.
Thanks for sharing
October 15th, 2010
8:46 am
almost everything I eat I post pictures of, assuming I can take a picture without flash. Use a ultracompact camera in macro mode w/ no flash, so I sit by a lot of windows and look for the best lit spots when I walk in. Because I prefer macro food-only shots, I usually am not noticed.
October 15th, 2010
9:09 am
Trust me, I the foodpic people just provide a little smirk and then I go about enjoying my meal with the rest of the sane world. Hobbies I have, just glad that is not one of them. Totally agree that some restaurants need to have pictures of their food so as not to confuse the customers and Jeff Verasano benefited greatly from his picture taking to create his version of a perfect pizza. The major difference is those examples are professionals that used pictures to help their businesses. If your idea of a good time is to critique your meal with laser pointers, then have at it. It is a free country, but INMHO it is one step away from D+D with 12 sided dice.
October 15th, 2010
1:20 pm
Geez, I have a friend who does this. Do y'all take pictures of it when it comes out the other end, too?
October 15th, 2010
1:52 pm
Yes, almost always, but I am a food blogger.
October 16th, 2010
12:08 pm
This 'trend' has to be the most obnoxious and asinine thing to come
around in the last five years.
October 16th, 2010
8:13 pm
If you didn't have pictures of food on the menu, Obama voters and illegal aliens would starve to death.
October 16th, 2010
9:42 pm
I post the pics on Facebook and tell my friends what I ate, how good it was and why they should go there.
October 17th, 2010
7:26 am
It's been my habit since I was 12. I have tons taken with film camera. It's so neat to see printed pictures of food. I was so glad the digital camera was invented and got one as a present from my parents in 1999.
October 18th, 2010
10:25 am
I'm as guilty as you can be on photographing food as soon as it hits the table, I found a cool iPhone app too that let's people tag / share dishes from nearby restaurants too called Foodspotting, check out Foodspotting.com – it definitely came in handy on a trip to Charleston this weekend.
Food porn!
October 20th, 2010
4:13 pm
I love taking a picture of a beautiful dish I'm about enjoy and send it to friend that will be jealous of the gluttony I am about to partake in.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|29 May 2009
Windows 7 RC1
NVIDIA Screen Brightness vs Video Brightness
Hey guys, great forums
I am currently running Windows 7 RC1 and have noticed a behavioral change from XP which I would love to change.
In the NVIDIA control panel, there are 2 sets of settings for brightness:
1) Desktop color settings
2) Video color settings
In Windows XP, these would be completely independent. Thus for example, I could have my desktop dark while the videos could be bright and vivid.
Thus in XP:
Desktop Brightness = Desktop color settings
Video Brightness = Video color settings
In Windows 7, the OS only behaves this way when using Aero Basic. If I'm using the full Aero interface, I get the following behavior:
Desktop Brightness = Desktop color settings
Video Brightness = Desktop color settings + Video color settings
I would really love to have these control act independently on the full Aero interface. Is this possible? NVIDIA settings can obviously still distinguish the video because the video color settings still only apply to video, so I'm not sure why it behaves this way.
Thanks a lot for your help
|My System Specs
|Thread Tools
|Similar help and support threads for2: NVIDIA Screen Brightness vs Video Brightness
|Can't Adjust Screen Brightness............HELP!
|Graphic Cards
|Screen seems like it isn't dark enough(not brightness).
|General Discussion
|Screen Brightness adjusting help
|cropped screen, brightness
|Hardware & Devices
|Screen Brightness
|General Discussion
|Cannot adjust screen brightness.
|General Discussion
|Screen Brightness
|General Discussion
|Our Sites
|Site Links
|About Us
|Find Us
Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.
© Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:34 AM.


text:
Hacker group claims to have broken Apple security on iPhone 5S
Posted at: 09/24/2013 6:25 AM
By: Associated Press | WHEC.com
|Print Story
So much for security. A German hacking group is claiming that it can get around the fingerprint-based system Apple uses to help lock its new iPhone 5S.
The claim comes from the Chaos Computer Club, which says it was able to trick the phone's biometric sensor into accepting a bogus fingerprint. The group says it created a fake fingerprint with a household printer and wood glue. It's unclear whether the method requires a person to get a print of the phone owner's fingerprint to trick that person's phone or whether the dummied-up fingerprint can work on any phone.
Apple didn't respond to repeated requests for comment. A spokesman for Chaos says the hardest part of the hacking - was finding an iPhone 5S, which went on sale in the U.S. and Germany last week.
Have a story you want our news team to investigate? Call us at 585-232-1010, click here to send us an e-mail or leave us a Facebook post or tweet.


text:
Family law issues are often highly emotional and heated, but they don't usually result in jail time. Stephanie or Stacy Miller, however, spent a night in prison after a Tennessee judge found her in contempt of court for allowing her 12 year old son, Caleb Miller, to be baptized without his father's permission.
This seeming excess of judicial authority began two years ago, when Stacy and Stephen Miller finalized their divorce. Their divorce agreement included a promise not to make decisions about their son's religious upbringing without the consent of the other.
In 2011, Caleb agreed to be baptized at his mother's church. Although his father attended the ceremony, Stephen Miller insists that the baptism occurred without his authorization. Judge Swann, the judge in charge of the case, noted that Stacy Miller, the son's mother, had failed to respond to mediation attempts prior to the ceremony and handed her a ten day jail sentence, reduced to one day after the criminal contempt of court charges were dropped, though the civil contempt charge remained. Caleb Miller watched as his mother was lead to the local jailhouse in handcuffs due to the claim made by his father.
On its face, the story seems like judicial over-extension. Although family law typically tries to respect both parties in a divorce, the best interests of the children govern any case involving a child. It is difficult to agree that a child watching his mother go to jail through his father's actions be in the child's best interest. Stephen Miller has made remarks which display a certain amount of disdain for his ex-wife's church. The court has no right to enforce that opinion, especially if that opinion might not be in the child's best interest. It would be a violation of the Federal Constitution's establishment clause, a clause forbidding the government from favoring one religion over another. Furthermore, Caleb, like all children, is a person with desires and wishes independent of his parents. If Caleb consented to the baptism, then his independent wishes should override any contractual agreement which treats him like a commodity. The child should know what is best for himself, not his parents and certainly not a judge.
There are, however, other factors to consider. Each parent belongs to a different church and wishes to see Caleb make the best possible decision between the two institutions. Although it is true that enforcement of the father's view based on its religious roots would be a violation of the Constitution, it would also be a violation of the same document and the same clause if the court enforced the mother's choice. The court enforcing Caleb's baptism looks like an establishment of religion just as much as opposing the baptism would be. The judiciary, however, can enforce a violation of contract agreement, which is exactly what Judge Swann did. The outcome might be the same as an endorsement of the father's views, but for completely different reasons. Ruling on the contractual aspect of the conflict is the only legal ruling. Moreover, it is the only fair ruling as the law cannot make a distinction between different churches.
As to Caleb Miller's independent interests, it is true that he is a person separate from his parents and that the law should treat him as such. However, Caleb Miller is still a minor. Although some minors are incredibly mature for their age, society recognizes that some activities should not be undertaken until a certain age for mental maturity to develop in order for proper consent to be established.
I don't share the Miller's sense of religious devotion, but I will trust that a commitment to God is an important commitment and a heavy responsibility. Given this context, baptism might be comparable to marriage, a ritual which, in Tennessee, cannot be undertaken by a minor until the age of sixteen. Even at sixteen, however, parental consent is required until the age of twenty-one.
Comparing baptism to marriage might seem like a stretch, but the emphasis the Millers place on baptism makes the comparison significant if not valid. If Tennessee doesn't permit Caleb Miller at his age to commit his life to another person, then it is doubtful that Tennessee should allow Caleb Miller to commit to a god on his own. Caleb Miller, as a minor, cannot make such important decisions on his own. His parents, his father as well as his mother, represent his best interests. Although the divorce agreement fractured the marriage of his parents, it still governs the parent's conduct towards their child. Judge Swann may not gain any popularity for his decision regarding Caleb Miller and his parents, but it was a necessary one for an impartial representative of the law to make.


text:
Job Details
Regional Sales Manager - Industrial - Pumps -Valves - Compressors - Meters
Apply for this job Return to Job Listings
Job Description
Our client is up 28% this year and is looking to grow their fastest growing division.
Do you have experience consistently winning business in the industrial sector? More specifically have you sold industrial pumps and metering equipment into the oil and gas, wastewater, heavy industrial, agriculture or the chemical processing sectors? Do you have the known how to tackle the gulf coast region, while being back by one of the strongest names in the engineered pumps and metering business? If this has piqued your interest, we may have an opportunity that is exactly what you need to accelerate your industrial career to the next level.
Our client is looking to add a Regional Manager to their growing team in 2012. With decades of experience in design and application, our client is a premier manufacturer of engineered solutions for liquid control application. Their products are highly engineered, value added solutions that give their client companies a competitive edge in a brutal global market.
This role is in our clients liquid controls division which has expanded, almost 15% as a percentage of our clients total annual revenue. This growth has been in only the last 5 years. Due to several very solid years of business, they are busy and their need is urgent.
What they are looking for:
- No hand holding in this role. We need a professional not scared of managing his own business.
- With your understanding of what it takes to win business in the Gulf Coast, our client will be asking you to assess their current distributor partners. Fire the ones not making the cut. Groom, grow and build on already solid existing relationships in your region. Your success in this role is predicated on leveraging and expanding business through several key distribution channels.
What's in it for you:
- Significant growth opportunity as this is a very strategic role and territory for our client that reports directly to the VP of sales.
- Due to the extensive nature of our clients product portfolio, you have the potential to gain 4 to 5 years of professional experience in half the time as they will draw on and leverage your expertise.
To discuss additional details please reply with an updated resume or call Mike Ososki at 678-301-1687.


text:
Fifth Harmony Gets In The Christmas Spirit!
Last night, the girls of Fifth Harmony performed at Lord & Taylor's holiday window unveiling in NYC! Epic Records tweeted this photo with the caption: "Oh HEY, @FifthHarmony! 'Tis the season to be #BetterTogether for the @LordAndTaylor window unveiling! #LTHolidays". The girls sang songs off their Better Together EP and then had a meet & [...]
Subscribe and SaveSubscribe
Get Popstar
mobile apps
for your iPhone,
iPad and iPod
Visit the Popshop
The Official Popstar Magazine StoreGo to Popshop


text:
|Up a level
Group by: Item Type | No Grouping
Jump to: Article
Number of items: 2.
Tampubolon, Gindo (2008) Revisiting omnivores in America circa 1990s: The exclusiveness of omnivores? Poetics, 36 (2-3). pp. 243-264. ISSN 0304-422X
Tampubolon, Gindo (2008) Distinction in Britain, 2001-2004? Unpacking homology and the 'aesthetics' of the popular class. European Societies, 10 (3). pp. 403-428. ISSN 1469-8307


text:
1/6/2013-West of Eden
(January 4, 2013)
The response I get from most people to those two statements is, "Good luck. It'll never happen." I don't believe that. It may not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen eventually because the alternatives are untenable and human beings generally get smarter as the generations progress and inventions shape our lives.
As far as single payer insurance goes, every corporation should be pushing it. It would free them from providing expensive health insurance to employees. And isn't there a way that insurance companies could run it, maybe even make a profit? Have we explored this in detail?
The 2nd Amendment is an anachronism written at a unique time in America when the most powerful weapon in the world was a black powder cannon. It doesn't make sense today.
The repeal movement is catching on. Google "Repeal Second Amendment" and you'll see 2,550,000 results. Sure, "right to bear arms," turns up about ten times as many, but the modern repeal movement is young. It was born Dec. 14 at 9:30 a.m. in Sandy Hook, Connecticut.


text:
Heureux Coeur (A Byakuya Kuchiki One-Shot)This is a one-shot I was requested to write. I tried to keep Byakuya in character as much as possible, and I made it in 3rd person (which is NOT my favorite, but it was requested). Criticism is appreciated. Enjoy! ^^
Name: Celeste Kisha (Heavenly Sunset)
Looks: Long silver hair with bangs. Eyes are a mix of yellow, pink, and orange. Tall but shorter than Byakuya.
Personality: Calm, kind, loving, friendly
Rank: Toshiro's 2nd lieutenant
Byakuya Kuchiki was furious. His face was blank, as it always was, but his beautiful purple eyes betrayed him. He could never completely hide his feelings away, and a certain lieutenant never let him forget it.
Celeste Kisha, the 'evil' lieutenant that could see right through him, was the cause of all his problems. His sleepless nights, worrisome thoughts, and now his probation were all caused by her.
I know what you're thinking. "His probation?" or maybe "Why is he thinking about her so much?" has crossed your mind, but be prepared for the answers. They might surprise you.
Byakuya was in love again, though he refused to admit it openly. He had planned on telling her and decided to ask his family for their blessing. The family refused and told him he would be disowned if he ever dated or married her. They then placed him under probation.
"Why is she so special?" you might be asking your computer. Well, Celeste was a beautiful woman, Soul Society's own Helen of Troy, but that wasn't what attracted Byakuya to her. You see, Celeste was a kind, gentle shinigami. She always had treats for the little children, she could hold a serious conversation, and she was just an all around good person.
Now where was I? Ah, yes. All of Byakuya's problems were caused by Celeste, who just happened to be walking towards him. Both were walking with their eyes downcast, and their thoughts were all about each other. She loved him just as much as he loved her, but with little wealth and political power, she knew the odds of them being together were next to none.
They never saw the crash coming. Celeste bumped into Byakuya's chest and tumbled to the ground. Arms flailing, she grabbed the closest thing she could, which just so happened to be his captain's hitori. The poor thing couldn't bear the strain she was putting on it and ripped.
"Look at what you did!" Byakuya roared at the pitiful little girl who was sitting dazed on the floor. He wasn't mad, really, he wasn't. The frustration that had built up every time he saw her and couldn't hold her had become too much. He had snapped. "You stupid girl!"
Before she could lift herself up, he was in his office, pacing. How could he take all of his irritation out on his love? She would never forgive him, how could she? He had yelled at her for absolutely no reason.
A loud knock echoed through out his office, effectively stopping his pacing. Not waiting for permission to enter, Toshiro Hitsugaya, Celeste's best friend and captain, glided into the room. His usually calm and childlike face was contorted with an emotion that could only be described as distaste. He didn't mind Byakuya, but that man made Celeste cry. That was unforgivable.
"You did not have a right to yell at her like that," Toshiro stated coldly. "She ran to my office crying because of what you did."
When Byakuya chose not to reply, he continued, "Apologize to her. She will forgive you. Besides, you know that hurt her when you yelled, and you have never liked hurting her. And don't give me that 'I don't know what you're talking about' look. Everyone but Celeste knows how you feel about her. Just man up and ask her out."
"Wha?" Celeste cried out in shock from outside the office door. She had come to apologize to Byakuya and couldn't help but listen in when Toshiro started chiding him.
Both men froze. Casting a sorrowful and worried look to Byakuya, Toshiro ran out of the room, ushered Celeste inside, and took off.
"You love me?" the woman asked, scared of his reply. She knew he loved her, Toshiro's previous conversation with him proved that, but would he admit it?
"Very much," he replied. Slowly, he pulled her into a kiss.
Years after his disownment, Byakuya Kuchiki was one of the wealthiest and most powerful shinigami in Soul Society. His faithful wife, Celeste Kisha, was pregnant with their first child. All was right with the world.
Did you like this story? Make one of your own!


text:
This tasted just like what my grandmother use to make when she deep fried the catfish. I didn't have the cajun seasoning so i just put in some garlic powder and cayenne pepper. It was flavorful and crispy.
Cornmeal-Crusted Catfish
stacyjen Posted: 07/19/09
ChristaV Posted: 06/11/10
This is my go-to catfish recipe. Simple and delicious.
leeshellt2 Posted: 05/06/10
Very good! Adds a great flavor to the fish and a nice crispness!
reallygreat Posted: 06/12/10
This receipe is one I have used. It is delicious and easy. Yummy!
TheKimmy Posted: 12/19/11
This is a good recipe. It's not a big differece in taste from regular fried catfish in vegatable oil. I added some butter b/c it was not enough bacon grease. I will use this recipe again to have a slightly different taste of catfish.
phoebe1214 Posted: 11/09/11
Don't you hate it when someone comments on a recipe even though they've made a bunch of changes. Well, I guess that's me this time. I thought I had everything for this recipe only to find out my cajun seasoning had salt in it and I had run out of corn meal. I used my cajun seasoning and left out the added salt in the recipe and then used corn flour instead of corn meal. Then on top of all of that, I did not use bacon because I don't cook with pork. All that being said, the fish was wonderful. I only rank it three stars because of the I don't feel it is worthy of a special occasion, but I don't think pan fried catfish would ever be what I would serve for a special occasion. I will make this again!
ChefInSR Posted: 10/03/12
I did not make this, but I make something similar, and it is not bland. You don't need the bacon or the cornmeal though. Make a seasoning rub of 3 parts cajun seasoning to 2 parts seasoning salt (Lawry's is good) to one park black pepper. Put the seasoning in a plastic bag, and put the catfish pieces in one by one. Shake until coated. Heat a non-stick pan and spray it with olive oil spray. Cook catfish for just 3 minutes per side. Warning: This is four alarm spicy, but that is what I like. So yummy.
mandofan Posted: 07/18/12
You've gotta be kidding. I made this exactly according to instructions and it was bland, bland, bland, bland. Honestly though, I should have known. Look at the recipe; see any binding? Any egg wash or dip in buttermilk? Nope. As a result, you get barely the thinnest layer of cornmeal on the fish. This tastes about the same as if you took a piece of catfish (a virtually flavorless fish BTW) and just sauteed it in some oil. The flavor of the bacon does not come through and none of the cajun spice is apparent. There are countless better ways to make this style dish, some of which are even in CL, but this is one of the lamest things I've ever cooked from CL.
Michelle6724 Posted: 11/17/12
Here's another take on this one: Rather than use the dry seasonings, put the catfish filets in a shallow bowl and cover with the entire contents of a small bottle of Tabasco sauce. You read that right - Tabasco sauce! If the fish isn't all covered, turn the filets over and move them around from time to time, to make sure the entire surface of the fish spends some time under the hot sauce. Marinate at room temperature for at least 30 minutes, up to 1 hour. Remove from the Tabasco (which you can now discard) and wipe off excess with your fingers. Dredge fish in plain cornmeal, then proceed with cooking. Amazingly, the fish will be tangy and well seasoned, but not terribly hot. You have to try it to believe it, but we love it this way - less hot than most Cajun seasoning, but tangy.
christineschott Posted: 08/25/13
This has been a go-to in our house for a while. And my son (6 years old) has decided that his favorite fish is catfish thanks to this recipe! The cole slaw that goes along with this in the "Dinner Tonight" menu is my standard slaw recipe as well. In that menu, the reserved bacon from this recipe goes into the cole slaw.


text:
The bank adds fees to your account and then notifies you about what they are doing. They are CROOKS!
First, I just want to say that most people who post in these things have had issues with overdrawn accounts from their own mistakes, or are dealing with issues that come up in any bank (there are a lot of government regulation and practices that have to be followed) and these people tend to be angry from an isolated experience and want to vent.
I would like to just say that the PNC branch I go to in my neighborhood is wonderful. They all know my name, they are very friendly, and I call them when I have issues and they help me take care of things or answer questions for me. I am not unrealistic in my expectations, and am very pleased that they offer a rewards system for checking (Points) that most banks don't do anymore.
They don't charge me fees if I just overdraw my account a little (I think they girl said less than $5) and they do still offer free checking with no minimum balance and they don't charge for PNC atms, statements, or other little things. In fact, since I have a direct deposit into my checking I actually even get all my non-pnc atm fees refunded! I think I also get free checks on my account too. My bank before PNC charged me for everything. I have the virtual wallet account and it is much more interactive then my old bank's (Chase) online banking. I can also make deposits from my phone, which is very nice considering I travel a lot.
Overall, I think people need to remember that banks are a business, but some do it better than others. PNC doesn't nickle and dime me to death and they offer superior products like virtual wallet. I also know I can get help from my local branch really easily. I really appreciate that fact.
Where to start? I normally do not write reviews for anything good or bad, but PNC has made my life hell over the last couple years. First, when my husband and i wanted to open our first joint account, we did it online through pnc's website b/c of the ease they advertised. Turns out they never sent us the paperwork for our actual signatures, so the money we put in to the account was not accessible. This meant that it wasn't in our personal accounts anymore, and we couldn't access the new one.
So it was basically gone. Once i had a chance to go into the branch which had basically no lobby hours, they gave me the paperwork, it was signed and returned, and Still nothing! Turns out it was approved but nobody "flipped the switch" to turn on the account! Ok, so that's another trip into the bank itself. And finally done. But wait! My husband can't access the account details -- just the balance -- on his online banking! When calling it service, they said they didn't know why either. Sorry man. Excuse me?!
So we finally move to Chase when we're in an area where they're closer. Our joint account closed fine, but my personal accounts didn't. I had to go into a branch on three separate occasions to get everything shut down! And the worst part is they expected me to pay overdraft fees for having a $0 account balance! Hello! You closed the accounts and wrote me the checks!! Of course there is a $0 balance! But wait! There's more!
The same thing happened w/ my credit card. I am currently on hold as i'm writing this b/c i got a notice that i owed $0. 30 to my pnc visa. This is a few weeks after i called and made my final payment over the phone so that i could be sure it was shut down w/out a problem. The representative told me what i owed, i paid, they shut it down and gave me a confirmation #. Wtf? Why did 0. 30 post? It's been about 15min on the phone b/c they are trying to get me to pay it. Fat chance. Do yourself a favor and just get w/ chase bank.


text:
Bolts Sign BlujusSubmitted by chad on May 21, 2014 - 10:32
The Tampa Bay Lightning have signed defenseman Dylan Blujus to a three-year entry-level contract today, vice president and general manager Steve Yzerman announced.
Blujus, 20, skated in 55 games with the North Bay Battalion of the Ontario Hockey League during the 2013-14 season, collecting four goals and 30 points to go along with 56 penalty minutes. He led all Battalion defensemen for assists with 26. The 6-foot-3, 195-pound defenseman also skated in 22 playoff games for North Bay, posting four goals and 10 points. Blujus led all North Bay defensemen for playoff goals, with three of his four tallies coming on the man-advantage. He helped guide the Battalion to the OHL Championships against the Guelph Storm.
The Buffalo, New York native has played in 256 career OHL games over four seasons with Brampton and North Bay, amassing 17 goals and 119 points. He recorded a career-best plus-12 rating in 2013-14.
World Championships Game Day: Day TwelveSubmitted by pete on May 20, 2014 - 19:04
Group A
Denmark 3 vs. Slovakia 4
Richard Panik, Slovakia, 0-0-0, -1, 2 PIM, 1 SOG
Tournament totals: 7 GP, 0-0-0, -5, 2 PIM
Jaroslav Janus, Slovakia, DNP
Tournament totals: 1 GP, 0-0-0, 1.50 GAA, .960 sv%
Richard Panik completed a scoreless Preliminary Round of the World Championships posting a -1 in 16:04 of ice time in Slovakia's 4-3 win over Denmark. Slovakia got a pair of goals by the Wings Tomas Tatar in the win. Slovakia misses the Quarterfinals Round by 1 point, finishing 5th behind the surprising squad from France in Group A. Canada, Sweden, and Czech Republic also advance out of the Group.
Group B
Germany 4 vs. USA 5
Tyler Johnson, USA, 0-0-0, -1, 0 PIM, 4 SOG
Tournament totals: 7 GP, 4-3-7, +1, 2 PIM
Calgary prospect Johnny Gaudreau had 1 goal and 4 points and was named the USA's best player in their 5-4 win over Germany. Detroit's Justin Abdelkader also had 2 goals for the US in the win. Tyler Johnson was 46% on draws in 22:46 in the match. The US finished in 2nd in Group B and advances to play Czech Republic in the Quarterfinals.
Latvia 2 vs. Switzerland 3
Kristers Gudlevskis, Latvia, Loss, 23/26, 3.09 GAA, .885 sv%
Tournament totals: 4 GP, 1-3-0, 0 SO, 3.79 GAA, .891 sv%
Switzerland got a goal from Devils forward Damien Brunner and a helper from former Lightning draft pick Luca Cunti in their 3-2 win over Latvia. Buffalo's Zemgus Girgensons had Latvia's only goal in defeat. Latvia finished 6th in Group B and will not advance to the Quarterfinals.
Russia 2 vs. Belarus 1
Dmitry Korobov, Belarus, 0-1-1, +1, 4 PIM, 0 SOG
Tournament totals: 7 GP, 0-3-3, +4, 14 PIM
Andrei Vasilevskiy, Russia, DNP
Tournament totals: 2 GP, 2-0-0, 1 SO, 0.50 GAA, .985 sv%
Columbus' Sergei Bobrovsky turned aside 19 shots and was named Russia's best player in their 2-1 win over Belarus. Dmitry Korobov chipped in a helper on a Third Period even strength goal and had a pair of minors for tripping in 16:40 for the Belarusians. Russia finishes tops in Group B and will face France in the Quarterfinals. Belarus finishes 3rd in Group B and will face Sweden in the Quartfinals Round. Finland was the fourth team to advance out of Group B and will face Canada in the Quarterfinals.
World Championships Game Day: Day ElevenSubmitted by pete on May 19, 2014 - 18:38
Group B
Latvia 1 vs. Belarus 3
Dmitry Korobov, Belarus, 0-1-1, +2, 0 PIM, 0 SOG
Tournament totals: 6 GP, 0-2-2, +3, 10 PIM
Kristers Gudlevskis, Latvia, DNP
Tournament totals: 3 GP, 1-2-0, 0 SO, 4.02 GAA, .893 sv%
Dmitry Korobov assisted on Mikhail Grabovski's First Period goal in Belarus' 3-1 victory over Latvia. Korobov played 19:16 in the match. Kristers Gudlevkis sat backup to Edgars Masalskis for Latvia in defeat.
World Championships Game Day: Day TenSubmitted by pete on May 18, 2014 - 16:31
Group B
USA 3 vs. Finland 1
Tyler Johnson, USA, 2-0-2, +2, 0 PIM, 3 SOG
Tournament totals: 6 GP, 4-3-7, +2, 2 PIM
Tyler Johnson scored a pair of Third Period goals and was 45% on draws in 22:25 of ice time as USA knocked off Finland 3-1. Johnson was named USA's best player in the match. Johnson is currently tied for 9th in tournament scoring. Nashville's Seth Jones had a pair of helpers in the win for the US, as well.
Russia 3 vs. Germany 0
Andrei Vasilevskiy, Russia, Win, SO, 27/27, 0.00 GAA, 1.000 sv%
Tournament totals: 2 GP, 2-0-0, 1 SO, 0.50 GAA, .985 sv%
Andrei Vasilevskiy needed a masterful 27 save performance to help Russia stave off a spirited effort by Germany 3-0. It took 3 third period markers, including an empty netter by Viktor Tikhonov, for Russia to put the Germans away. The victory clinches the top spot in Group B for the Russians, but it may have come at a very high price. Team captain Alexander Ovechkin left the ice after 15:48 of ice time with what some observers deemed to likely be a catastrophic knee injury.
World Championships Game Day: Day NineSubmitted by pete on May 18, 2014 - 09:15
Group A
Slovakia 4 vs. Italy 1
Richard Panik, Slovakia, 0-0-0, E, 0 PIM, 2 SOG
Tournament totals: 6 GP, 0-0-0, -4, 0 PIM
Jaroslav Janus, Slovakia, DNP
Tournament totals: 1 GP, 0-0-0, 0 SO, 1.50 GAA, .960 sv%
Richard Panik's scoreless tournament continued in Slovakia's 4-1 win over Italy. Rising Red Wings star Tomas Tatar had 1 goal and 1 assist in the victory for the Slovaks. Their club is coached by former Lightning forward Vladimir Vujtek. Jaroslav Janus did not dress for the match.
Group B
Latvia 1 vs. Russia 4
Kristers Gudlevskis, Latvia, Loss, 39/43, 4.00 GAA, .907 sv%
Tournament totals: 3 GP, 1-2-0, 0 SO, 4.02 GAA, .893 sv%
Andrei Vasilevskiy, Russia, DNP
Tournament totals: 1 GP, 1-0-0, 0 SO, .975 sv%
Ex-Coyotes first rounder Viktor Tikhonov continued his outstanding tournament with 2 goals and 3 points en route to being named the best player of the match as Russia toppled Latvia 4-1. Kristers Gudlevskis turned aside 39 shots in defeat. Andrei Vasilevskiy sat backup to Sergei Bobrovsky, who stopped 14 for the victory.
Belarus 5 vs. Germany 2
Dmitry Korobov, Belarus, 0-0-0, E, 2 PIM, 0 SOG
Tournament totals: 5 GP, 0-1-1, +1, 10 PIM
Dmitry Korobov had a minor for tripping in 18:20 in Belarus' 5-2 win over Germany. The Belarusian attack was paced by 2 goals and 3 points by NHLer Mikhail Grabovski.


text:
1956 Austin Healey 100-4 BN2 s/n BN2L231348, Engine no. LEA231348M White with Black coves and Black Interior The Austin-Healey 100-4 is in many ways the quintessential British... More
Introduced in 1952 Donald Healeys Austin-Healey 100 had its 3-speed gearbox upgraded to a full 4-speed still with overdrive on the top two gears... More
1958 Austin healey 100-6 BN6 Green with Tan interior. Very rare two seater and very collectable. Excellent weekend driver. ... More


text:
Say and appreciate the strangest things...
Was just sitting here thinking WOW... my breasts are sore... that's great!! Here's hoping!!!
lol -- just made me realize we gals get excited over the silliest things!! Like WOOHOO look at that discharge... maybe I'm O'ing soon... etc
Just a bit of funny for the day!


text:
Principal Sharon Wells and staff are proud that Lakes Elementary is recognized as a Michigan Blue Ribbon School. We house students in kindergarten through fifth grade. We have 31 professional teachers, including K through fifth grade, art, music, physical education, and a reading specialist. Our Special Services personnel include a school psychologist, social worker, gifted and talented consultant, speech and language therapist, two resource room teachers, two cognitive impaired teachers, occupational and physical therapists, and a district nurse. Our support staff consists of secretaries, custodians, and paraprofessionals who work in our office, library, classrooms, computer lab, lunchroom, and playground. Our motto is "To learn, to lead, and to serve", which sums up our commitment to students, parents, and community members.
Lakes Elementary is fully accredited by AdvancED, formerly the North Central Association of Schools and Colleges (NCA,) and the Michigan Accreditation Program. The State of Michigan awards letter grades to all schools through the "Education Yes" program based on test scores and school improvement data. Lakes Elementary has been awarded an "A" the past seven years, and we are proud of our Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP) scores as they are consistently above the state average in all subject areas.
We welcome you to Lakes Elementary!
Sharon Wells, PrincipalLakes Elementary
Do you have an incoming 2014-2015 Developmental Kindergarten or Kindergarten student to enroll? Please call Tracy Ignasiak at 863.6340. You will need to print and complete this packet Parent Paperwork Packet and bring it into the Lakes office along with your student's original birth certificate, proof of residency, immunizations, and vision and hearing screening.
In addition, see this Parent Review for some information for your review. If your student requires transportation to and/or from a daycare address, please inform the Lakes office. Thank you!
Lakes Newsletter:
September 5, 2014
Lakes Calendar:
Successful Starts Conferences:
Wednesday and Thursday, September 17 and 18 5:00-7:00 p.m.
September 23 Late Start 10:40 a.m.
September 26 Picture Day!
October 1 Count Day
October 2 PTO Move and Grove 10:00 a.m.
October 3 Make up date for Move and Grove
October 17 Half Day of School 12:05 Dismissal
October 24 Popcorn
October 31 Halloween Parties
November 10 Report Cards home
November 12-13 Conferences 5:00-8:00 p.m.
November 21 Popcorn
November 26-28 Thanksgiving Break
***Please note that our school day ends five minutes later this year. Dismissal will be at 3:45 p.m. Thank you!


text:
Dan RubinPO Box 675
Pouch Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador
Canada, A0A 3L0
Tel: 709-335-2340
Email: email@example.com
Dan Rubin is a versatile writer, musician and arts manager who initially pursued a career in biology, graduating from Reed College and doing graduate study in zoology at the Berkeley campus of the University of California. After immigrating to Canada in 1969 he developed a series of publications that included the best-selling BC Access Catalogue, the educational journal Potentialities and one children's book, O Children of the World by New Zealand author and educator Sylvia Ashton-Warner.
For three decades, Dan worked as a teacher and school principal, a museum educator, and as a curriculum developer supporting the renewal of two native languages: Hul'qumi'num' (Coast Salish) and Sm'algyax (Coast Tsimshian). He retired from teaching in 2002 after receiving the Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence for his work as a curriculum developer and school administrator.
He has been a journalist for more than forty years with more than two dozen articles published in Canadian Musician, Pacific Yachting, Classic Boat, Raven's Eye, Celtic Heritage, and other periodicals. His first non-fiction book, Salt on the Wind: The Sailing Life of Allen and Sharie Farrell was published in 1996 by Horsdal and Schubart (Victoria, BC). That same year his short story The Burn appeared in On Spec Magazine, was serialized on CBC radio and won an award from the BC Writers' Federation as one of the six best short stories of the year at the BC Festival of the Arts.
Recognition for Dan Rubin's short stories and poems has included being named runner-up to the grand prize winner in the Bulwer-Lytton Competition, first prize for the poem Bones and Blood in the Mattia International Poetry competition and publication of his short story The Singing in the Canadian speculative fiction anthology Tesseracts Nine. The Singing was broadcast on the national CBC radio show Between the Covers in 2005.
Dan is currently seeking publication for two novels: A Fire on the Sea (a juvenile adventure story set in the near future on Vancouver Island) is currently under consideration by a prominent Canadian press, while Horizontal Rain (a contemporary magical realist novel focused on the contact zone between native and non-native cultures) has just been submitted for publication. His second non-fiction book, LInes of Power, developed in collaboration with engineer and writer Guy Immega is currently in progress and under serious consideration by a prominent west coast Canadian publisher. He is also preparing a collection of recent short stories for publication. For more details about Dan Rubin's work, please visit www.danrubin.ca
Dan Rubin is owner and operator of Second Stage Creative Arts Management Services, a new arts management company based in Pouch Cove, Newfoundland. He is a musician, recording artist, and performer with six albums of original acoustic music released to date. For more information about his music, visit http://music.cbc.ca/#/artists/Dan-Rubin


text:
Scale Economies And Police Department Consolidation: Evidence From Los Angeles
AbstractThis paper tests for scale economies for police departments operating in Los Angeles County. Intergovernmental sharing in providing police services prevails within the county, suggesting that scale economies exist in producing this public good. Empirical analysis here rejects the hypothesis that police output is produced under increasing returns, which would be an efficiency explanation for the large degree of consolidation found within the county. Copyright 1997 Western Economic Association International.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Western Economic Association International in its journal Contemporary Economic Policy.
Volume (Year): 15 (1997)
Issue (Month): 1 (01)
Pages: 121-127
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 18830 Brookhurst Street, Suite 304, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 USA
Phone: 714-965-8800
Fax: 714-965-8829
Web page: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1074-3529
More information through EDIRC
Order Information:
Web: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/subs.asp?ref=1074-3529
Related researchKeywords:
ReferencesNo references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitationsCitations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Scorsone, Eric, 2007. "School District and Municipal Reorganization: Research Findings & Policy Proposals," Staff Papers, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics 6543, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
- Brasington, David M., 1999. "Joint provision of public goods: the consolidation of school districts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 373-393, September.
ListsThis item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.
StatisticsAccess and download statistics
CorrectionsWhen requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:coecpo:v:15:y:1997:i:1:p:121-127. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.


text:
Olympus offers a unique tool for the Trans Oral Robotic Surgery (TORS) procedure. One of the difficult areas of the Trans Oral Robotic Surgery is the access to the mouth cavity and specifically in the areas around the base of the tongue. The FK-WO retractor can give that extra exposure needed to perform this procedure.
The FK-WO is an exclusive product within the total instruments portfolio. The retractor has specific blades designed to use in the TORS procedure in combination with the Da Vinci Robot. The retractor is however also very usefull in Laser assisted surgery in the Laryngeal and or Head and Neck area. Learn More