Hate to burst your bubble but most "Sea Salt" comes from the exact same mine as your table salt. You have to understand: it *was* a sea back when the salt was deposited there, so it's not even slightly disingenuous to call it sea salt.

The only difference between sea salt and table salt is that they skip the last step of the refining process and deliver it crushed but otherwise unchanged from when they dug it out of the ground.

If they don't know how they'll do it, how do they know it'll take 40 years and 15 billion dollars?

Because the population is growing. So if production is constant, we all get less without it.

You don't have the right to have someone not point a camera at you. You can leave, and cover your face, but you can't really force them to stop. You can politely tell them that it makes you uncomfortable, but if they want to be assholes about it, there's no law against being an asshole. There's definitely a law against you assaulting said asshole and/or stealing their property.

Oh? What exactly are you doing to other people when you film them? Stealing their soul?

If you're not touching somebody, you're not assaulting them. If you're not following them as they try to leave you, you're not harassing them. Filming somebody is not doing anything to them anymore than loudly talking about them to somebody else, so that they can hear. They're peripherally involved, they might be annoyed by it, but they don't have any right to stop you.

I don't know what bar you go to, but I've never seen that, ever. In fact, if the bar has live music, I've never been to one without at least 20% of people recording.

I don't think so, but let's say you're right. The trick is that recognizing such an expectation of privacy cannot mean that you just ban cameras you're uncomfortable with. You have to ban security cameras. You have to ban reporters who are covering a story. You have to ban people taking selfies at bars and other locations where it's not possible to ensure someone who didn't consent will show up in the background.

If the majority of people in a jurisdiction are willing to go with that, then yeah, the law should be changed. I think they're not. I think the first time you take your phone out to take a picture of something cool you've seen and other people tell you that you can't do that, you're going to throw a fit. People don't really think they have an expectation of privacy at those locations, they just feel uncomfortable when they see a camera next to them because it makes it obvious that they have no expectation of privacy, and they don't like to be reminded of that. They like to pretend they're not ending up on the background of tons of pictures, or being laughed at by the police who is reviewing security tapes because someone's wallet was stolen at the same time you were at the bar getting slapped for the stupid line you tried to use.

No. In a public location, bringing a high quality video camera out, setting up on a tripod, and pointing it at straight at you is perfectly acceptable. It's a public location, you have no privacy. You are within your rights to leave, to cover your face, to turn your back to the camera. You can't attack the owner of said camera, or take the camera away.

At the bar you own, or at your house, or at any private property in which the owner doesn't want the device on, you absolutely have the right to kick anybody out who doesn't follow the rules. But somebody is perfectly within their rights to stand in the public street and point a camera at your house window. The only legal recourse you have is to close the blinds.

This obviously depends on the jurisdiction in your area, and whatnot. However, for a lot of the US, that happens to be true. And it's the way it should be.

No offense taken. But you might want to read the statute. The statute is the authoritative source.

And you should know that the 9th has a reputation as the most frequently reversed circuit. In fact, one term in the 1990s saw 27 of its 28 decisions reversed or vacated by the supreme court. This sort of BS is why.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth...

I'm not familiar with UK copyright law. In the US where this case happened, it's whoever puts the work into a fixed form.

Also, you can't sign away a copyright before it exists, at least in US law. That trips up a number of people too. If you sign a contract which says, "bob is assigned all copyrights I produce under this contract" but the contract isn't for one of the nine classes of work identified by congress, bob gets nothing. That line of the contract is void. Instead you write the contract to say, "I agree to assign all copyrights I produce under this contract to bob." Now you have a contractual obligation to sign your copyrights over to bob after you create them. Bob doesn't own the copyrights until you assign them, but he owns your promise to sign them over which is functionally the same thing.

Let's be clear: the author is the person who puts the work into a fixed form. Period. There's no subtlety here, no room for confusion. The actor in a movie would not be an author even if he was in every frame and the only person captured on the film.

You go to a concert and tape it, you are the author of that tape. In fact, you have a copyright interest in that tape. As it happens, the singer already had a copyright on a previous recording which makes your tape a -derivative work-. So you can't do anything without his permission. However, the singer could not take your tape and sell it without your permission. That would violate your copyright as the author of that tape.

Are you tracking me now? The author, in whom the copyright vests by default, is the person who puts the work into a fixed form. No one else.

Better find a time machine then, 'cause personal recording technology is here to stay and your fellow citizens have a right to use it in public with or without your consent.

Very well. Then had she any copyright in the work to begin with, it would have vested in her. Unfortunately, she didn't have any copyright to anything.

At least read the circular from the copyright office with the short version of how and to whom copyright vests:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs...

"Copyright law protects a work from the time it is created in a fixed form. From the moment it is set in a print or electronic manuscript, a sound recording, a computer software program, or other such concrete medium, the copyright becomes the property of the author who created it. Only the author or those
deriving rights from the author can rightfully claim copyright."

Garcia isn't the author here. The cameraman is. He's the one who "created" the film.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

'nuff said.

Also, he's almost certainly wrong about it not being a work made for hire since work that is commissioned for use "as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work" is one of the nine things congress explicitly calls out as a work made for hire under copyright law. So even if he wasn't already wrong about her having created a copyright in the first place, he'd still be wrong about it not being a work made for hire.