I've never bought a railroad-specific calendar, so these questions goes out to others -- in the hope of trying to better understand the UPRR / Huxtable situation:
1) Have you ever bought a railroad-specific calendar? 2) Do you have one now? 3) What led to buy one (or pass on buying them)? 4) Does it matter to you if the calendar is produced by / licensed by the specific railroad?____ Mark
Yes
Yes
Interest in the specific railroad - what else?
No. What matters are: 1. the quality of the photos (technique, aesthetics, content); 2. the quality of the information in the captions;
PS: I'm not interested in the UP, but I do like the Challengers - a better looking loco than the Big Boy IMO.
As I understand it, what it means in non-lawyer-speak is that Plaintiff didn't provide grounds in support of their allegations, hence Defendant can't respond either way. It's a way of saying "There is no case here." If the judge accepts these defences, the allegations in question will be removed from the action. That's presumably what Huxtable wants, so he can focus the case on the two main points, which as I read it are a) that UP has lost control of the trademark; and b) UP has interfered with and damaged his business, and so is liable for damages.
a) is the point that amuses Jim McLaughlin. Me too. :-) But b) amuses me even more.
Making unsubstantiated allegations is a common ploy if you have a weak case. It sometimes scares Defendant into settling. Didn't work this time. Defendant obviously has good counsel.
Well, I missed her name, I guess. Anyhow, ISTM that she is trying to justify her existence and salary. She is beginning to cost UP major bucks, and she is doing UP's public image some serious harm, albeit in a rather small segment of the public. However, if the publicity spreads, it could be major damage: the public doesn't like to see large corporations bullying small business folk. IMO, her seniors will have to decide pretty soon whether it's worth supporting her campaign or cut their losses.
Because Huxtable has a duty to admit what he personally knows is true, to deny what he personally believes is false, and to require the plaintiff to prove what plaintiff claims to be true and which he, Huxtable, has no personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity of.
If you had 3 years and the tuition, I'd try to teach you federal civil proceedure.
[///]
Thanks for that clarification, Jim.
In my mind I can see why UP would be worried. If taken to court _with a jury_ it would look like a big American Corp. picking on some poor Canadian photographer putting his pictures together in a calendar. While a judge (just another lawyer) would probably be on the side of UP (if the case was decided by a judge) I'm guessing a jury would be a crap shoot for UP. Usually these types of cases are heard by a judge and the choice of a jury definitely is not good for UP. Even if the jury thought that UP had a case Jury Nullification is very popular these days! If UP lost then I sure others would go after them, using a jury of course.
it could be major damage: the public doesn't like to see large corporations bullying small business folk. IMO, her seniors will have to decide pretty soon whether it's worth supporting her campaign or cut their losses.<
Another SWAG, if this case were to go to court, and UP were to loose I'm guessing it would make national news. How big a spot I don't know but I'm sure CNN would mention it (they always look for interesting stories) and probably the internet news (same reasons). Papers I'm not sure about.
Jon Miller spake thus:
OSH printed train calendars this year just like they always do. You just got there too late to get one. I have one here.
This sounds about as reliable as your knowledge of anything having to do with the legal system.
??? If it is that simple, then why can't I take a picture of a picture that was taken by a professional photographer? Even if it is for my personal use.
dlm
Dan Merkel spake thus:
Who said anything about prohibitions on reproduction for personal use? Anybody can walk into a self-service copy shop and copy whatever pictures they want for their personal use. (You just can't copy stuff like money, passports, driver licenses, etc.; you know, the kind of stuff you suspect in the back of your mind you shouldn't copy anyway.)
Sheesh, the level of ignorance about copyright law and licensing is waaay high.
got there too late to get one. I have one here.< Interesting, I got there the day after New Years and the local store didn't have any as I asked. In fact they seems to be oblivious to the fact there were RR calendars!
with the legal system.< I don't claim to know anything about the legal system except that it's screwed up. I'm just a common person and when everything is controlled by lawyers it's a good time to have a general clean-up*.
And speaking of the legal system I just saw on TV that the judge just denied an injection against stopping Blackberry service. As my old common self commented earlier wonder if they might take a look at the patent system.
with the legal system.< I am a firm believer in that (Mark Twain, I think) saying. One lawyer in town and he lives in an apartment; two lawyer in town and they both have mansions.
Or collectability. I have a 1969 Union Pacific "Centennial" calendar in my collection, mostly because I know for certain that it might be worth some money some day. All the pictures are paintings by Howard Fogg.
"Mark Mathu" wrote in news:k0yLf.2615$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com:
No.
Yes.
Get them as promos from vendors in the industry (no, I don't know why they tend to pick one railroad for their illustrations).
No.
John
Because such a photographer (like Nils) will have copyrighted the photo.
Jon Miller spake thus:
Uh-huh. Sounds like good old all-American know-nothingism to me. Mark Twain and Shakespeare aside ("kill all the lawyers"), tell me this, Mr. Miller: next time you get sued, or involved in an automobile accident, or divorced, or decide to start a business or sell one, who're you gonna call: some guy with a bunch of NRA stickers on his pickup and one well-thumbed law book from 1986? Didn't think so.
There's a reason there are lawyers out there, you know, aside from the usual cartoon shark stereotypes: we are a society of laws. Maybe you'd prefer it if there weren't so many danged laws, huh? Yeah, that oughta solve the problem.
Regardless of how litigious Uncle Puke-Head may be, I can guarantee that if you were the holder of a copyright, trademark or patent that you were depending on for income, you'd damn sure protect it with lawyers every which way.
By the way, one doesn't always have to resort to hiring a lawyer. If it's something fairly straightforward, one can use one of Nolo Press's fine publications
Mountain Goat spake thus:
You can still take a picture of the picture; you just can't sell, distribute or publish it. You can frame it and put it on your wall if you like.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.