ClintJCL's recent happenings

I think the pizza joint you’re thinking of that burned is Alberto’s down by Dupont:

http://dcist.com/2007/08/30/albertos_fire_d.php

Jumbo Slice is alive and well. And the size of those U Street slices are NOTHING compared to the real original jumbo slice, which make all other jumbo slices look petite. That place actually went out and bought the largest commercial pizza oven on the market just so that they could make the biggest pies possible.

Clint ate his gyro, and the rest of my pizza (and regretted it).

of course he did, Jumbo slice is NASTY!

Also, that wasn’t true “Jumbo Slice” since that can be found in Adams Morgan which did not burn down (we live three blocks from there and go there quite often).

You shoulda called and I could’ve told you how to get there… you would’ve had to find parking again, though. Sounds like TMBG was awesome! If we knew for sure we’d be around I think we would’ve went but it sold out pretty quick IIRC.

THAT’s fucked up!

susana_mazzara has posted a comment:

CONTEST!!!
SANTA PETS
MASCOTAS SANTA CLAUS
MASCOTAS PAPA NOEL.


www.flickr.com/groups/whilly/discuss/72157610445312396/
EL REY DE MI CASA
THE KING OF MY HOME

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-11-27-st-johns-boy_N.htm?csp=34

Black Friday:
While this might seem like an isolated incident, it’s happened in the past. I refuse to go shopping early on Black friday. But by the afternoon, stores were pretty much empty, and still had what I wanted.

I don’t see the point of your last comment. The comment I made was giving you props for nicely framing a picture you took. This is relevant to this topic just how?

I thought it was a different picture, but regardless, it was a picture that popped up on a non-flickr site, and was altered from my original. It was brought to my attention via a google alert.

[...] This movie is not really focused exclusively on the sexual act of the threesome — like National Lampoon’s One, Two, Many — but rather on the three-way emotional interplay involved in a polyamourous relationship. [...]

For the record, yes, I was in it.

Original: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriggy/1065656911/

Cropped: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/2531834490/

Yes, I basically cropped the bottom of my shirt off so it would fit widescreen. Which makes it a derivative work. But apparently not cropping, according to you at http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/2556419881/#comment72157605545127303 .. Of course now I see changing a pixel makes it a derivative work… I guess if I resize it, they’re not the same pixels either.

Anyway — It’s hard to keep track of a moving target, which also illustrates the current state of copyright law enforcement.

ClintJCL has posted a comment:

gadoits: sure

gadoits has posted a comment:

wow this is a nice screen shot please can i use it to post on my blog i provide current news and information in gadgets,computer,software cars etc...
www.slime-tube.com

The profit plan for a parade(or any other event) is quite simple. People come out, spend money at merchants, go to restaurants and bars, which in turn collect sales taxes that go to the city.

No, they weren’t threatening the merchants, nor are they going after the city financially for copyright infringement. Which to me implies, this was more about principle than money.

I’m actually glad you bring up the CC licensing issue. It only reinforces my point. Whether it’s cropping, resizing or whatever you want to call it(actually it was an Assateague picture of ponies that you weren’t even in, that brought up the discussion), it’s still a derivative work. Even things such as adjusting brightness and contrast make it a derivative work, in violation of the license. Changing a single pixel makes it a derivative work. And the only reason I gave you crap is because you didn’t bother to ask(principle). You know, a simple: “Hey, do you mind if I repost your pics even if I modify them?” would have sufficed. You know, I would have said yes. Just because you’re a friend, doesn’t exempt you.

And if I created something that generated an income stream, damn right I would want my grandchildren to inherit it.

Patents create a monopoly for a certain time, allowing the creator to jack up prices, which is the incentive for creating the product in the first place. Once there is competition out there, prices fall. The reason for the protection is that for products, the inventor generally has to put alot of R&D money in up front, and this helps them recoup their cost and then make a profit. The same cannot be said for art and copyrights.

As far as your last paragraph goes, yes, they are violating his rights. There’s also that issue of fair use. Passively letting people dress up as how they want? No problem? Making a home made costume, probably fair use. Actively including a copyrighted theme in a parade? Definitely does not fall under fair use.

What exactly is the profit plan for a parade anyway?

Was “SeussCo” threatening the merchants? That’s not what the article seemed to imply. They threatened the city, not the merchants.

And you’re talking to the wrong person about your CC licensing. You got all mad at me for cropping your photos (where all i cropped off was the bottom of my t-shirt), and then later argued extensively that what I had done was NOT cropping. Oh, the irony. Bad example. When you can’t even properly formalize the terms of your own copyright, you’re not exactly making a point that makes me sympathetic to SuessCo.

And to answer your other question, no - grandkids deserve their grandparents cash/property. They don’t deserve their grandparents income stream (not counting property such as real estate and shares - obviously some property is an income stream too). Both copyright and patents were to foster innovation, not thwart it. But copyrights got majorly extended, while patents did not. And they keep extending copyrights. Which make them more and more bullshit in the way they are used. And this is definitely an example.

I guess you ignored my Halloween question. Using your own logic that I consider to be flawed, the merchants of a town (candy stores, makeup stores) make more money on Halloween. So why not send a cease and desist to the city to not allow unlicensed trick or treators? After all, I can buy a licensed Homer Simpson costume, but most Homers I’ve seen were do-it-yourself people. I guess they are violating the rights of Matt Groening and his children!

Vitality Medical.com has some affordable ones as well. I prefer the lumiscope models.

All, I’m saying is that if you’re going to blatantly violate a copyright by advertising it and making money(and don’t tell me the city and the merchants don’t make money off of it), you should at least bother to get permission.

If you notice, most of my pics are CC, non-commercial use. If I find one being used commercially, damn right I’m sending a cease and decist. And I’ll probably ask for a heavy fee. Simply out of spite. However, if asked in advance, I would probably allow it to be used for free.

smastrong has posted a comment:

Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Sleeping Dads, and we'd love to have this added to the group!

.:1ogsf3:. has posted a comment:

Oh yeah of course, ha ha dumbass

ClintJCL has posted a comment:

That wall is beginning to look downright weird now that it hasn't existed for so long :)

ClintJCL has posted a comment:

Nope (look--they are diff signs).
Mine comes from, uh, a dump.

.:1ogsf3:. has posted a comment:

awesome! you stole it too ?